Anonymous User wrote:Same anon.
Sorry, what I meant was that I recall reading, if not in this topic, in another,
1. that one clerkship before the other might better prepare you for the other
2. and that doing one clerkship before the other might better prepare you for practice(for reasons I don't remember)
I don't think that either really prepares you so well for the other. Say you're a district clerk. You learn a ton about procedure and how to produce a lot of imperfect legal product in a short amount of time. Then you go to a circuit, where your procedural knowledge is rarely needed, where quality control is much more demanding, and where you have all the time in the world. Cases tend to be more theoretical, your finely honed ability to peruse massive reams of evidentiary submissions is called upon much less. The facts below are what they were found to be (which isn't to say that the record doesn't matter anymore, it matters a lot, but it's peripheral to what you do) and your job largely shifts from applying well-settled law to making new law or glossing the ambiguities of the old. It's not a huge advantage, basically, to have clerked below. On the other hand, for about the same reasons, a great COA clerk could really be an awful district clerk, in much the same way that most law professors would make pretty iffy litigators. Yeah, you'll know ever so much about AEDPA, the sentencing guidelines, qualified immunity, whatever, but now you have to apply it at a speed to which you're unaccustomed, in these procedural contexts with which you're not familiar, and you have to deal with all these procedural issues and the record in ways you didn't have to as a coa clerk. Maybe the district clerkship is a marginally better preparation for the coa clerkship, but I think it really comes down to the individual's strengths and weaknesses.