Attorneys are generalists, no attorneys are specialists, no they can handle anything?  The profession is of two minds on this question.  Any attorney, duly admitted, etc. may offer opinion evidence on the behavior of another attorney, and any attorney might simply step up to the counsel table and give an appearance.  Once that happens, the trial is on.

However,  it’s quite obvious that experience is not only nice, it’s a necessity. Here is an article about defending the DUI case.  Somewhat long, and a little argumentative, it makes a very good point.  Is the person writing this article more likely to obtain a solid professional result, or will the friendly generalist do better for the criminal defendant?

"Almost every attorney is at one time or another confronted with a client, friend, or family member charged with drunk driving. Because accused drunk drivers are immediately charged with a crime, drunk-driving cases represent the single largest category of criminal infractions of all reported cases, with about 200,000 more cases processed each year than all theft and larceny offenses combined. Even attorneys who do not generally handle criminal matters are routinely asked how an accused person should proceed in a drunk-driving case.In the 1960s, driving under the influence of alcohol was considered a minor offense, leading to modest fines; in the 1990s, it is considered the most serious misdemeanor offense. In several states, repeat offenders are considered felons."