Anonymous User wrote: Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
Fair_Balanced wrote:Why clerk at all? If you want to go to a firm, go to a firm. Some random district court clerkship isn't going to meaningfully up your resume's prestige value over a degree from Harvard Law. Not all A3 clerkships are great learning experiences or pleasant, and you're losing money. Don't clerk just because it's hard to get. Clerk because it makes sense for what you want to do.
I agree with the sentiment that you should only clerk if it makes sense for your career goals, but I would not have phrased it so strongly anti-clerking. Assuming you want to litigate, I think you should try to clerk unless you have a good reason not to. The quoted post seems to suggest the opposite. A good reason could be you can only get a district that isn't geographically relevant, or you can only get a crappy judge, etc. But there are lots of good reasons to clerk.
I disagree with the idea that you should try to clerk no matter what if you're doing any kind of litigation. It's highly likely that the type of litigation you specialize in will have nothing to do with the vast majority of work you do as a clerk. To the extent you're writing memos and doing legal research, this is pretty much exactly the same kind of work you'd be doing at a biglaw firm. The only difference is that you'll be making less money. In fact, there are some things you could actually miss out on if you clerk instead of working at a firm, like taking or defending depositions. Granted, you could do this after you clerk, but it might be better to get the necessary experience sooner rather than later.
Somewhat unrelatedly, there are plenty of biglaw partners who haven't clerked. In fact, at my firm, it's much more likely for associates to have clerked than partners. However, clerking definitely makes sense if you have any interest at all in academia or federal government jobs.