Capitol_Idea wrote:FYI: Unless you are a dork (like me) who likes research and writing, secondary journals are a waste of time. Main journal is too, honestly, but there are slight bumps on the ole resume for EIW with main journal at a couple firms.
In general the work is annoying, there is little or no career or hiring reward for it, and you may end up having to judge write on which is painful because honestly most of you are terrible writers.
Out of curiosity, what are you basing the "little or no career or hiring reward" language on? Like, recruiters or hiring partners at your firm came right out said that, or just an assumption based on observation? Not calling you out, just genuinely curious because it conflicts with what I've heard from recruiters.
The handful of recruiting people that I've spoken with all made it sound like secondary journal is still better than no journal, though they acknowledge that all journals are ultimately pointless besides their function as a resume credential and a line on your firm bio. One associate who does a lot of OCI interviews (who personally didn't do journal) said she won't necessarily hold it against someone if they didn't do journal... so long as they had a different substantial activity (moot court, mock trial, etc / not wine tasting club) that fills the void. She also acknowledged she was the only person in recruiting at her firm that didn't flat out expect one journal or another from GULC peeps.