Hot Areas of Law to Study Forum

[wjlaw]

I'm not sure if I am posting this in the right place, but what are the best areas of law to study in terms of job prospects? I know IP law is really popular, but I still need around 6 or 7 more classes before I am eligible just to sit for the patent bar, and was looking to have some other specialty as an alternative.

In particular, does the field of finance law have good prospects? What about corporate law or entertainment law?

[Aeon]

I'd say the regulatory, administrative-heavy areas of law (financial regulation, FDA, tax, etc.) are relatively solid bets.

General corporate is extremely reliant on market conditions: when the markets tank, there's no work to do. And there's a relative glut of lawyers in this field. Entertainment law isn't an easy field to break into, and it can also be very fickle.

[kellyfrost]

Insurance Law.

Coverage, defense, or work for the company. There is always insurance work to be done. In the legal world, insurance touches damn near everything.

[desola]

Privacy/data security, for sure. And will only continue to grow.

[wjlaw]

Privacy/data security, for sure. And will only continue to grow.

Does the field require any sort of background, such as a computer science degree or experience in privacy/data security related positions?

I possess a degree in information science (with a focus on HCI and social networks), and am curious as if this is sufficient enough to pursue the field.

[Rahviveh]

Private equity. Do 4-5 years at a top private Equity Law firm, exit to mid market PE on the biz side, get a pay raise.

[kellyfrost]

Insurnace law! No expertise or prior experience needed like data security. Your firm, job, government agency, whoever, will train you as you go.

[deepseapartners]

IP, cybersecurity, and regulation/admin are the three obvious answers, but I think corporate tax is a bit of an underrated "sure thing" practice area. The IRS is taking a more aggressive stance against corporate tax-avoidance, and presumably that trend will continue as the government tries to look for income while promising further tax cuts. But, as long as the US continues to avoid fixing the current tax regime, companies are going to continue to try to get out of US taxation. Unfortunately, this kind of depends on what your school and GPA can get you firm-wise, since this kind of tax advisory work usually gets sourced out to a few specific practice groups among elite firms.

[zot1]

Not energy with hopes of Texas.

Honestly, from my own personal experience, I would try NOT to specialize too much. It can end up hurting you in the end.

[Troianii]

Not energy with hopes of Texas.

Honestly, from my own personal experience, I would try NOT to specialize too much. It can end up hurting you in the end.

I'm curious on this bit - specializing hurting vs. helping you. Assuming you don't change what field you want to go into, could others chime in on this? I've heard a lot of mixed things.

[A. Nony Mouse]

The problem with specializing is that if your specialty doesn't work out, you're shutting yourself out of jobs in other areas. If you put all your eggs in, say, the environmental law basket - like, everything you do screams environmental law (tree hugger variety) - it is going to be hard to convince an employer that you actually want to do corporate securities/M&A/criminal/trusts and estates/etc.

Of course, if you specialize you will improve your chances at getting the tree-hugger job. And if you know that you only want to hug trees and nothing else in law will satisfy you - ideally if you also have relevant pre-law experience you can leverage into getting a job - then go for it and specialize. I think it's usually safer to take stuff that can be turned to a variety of fields so you can make a plausible case for lots of jobs, but I know people who specialized and it worked out.

The other issue is that studying a subject and practicing in it aren't the same, and you could take lots of courses in a subject and then not actually like practicing in it.

Some specializations are exceptions - for instance, tax seems to be a good specialty because it's always in demand and not that many people do it. ERISA is a very niche part of employment law that's very complex and most people hate (though I'm not sure it's possible to do a lot of it in law school).

Also, specializing in law school is not the same as specializing in practice. I've seen people recommend developing a practice specialization relatively quickly.

[Troianii]

The problem with specializing is that if your specialty doesn't work out, you're shutting yourself out of jobs in other areas. If you put all your eggs in, say, the environmental law basket - like, everything you do screams environmental law (tree hugger variety) - it is going to be hard to convince an employer that you actually want to do corporate securities/M&A/criminal/trusts and estates/etc.

Of course, if you specialize you will improve your chances at getting the tree-hugger job. And if you know that you only want to hug trees and nothing else in law will satisfy you - ideally if you also have relevant pre-law experience you can leverage into getting a job - then go for it and specialize. I think it's usually safer to take stuff that can be turned to a variety of fields so you can make a plausible case for lots of jobs, but I know people who specialized and it worked out.

The other issue is that studying a subject and practicing in it aren't the same, and you could take lots of courses in a subject and then not actually like practicing in it.

Some specializations are exceptions - for instance, tax seems to be a good specialty because it's always in demand and not that many people do it. ERISA is a very niche part of employment law that's very complex and most people hate (though I'm not sure it's possible to do a lot of it in law school).

Also, specializing in law school is not the same as specializing in practice. I've seen people recommend developing a practice specialization relatively quickly.

What was recommended to me by at least one lawyer I know is... idk what to call it, but I guess we could say "light specialization". He didn't recommend going full bore with any specialty - his main reasoning was because he and all of his law school friends changed their preferred specialty during law school. But what he said is that some light amount of specialization could be enough to help at least a bit - for example, taking a couple more tree hugging classes than necessary - but wouldn't be enough to hurt you in applying for law jobs in general.

What do you think about that recommendation?

[zot1]

It is hard to be lightly specialized because if you want to do enviro work, your best bet is to get internships in the field, and then you're stuck. I really don't know that there's a good way to do it, but maybe Nony has a better answer.

I'm the perfect example btw. All of my resume and transcript screams criminal law until the spring of 3L when I tried to reverse all the damage I had done (I decided late fall of 3L that I would be miserable practicing criminal law), but it was honestly too late. I had a hard time convincing interviewers that I wanted to practice in civil. Thankfully my current employer somehow believed me and I now practice in areas that I didn't even take a class on in law school.

So there are good stories out there, but I was very close from being dead in the water.

[jrass]

The problem with specializing is that if your specialty doesn't work out, you're shutting yourself out of jobs in other areas. If you put all your eggs in, say, the environmental law basket - like, everything you do screams environmental law (tree hugger variety) - it is going to be hard to convince an employer that you actually want to do corporate securities/M&A/criminal/trusts and estates/etc.

Of course, if you specialize you will improve your chances at getting the tree-hugger job. And if you know that you only want to hug trees and nothing else in law will satisfy you - ideally if you also have relevant pre-law experience you can leverage into getting a job - then go for it and specialize. I think it's usually safer to take stuff that can be turned to a variety of fields so you can make a plausible case for lots of jobs, but I know people who specialized and it worked out.

The other issue is that studying a subject and practicing in it aren't the same, and you could take lots of courses in a subject and then not actually like practicing in it.

Some specializations are exceptions - for instance, tax seems to be a good specialty because it's always in demand and not that many people do it. ERISA is a very niche part of employment law that's very complex and most people hate (though I'm not sure it's possible to do a lot of it in law school).

Also, specializing in law school is not the same as specializing in practice. I've seen people recommend developing a practice specialization relatively quickly.

What was recommended to me by at least one lawyer I know is... idk what to call it, but I guess we could say "light specialization". He didn't recommend going full bore with any specialty - his main reasoning was because he and all of his law school friends changed their preferred specialty during law school. But what he said is that some light amount of specialization could be enough to help at least a bit - for example, taking a couple more tree hugging classes than necessary - but wouldn't be enough to hurt you in applying for law jobs in general.

What do you think about that recommendation?

8/10.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

The problem with specializing is that if your specialty doesn't work out, you're shutting yourself out of jobs in other areas. If you put all your eggs in, say, the environmental law basket - like, everything you do screams environmental law (tree hugger variety) - it is going to be hard to convince an employer that you actually want to do corporate securities/M&A/criminal/trusts and estates/etc.

Of course, if you specialize you will improve your chances at getting the tree-hugger job. And if you know that you only want to hug trees and nothing else in law will satisfy you - ideally if you also have relevant pre-law experience you can leverage into getting a job - then go for it and specialize. I think it's usually safer to take stuff that can be turned to a variety of fields so you can make a plausible case for lots of jobs, but I know people who specialized and it worked out.

The other issue is that studying a subject and practicing in it aren't the same, and you could take lots of courses in a subject and then not actually like practicing in it.

Some specializations are exceptions - for instance, tax seems to be a good specialty because it's always in demand and not that many people do it. ERISA is a very niche part of employment law that's very complex and most people hate (though I'm not sure it's possible to do a lot of it in law school).

Also, specializing in law school is not the same as specializing in practice. I've seen people recommend developing a practice specialization relatively quickly.

For tax law is it required you have a CPA? Currently making a career change. I am 28, working as an accountant and taking the CPA after working in commodity trading for awhile. Thinking of doing Tax for 2 years-> JD-> LLM Tax-> Tax Law. I will be old when getting it done like 34 35, but I will have virtually no debt.

Is there anywhere on here Nony that has good information on Tax Law and would you recommend this path or would you skip the CPA all together? I thought it would be helpful and make it so I wouldn't have to just borrow the 250k+ for law school as the CPA+classes is only costing me like 8-9k and I will be done with it in 1 year.

To redirect the attention back from myself to the thread- If anyone could add any information on Tax law specifically or provide any links to where it has already been discussed in detail I think that would be very beneficial.

Thanks everyone.

[Aeon]

The problem with specializing is that if your specialty doesn't work out, you're shutting yourself out of jobs in other areas. If you put all your eggs in, say, the environmental law basket - like, everything you do screams environmental law (tree hugger variety) - it is going to be hard to convince an employer that you actually want to do corporate securities/M&A/criminal/trusts and estates/etc.

Of course, if you specialize you will improve your chances at getting the tree-hugger job. And if you know that you only want to hug trees and nothing else in law will satisfy you - ideally if you also have relevant pre-law experience you can leverage into getting a job - then go for it and specialize. I think it's usually safer to take stuff that can be turned to a variety of fields so you can make a plausible case for lots of jobs, but I know people who specialized and it worked out.

The other issue is that studying a subject and practicing in it aren't the same, and you could take lots of courses in a subject and then not actually like practicing in it.

Some specializations are exceptions - for instance, tax seems to be a good specialty because it's always in demand and not that many people do it. ERISA is a very niche part of employment law that's very complex and most people hate (though I'm not sure it's possible to do a lot of it in law school).

Also, specializing in law school is not the same as specializing in practice. I've seen people recommend developing a practice specialization relatively quickly.

For tax law is it required you have a CPA? Currently making a career change. I am 28, working as an accountant and taking the CPA after working in commodity trading for awhile. Thinking of doing Tax for 2 years-> JD-> LLM Tax-> Tax Law. I will be old when getting it done like 34 35, but I will have virtually no debt.

Is there anywhere on here Nony that has good information on Tax Law and would you recommend this path or would you skip the CPA all together? I thought it would be helpful and make it so I wouldn't have to just borrow the 250k+ for law school as the CPA+classes is only costing me like 8-9k and I will be done with it in 1 year.

To redirect the attention back from myself to the thread- If anyone could add any information on Tax law specifically or provide any links to where it has already been discussed in detail I think that would be very beneficial.

Thanks everyone.

Although some tax lawyers do have the CPA credential, it is by no means required, since practicing tax law is quite different from accounting. Granted, having some understanding of accounting principles may be useful, but most of the time you will be analyzing and applying the law, for which a CPA wouldn't add much value.

I'd also note that a tax LL.M. isn't strictly necessary to practice tax law either. If your goal is to go into BigLaw, then you should aim to go to a top law school and get a job through OCI. Most big firms in NYC will cover the cost for you to do the LL.M. part-time while working as an associate. In many other markets, there isn't much of a premium placed on the LL.M. in the first instance anyway. Which isn't to say that it's not a valuable degree (employers do value it), but unless you're seeking to boost a lackluster resume or switch from another practice area, it may not be the most cost-effective option, certainly right out of law school.

If you'd like to learn more, I'd browse these forums. If you type the following into Google search, it should bring up a host of threads on the topic:

Code: Select all

site:top-law-schools.com tax law

And for more about the tax LL.M.:

Code: Select all

site:top-law-schools.com tax llm