Jump to content
DABMAN

Switching between fields of law

Recommended Posts

Hi guys sorry if this has been answered before (please redirect me if it has) but I was wondering how common and how difficult it would be to switch between different fields of law once youve become a practicing lawyer? Also what are the major hurdles between switching fields e.g knowledge gap, network?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about how common. But plenty of lawyers practice in more than one area, so it's certainly not a problem to "switch" fields.

In terms of difficulty, I suppose it depends on how different the field you plan to switch to is. For example, I know a lawyer who started in personal injury and switched to employment after 10+ years doing personal injury without a problem. I also know a lawyer who started in employment and switched to family after 2 years of practice without a problem. Naturally there will be some learning curve but if you're a competent lawyer, you'll have enough basic skills to make the switch fairly easy. 

Logistically, I think switching practice areas is even easier if you're working at a full-service firm. That way you have a reputation already for being a solid lawyer at the firm, you know the other lawyers in the group you want to join (hopefully), and maybe even had the chance to collaborate on files with them. In that case, as long as you get the go-ahead from management, you can basically just pack up your desk and head over to their group and start working. No need to network and go looking for a new place of employment. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your detailed response. I was also wondering is there ever like a law field "combo" for lack of a better word i.e lawyers specializing in 2 (or more) particular fields rather than one so as to open themselves to a larger clientele? 

Also how hard is it to develop a clientele base? What are some tips in growing it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DABMAN said:

Thanks for your detailed response. I was also wondering is there ever like a law field "combo" for lack of a better word i.e lawyers specializing in 2 (or more) particular fields rather than one so as to open themselves to a larger clientele? 

Also how hard is it to develop a clientele base? What are some tips in growing it? 

I know one person that practices criminal, real estate, and family. Although, their specialty and main area is crim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can certainly maintain a practice in multiple areas of law, and many lawyers do. But in terms of having done one exclusively and then trying to move to another... depending on the fields of law you are coming from and going to, it can be either easy or more nuanced and complex. 

For example, switching between civil litigation fields (commercial, estates, personal injury, family, insurance, bankruptcy and insolvency, etc) is done often and is very easy since the basic principles are the same. Switching from solicitor work to litigation or vice versa is more difficult because it's a different set of skills. Or, for example, from criminal law to any other area. 

It also depends on how junior you are. The more junior you are the easier it is to transition. If you have been called to the bar for 5+ years though and have only ever done criminal law, it will certainly be harder to transition, but mostly in terms of finding a firm that will take you and train you in a new area. Then you'll have to spend a large amount of time re-learning the field and won't be as profitable. One person at my firm is a 10+ year call and recently made a switch from immigration law to commercial litigation. I think they are treating him like a 5 year call, so he's essentially had years of experience erased. It had a steep learning curve but he's doing it.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a hard question to answer without a bunch of caveats.

A sole practitioner could be both a barrister (both civil and criminal) and a solicitor (for both individuals and corporations) and could be switching between the roles multiple times a day.

A Bay Street tax associate might specialize in corporate income tax her entire career, and wouldn't touch an HST question because she considers it too far outside her practice area, despite the fact both are "tax law".

The reality for most lawyers is somewhere in the middle. I'm a commercial lawyer (solicitor), but I switched practice areas (still doing commercial law, just a different type) early in my career and, aside from some self study and uncertain moments, it was no big deal. 

A friend of mine in big law started in litigation but moved to corporate in a big firm; there was a learning curve, but he's a successful corporate lawyer who also has a healthy dose of litigation knowledge.

To sum up: Is it common? No, but it's not exactly rare, either. In fact, it's a necessity for some lawyer. Major hurdle is having relevant knowledge/a willingness to get caught up to speed. That hurdle is made much, much easier if you have a group of lawyers willing to work with you/teach you the relevant area. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SS624 said:

You can certainly maintain a practice in multiple areas of law, and many lawyers do. But in terms of having done one exclusively and then trying to move to another... depending on the fields of law you are coming from and going to, it can be either easy or more nuanced and complex. 

For example, switching between civil litigation fields (commercial, estates, personal injury, family, insurance, bankruptcy and insolvency, etc) is done often and is very easy since the basic principles are the same. Switching from solicitor work to litigation or vice versa is more difficult because it's a different set of skills. Or, for example, from criminal law to any other area. 

It also depends on how junior you are. The more junior you are the easier it is to transition. If you have been called to the bar for 5+ years though and have only ever done criminal law, it will certainly be harder to transition, but mostly in terms of finding a firm that will take you and train you in a new area. Then you'll have to spend a large amount of time re-learning the field and won't be as profitable. One person at my firm is a 10+ year call and recently made a switch from immigration law to commercial litigation. I think they are treating him like a 5 year call, so he's essentially had years of experience erased. It had a steep learning curve but he's doing it.

 

Hi SS624 thank you so much for your detailed response I learned a lot.

This is a slight side step from my posted question but I was just wondering why I keep on hearing the number of years you practice in law being used as a measurement stick as opposed to let's say the number of clients you had or the significance of the projects you worked on? I've seen this happen in discussions regarding  the trend of increasing wages and years practiced like its some kind of 1:1 ratio, don't wages usually correspond to how well you perform in your job rather than the number of years you work there (at least thats the sense I get when I read those discussions)? Hopefully this makes sense thanks. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DABMAN said:

Hi SS624 thank you so much for your detailed response I learned a lot.

This is a slight side step from my posted question but I was just wondering why I keep on hearing the number of years you practice in law being used as a measurement stick as opposed to let's say the number of clients you had or the significance of the projects you worked on? I've seen this happen in discussions regarding  the trend of increasing wages and years practiced like its some kind of 1:1 ratio, don't wages usually correspond to how well you perform in your job rather than the number of years you work there (at least thats the sense I get when I read those discussions)? Hopefully this makes sense thanks. 

 

For your first number of years practicing as a lawyer (I would say 1 - 7 at my firm), your year of call is very important. To quote the word you used, measurement stick, it really is just that.

One key point is that year of call typically sets salary. Most firms advance associate salaries on a lock-step grid depending on year of call with some deviation for how profitable you are and how hard you work. For example, at my firm you make $90k as a 1st year call, $110k as a 2nd year, $130k as a 3rd, and $150k as a 4th.  How well you perform your job may be more reflected in a bonus than in your salary. If you vastly underperform in comparison to your peers at your level, you may not go up in the lockstep  and then you fall behind your peers for salary.

Year of call also sets expectations as to what you should be learning and doing at your firm. For example, my firm has guidelines for the types of experiences an associate should be seeking out depending on their year of call. E.g., watch a trial as a junior associate (1-3 year call), involvement in a trial as an intermediate associate (4-5), and second chair a trial as a senior associate (6-7). 

Critically, your billing rate also goes up every year. So a 1st year call will bill, say, $200 per hour while a 4th year call bills $350. The firm gets to charge more for higher year calls, but then clients also expect them to be more experienced and do their work faster. Clients also expect partners to be distributing work according to complexity and cost - like a simple assignment should go to a 1st year because it will cost less.

Also, If you are looking to move laterally from one firm to another, you will typically see job postings advertise for their ideal the ideal years of call they are looking for (1-3, 5+).

At your 7th + year of call, that's also when you start to seriously be considered for partnership material and your profitability really matters.

So, yeah, while other metrics like the number of clients you have, the significant of your projects, etc., are important, typically your year of call will be the most important measuring stick for a long time. 

Edited by SS624

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SS624 said:

For your first number of years practicing as a lawyer (I would say 1 - 7 at my firm), your year of call is very important. To quote the word you used, measurement stick, it really is just that.

One key point is that year of call typically sets salary. Most firms advance associate salaries on a lock-step grid depending on year of call with some deviation for how profitable you are and how hard you work. For example, at my firm you make $90k as a 1st year call, $110k as a 2nd year, $130k as a 3rd, and $150k as a 4th.  How well you perform your job may be more reflected in a bonus than in your salary. If you vastly underperform in comparison to your peers at your level, you may not go up in the lockstep  and then you fall behind your peers for salary.

Year of call also sets expectations as to what you should be learning and doing at your firm. For example, my firm has guidelines for the types of experiences an associate should be seeking out depending on their year of call. E.g., watch a trial as a junior associate (1-3 year call), involvement in a trial as an intermediate associate (4-5), and second chair a trial as a senior associate (6-7). 

Critically, your billing rate also goes up every year. So a 1st year call will bill, say, $200 per hour while a 4th year call bills $350. The firm gets to charge more for higher year calls, but then clients also expect them to be more experienced and do their work faster. Clients also expect partners to be distributing work according to complexity and cost - like a simple assignment should go to a 1st year because it will cost less.

Also, If you are looking to move laterally from one firm to another, you will typically see job postings advertise for their ideal the ideal years of call they are looking for (1-3, 5+).

At your 7th + year of call, that's also when you start to seriously be considered for partnership material and your profitability really matters.

So, yeah, while other metrics like the number of clients you have, the significant of your projects, etc., are important, typically your year of call will be the most important measuring stick for a long time. 

Hi SS624 thanks for replying again 

What surprised me the most besides this lock-step grid thing you introduced was also how high your 1st year call salaries are in at your firm. Do you mind telling me what kind of law you practice and how reasonable or unreasonable the 1st year call salary you mentioned is in the spectrum of law fields?

Also when you mentioned about the partnership part (years 7+) what benefits does a partnership offer over the associate position (sorry if this question is basic). Also what are characterisitics of profitability? (I assume one would be your ability to attract clients?)

 

Thanks again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • Accepted Feb 24th!! I honestly can't believe it. I checked uozone on a whim and it said admitted. Haven't received an email and olsas isn't updated yet either. GPA: 3.68 as per OLSAS LSAT: 151 (Jan 2019) , 156 (Aug 2020), 154 (Nov 2020), 157 (Jan 2021) Clearly I struggled with the LSAT so I'm really surprised I got in. My ECs were okay in my opinion. Did some volunteering, worked part-time, went on exchange. I emphasized my interest in social justice and Aboriginal law in my ps and I talked about my financial hardship a little even though I didn't apply access. I believe I had strong reference letters from a prof and my manager at work. Good luck to you all!  
    • Even if you don't know what area of law you want to pursue, the fact that Osgoode has the most clinical programs out of any law school in the country, is located in Toronto, has a more diverse student body - proven if you look at class profiles comparing these schools and what I have heard from many peers who attended Western and Queen's, a decent reputation, and lots of alumni working in Toronto were all big selling points for me.  The main reasons I've seen for people who got into all three to turn down Osgoode for Queen's or Western, is if they wanted a smaller class size, the location, or school vibe (party culture), etc. Some people like Western's business-heavy focus. Queen's is also leaning more business-heavy these days. If corporate law is your goal, then you can't go wrong with any of these options. Things get murkier with other practice areas, especially more niche fields like IP or immigration. Tuition costs are fairly similar for all three. Queen's has a higher curve, but I'm not sure if that makes any difference in employment prospects as employers would just compare the transcripts of students at your school.  Osgoode being bigger and older is not necessarily a bad thing because there is a strong alumni network and depending on where you want to work, this can be hugely beneficial in my opinion. Anecdotally, every single place I interviewed at while in law school had a few Osgoode alumni working there and this allowed me to connect with interviewers pretty quickly. That said, Western and Queen's also have many alumni working in Toronto so this isn't a major factor.  Osgoode is the oldest law school in Ontario and was on its own before it joined York University, so most people would not associate York's overall reputation with Osgoode or even Schulich School of Business. At least in the legal field, it has a decent reputation.  I've thought about this question quite a bit over the years and besides the personal reasons I've outlined above, from an academics or careers standpoint, I am not sure there are many reasons to go to Western or Queen's over Osgoode. I'm a big proponent of getting practical legal experience while in law school and Osgoode just has a shit ton of that going for it. That alone is reason enough to pick it. If you're not a top student grades-wise in law school, then even small differences in course selection, clinicals, and reputation can make all the difference in where you end up landing a job. 
    • My brain says "do not post nitpicky politics," but my heart says do it. So here I am. I'm not discounting your personal experience here. But there is no such thing as a postmodern Marxist. Postmodernism is fundamentally incompatible with Marxism. The former rejects grand universal truths, while the latter is based on there being an inherent (economic) truth. 
    • I shall now apply all of the wisdom I have gained from reading this forum twelve hours a day every day since October to settle this issue once and for all. THE ONE TRUE GUIDE TO CHOOSING A LAW SCHOOL: Criterion #1: Go to school in the province where you want to work. This will help you build your network and minimize difficulties of changing jurisdictions where the laws may differ. Criterion #2: Minimize your debt. All Canadian law schools give you the same JD and all differences in outcome are due to individual differences among students. The fact that some schools have stronger or weaker students says nothing about the school itself, so you may as well just get the degree as cheap as possible. Therefore, without further ado, the one true objective ranking of Canadian schools (for English speakers, at least. Don't know enough about the French side of things to comment): If you want to work in BC: 1. UVic 2. UBC 3. TRU If you want to work in Alberta: 1. U of A 2. U of C (might be the better choice if you're dead-set on Calgary). If you want to work in Saskatchewan: U of S If you want to work in Manitoba: U of M If you want to work in Ontario: Anywhere in Ontario but U of T. Lakehead for anywhere north of Sudbury. Only go to Ryerson as a last resort. If you want to work in New Brunswick: UNB. If you want to work in Nova Scotia: Dal. If you want to work in PEI: UNB (see criterion #2). If you want to work in Newfoundland: Wait for Memorial. If you want to work in the North: Haha no you don't. If you want to work in the States: T6 if you can, T7-14 if you must. Otherwise forget it.
    • TRU regularly participates in Vancouver OCIs, Interior BC OCIs, Calgary OCIs, and Edmonton OCIs. TRU is participating in Toronto OCIs for this 2020-21 year because they're being conducted virtually. There is no word yet as to whether TRU will continue to participate in Toronto OCIs in the future. There are TRU grads all over the country, but they're concentrated in Vancouver, Calgary, and Edmonton. Here are some questions for OP to consider: Would you rather live in Kamloops or or Saskatoon for 3 years? USask tuition is ~$15,000/year while TRU is $20,000/year. Is that $5000/year savings significant for you?

×
×
  • Create New...