I know people who've lateralled into mid-sized/large firms after articling in smaller commercial real estate practices. Litigation is fairly abroad. What kind of litigation are we talking about here? Civil? Because it is far too early to give up on a field like commercial real estate that a) has tons of work/business and b) not everyone can go into because not every firm practices in the area. You've got your foot in the door. Just keep at it and you'll land something.
I'm currently taking my gap year working in a field related to my degree in business. If I had the necessary LSAT mark to get in this year, I likely would've just gone straight into law to be honest. But, as I sit here now, I think it may actually be more beneficial to me in the end to take this gap year for 3 main reasons:
1) Gain valuable experience working in a professional field. I also think working in a professional field will strengthen my application, as I currently do not have a lot of EC's.
2) $$$ - making money over this gap year will certainly be a big help when it comes time to pay for law school
3) Allows me to explore a job related to my degree to see whether it is something that I would be interested in pursuing further in the future. I don't know exactly what your degree is in, but who knows, maybe you'll get a job related to your degree and find that you enjoy it so much that you'd rather put off law school entirely or at least for another few years
I definitely don't think taking a year off lowers your chances of getting in. If anything it strengthens your chances (obviously being dependent on what you're doing with your year off). For example: I imagine volunteering, working in a professional field, and taking part in other positive EC's would all be looked upon favourably by the admissions committee. I think it all just depends on what you do during your gap year.
In the end, would I likely have gone straight into law if I had the LSAT mark? Yes. However, looking at it now, I think taking this gap year will certainly be more beneficial to me in the long-run.
I articled in a boutique commercial real estate law firm, but received more experience in litigation vs. solicitor work. I’m interested in solicitor work, but the particular firm I articled at didn’t have much work to give me except in litigation. I have some experience in drafting commercial leases, a residential agreement of purchase and sale, and other commercial agreements (e.g licenses and telecommunication access agreements) and I assisted in title review of a large commercial deal - but that’s about it. I’ve been applying for associate positions for awhile, but they all want 2-3 years of transactional experience. Should I give up and focus on applying for litigation jobs (where I have more experience)? Does anyone have experience being hired in commercial real estate with minimum experience? I’d really appreciate some insight into this from anyone with experience in commercial real estate. I’ve been networking, and the firm I articled at gave me good reference letters, but they’re not really willing to go the extra mile and refer me to contacts they know of (and I’ve asked / hinted). So now I’m wondering if I should give up the search and apply for litigation positions, even though practicing in commercial real estate is my dream. Any advice?