Non-Art. III Clerkship?

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
iagolives
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:24 pm

Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby iagolives » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:10 pm

Two questions that I feel must have been asked before but I can't find them:

1) How competitive are non-Art III federal clerkships (i.e. armed forces, veterans claims, etc.) in comparison to Art III clerkships? I'm assuming the same but just wondering if this were true.

2) Are these looked on as favorably as Art III clerkships by employers in general?

User avatar
XxSpyKEx
Posts: 1741
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:48 am

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby XxSpyKEx » Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:17 am

iagolives wrote:Two questions that I feel must have been asked before but I can't find them:

1) How competitive are non-Art III federal clerkships (i.e. armed forces, veterans claims, etc.) in comparison to Art III clerkships? I'm assuming the same but just wondering if this were true.


Not as competitive

iagolives wrote:2) Are these looked on as favorably as Art III clerkships by employers in general?


No.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby Veyron » Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:21 am

XxSpyKEx wrote:
iagolives wrote:Two questions that I feel must have been asked before but I can't find them:

1) How competitive are non-Art III federal clerkships (i.e. armed forces, veterans claims, etc.) in comparison to Art III clerkships? I'm assuming the same but just wondering if this were true.


Not as competitive

iagolives wrote:2) Are these looked on as favorably as Art III clerkships by employers in general?


No.



Generally this is correct except at the margins: e.g. Court of Appeals of NY/Supreme Court of California > D.AK

User avatar
XxSpyKEx
Posts: 1741
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:48 am

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby XxSpyKEx » Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:44 am

Veyron wrote:
XxSpyKEx wrote:
iagolives wrote:Two questions that I feel must have been asked before but I can't find them:

1) How competitive are non-Art III federal clerkships (i.e. armed forces, veterans claims, etc.) in comparison to Art III clerkships? I'm assuming the same but just wondering if this were true.


Not as competitive

iagolives wrote:2) Are these looked on as favorably as Art III clerkships by employers in general?


No.



Generally this is correct except at the margins: e.g. Court of Appeals of NY/Supreme Court of California > D.AK


Not sure about competitiveness at either of those courts, but district court is looked at more favorably by employers "in general" (I assume that includes employers outside of the state the clerkship is in)

Pretty sure the supreme court of california doesn't have clerks either.. just staff attorneys.

User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby MrKappus » Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:49 am

Veyron wrote:Generally this is correct except at the margins: e.g. Court of Appeals of NY/Supreme Court of California > D.AK


Haha no. (1) D.AK is awful bluebooking. You will not write-on. Hope you grade-on. (2) D. Alaska >>>>> N.Y. That's just the nature of the Art. III beast.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby Veyron » Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:58 am

MrKappus wrote:
Veyron wrote:Generally this is correct except at the margins: e.g. Court of Appeals of NY/Supreme Court of California > D.AK


Haha no. (1) D.AK is awful bluebooking. You will not write-on. Hope you grade-on. (2) D. Alaska >>>>> N.Y. That's just the nature of the Art. III beast.


You expect me to bluebook my TLS POSTS?#&@&# Dude, you are one sick puppy.

Pretty sure the supreme court of california doesn't have clerks either.. just staff attorneys.


My bad - general point still stands though, there are extremes at which non art III is arguably better. Even if you think D. Alaska is better than COA NY. how about American Samoa?

User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby MrKappus » Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:04 am

Veyron wrote:You expect me to bluebook my TLS POSTS?#&@&# Dude, you are one sick puppy.


It should just come naturally. See supra (explaining my hope for your grades).

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby Veyron » Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:08 am

MrKappus wrote:
Veyron wrote:You expect me to bluebook my TLS POSTS?#&@&# Dude, you are one sick puppy.


It should just come naturally. See supra (explaining my hope for your grades).


Well, I DO have 2 blue-books stacked on the floor next to my desk as I type this. An any case, not all of us can hope to destroy the law review competition like you MrKapps. I'd settle for top half of the class and a biglaw offer.

User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby MrKappus » Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:11 am

Veyron wrote:
MrKappus wrote:
Veyron wrote:You expect me to bluebook my TLS POSTS?#&@&# Dude, you are one sick puppy.


It should just come naturally. See supra (explaining my hope for your grades).


Well, I DO have 2 blue-books stacked on the floor next to my desk as I type this. An any case, not all of us can hope to destroy the law review competition like you MrKapps. I'd settle for top half of the class and a biglaw offer.


QF for failure to recognize sarcasm.

More to the substance of your post, I'll reiterate: D. Alaska >>>>> N.Y.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby Veyron » Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:15 am

MrKappus wrote:
Veyron wrote:
MrKappus wrote:
Veyron wrote:You expect me to bluebook my TLS POSTS?#&@&# Dude, you are one sick puppy.


It should just come naturally. See supra (explaining my hope for your grades).


Well, I DO have 2 blue-books stacked on the floor next to my desk as I type this. An any case, not all of us can hope to destroy the law review competition like you MrKapps. I'd settle for top half of the class and a biglaw offer.


QF for failure to recognize sarcasm.

More to the substance of your post, I'll reiterate: D. Alaska >>>>> N.Y.


QF failure to recognize playing along.

User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby MrKappus » Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:18 am

Veyron wrote:An any case, not all of us can hope to destroy the law review competition like you MrKapps.


lol

OP: go art. III or go not at all.

User avatar
iagolives
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby iagolives » Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:43 am

MrKappus wrote:OP: go art. III or go not at all.


Really? I mean, I can see them not being as appealing to employers (for some reason I don't understand) but they really aren't worth doing at all?

Turtledove
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:31 pm

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby Turtledove » Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:50 am

Generally speaking Article III clerkships are the most competitive and prestigious. The one exception to his is the Delaware Chancery Court which is the leading court for corporate law in the country. The other thing to note is that working in a state trial court would likely be a great way to meet local attorneys and network your way into a (non-biglaw) job.

User avatar
RVP11
Posts: 2774
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:32 pm

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby RVP11 » Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:53 am

D. Alaska > NY Court of Appeals?

LOL. No.

Generally, yes, Article III courts >>> state supreme courts. But not when you're comparing supreme courts like CA or NY to a small state's district court.

User avatar
iagolives
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby iagolives » Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:59 am

What about federal non-Article III courts, like Veterans appeals, armed forces, or any of the large administrative agency tribunals? What are the benefits of these?

User avatar
XxSpyKEx
Posts: 1741
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:48 am

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby XxSpyKEx » Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:27 am

iagolives wrote:
MrKappus wrote:OP: go art. III or go not at all.


Really? I mean, I can see them not being as appealing to employers (for some reason I don't understand) but they really aren't worth doing at all?


They are worth doing. It's still a valuable experience and it will probably get you ins to some legal job. It, however, won't get you biglaw, but neither will a district court clerkship is some bumfuck state either (except maybe in that state). Law students that struck out at OCI don't want to realize it, but realistically you need a really, really prestigious clerkship to get back into the biglaw game because almost all firms are completing their entry level associate hiring out of their summer classes. Biglaw firms, for the most part, don't consider clerks and 3Ls for entry level hiring until after they hire from their previous summer's classes. (i.e. even if you are clerking for 2 years, you still can't apply 2 years out and compete with the current 2Ls for an entry level spot). The exception, for the most part, tends to be the absolute TOP firms (the same firms that hired 3Ls this last year). But if you have a prestigious enough of a clerkship, some of those firms will make you an offer now for after your clerkship.

User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby MrKappus » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:07 am

RVP11 wrote:D. Alaska > NY Court of Appeals?

LOL. No.

Generally, yes, Article III courts >>> state supreme courts. But not when you're comparing supreme courts like CA or NY to a small state's district court.


You're just wrong. It's no big deal. Lots of people are, everyday, all the time. And you are in this instance. Fed clerkships >>> Any state clerkship. Do your research.

Jessep
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:07 am

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby Jessep » Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:35 pm

In this thread, I realize how little I miss egotistical law student who love trying to prove they are right and others are wrong (MrKappus). Whether a non-art. iii clerkship is valuable depends upon your options at the time (do you have nothing else?), what type of law you want to practice (most valuable usually for litigators), and whether you'll be able to establish connections in the city where you wish to work long-term. I had a discussion with corporate partners at large law firms about the relative value of a clerkship if one wishes to pursue a transactional career; they almost all believe it would add little value. A couple of them mentioned Delaware's Chancery Court might be worthwhile because it would add practical value, not just blind prestige.

User avatar
thecilent
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:55 pm

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby thecilent » Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:39 pm

I get so lost in the clerkship talk. Wish I could read one thing to make me understand how it all works

User avatar
RVP11
Posts: 2774
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:32 pm

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby RVP11 » Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:58 pm

MrKappus wrote:
RVP11 wrote:D. Alaska > NY Court of Appeals?

LOL. No.

Generally, yes, Article III courts >>> state supreme courts. But not when you're comparing supreme courts like CA or NY to a small state's district court.


You're just wrong. It's no big deal. Lots of people are, everyday, all the time. And you are in this instance. Fed clerkships >>> Any state clerkship. Do your research.


This is an interesting flame.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273044
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:19 pm

XxSpyKEx wrote:Pretty sure the supreme court of california doesn't have clerks either.. just staff attorneys.


NM can't delete - but my response was a reading comprehension fail.

User avatar
Grizz
Posts: 10583
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby Grizz » Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:22 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
XxSpyKEx wrote:Pretty sure the supreme court of california doesn't have clerks either.. just staff attorneys.


Not true - I did land an interview with one for the summer. Sadly I did not get the position - but I can confirm that some Ca. Sup. Ct. justices hire externs, even 1Ls at that.


lol extern =/= clerkship lol

jkay
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby jkay » Sun Feb 06, 2011 8:47 pm

thecilent wrote:I get so lost in the clerkship talk. Wish I could read one thing to make me understand how it all works


Civil Procedure might help.

User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

Re: Non-Art. III Clerkship?

Postby MrKappus » Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:07 pm

RVP11 wrote:
MrKappus wrote:
RVP11 wrote:D. Alaska > NY Court of Appeals?

LOL. No.

Generally, yes, Article III courts >>> state supreme courts. But not when you're comparing supreme courts like CA or NY to a small state's district court.


You're just wrong. It's no big deal. Lots of people are, everyday, all the time. And you are in this instance. Fed clerkships >>> Any state clerkship. Do your research.


This is an interesting flame.


You're still wrong, but your comment at least made me laugh. Two points.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.