2-year State Appellate Clerkship to Fed. Dist. Clerkship? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I am currently in the middle of a 2-year clerkship at the state appellate level. Once I am finished, I am interested in pursuing a district court clerkship. I went to a T30 school, top 25%, secondary journal/ed. board. Just a few questions for anyone willing to share advice/experience:

1.) What are my chances/is it worth my time to apply?

2.) Would it look like I am trying to be a career clerk with 3+ years of clerking?

3.) Should I only consider district court clerkships in the state where I want to work or should I broadly apply?

Thanks in advance for any help/response.

[Anonymous User]

1. It is absolutely worth it. It happens. Some judges want alumni clerks only and your clerkship experience, regardless of subject matter, can be very favorably viewed. I am doing a "specialty court" clerkship right now and just got an interview for a d. ct. position. Clearly, it's just an interview, but I interviewed with the judge's clerks already and they really liked my current clerkship experience. Your chances are anyone's guess.

2. Maybe, maybe not, depending on the person. I think it makes complete sense to do clerkships at different levels in the appeals process.

3. In general, I think there is no reason not to apply broadly if you can afford to do so. The amount of effort it takes to apply to a ton of clerkships on OSCAR is negligible.

[Anonymous User]

OP here - Thanks a lot for the response. Extremely helpful. Hope your search for the clerkship goes well!

[Anonymous User]

OP again - Just bumping and seeing if there are any other answers. Thanks again!

[Anonymous User]

2.) Would it look like I am trying to be a career clerk with 3+ years of clerking?

I mean, this is definitely going to be something that pops into the mind of any future employer at the interview stage.

What exactly are you wanting to get out of a federal district court clerkship? Speaking as someone who is also currently in a SSC clerkship, my clerkship has made me keenly aware of what happens at the trial court level (obviously in the state courts, but the federal courts share many of the same general principles). What are you wanting to get out of a clerkship at the trial court level that you can't get from (1) you're observations at the appellate court level coupled with (2) you actually lawyering in the trial court?

Here's another way of looking at it: why would an employer think that your federal district court clerkship makes you more attractive after you just got finished with a two-year state appellate clerkship?


pre-post-edit: I wrote the above before I quickly re-skimmed your post. Your post is unclear, but it looks like that you might want to go from a state appellate court to a state trial court (and not a federal district court)? No future employer is going to see a state trial court clerkship as beneficial after you just did a state appellate court clerkship.

[A. Nony Mouse]

2.) Would it look like I am trying to be a career clerk with 3+ years of clerking?

I mean, this is definitely going to be something that pops into the mind of any future employer at the interview stage.

What exactly are you wanting to get out of a federal district court clerkship? Speaking as someone who is also currently in a SSC clerkship, my clerkship has made me keenly aware of what happens at the trial court level (obviously in the state courts, but the federal courts share many of the same general principles). What are you wanting to get out of a clerkship at the trial court level that you can't get from (1) you're observations at the appellate court level coupled with (2) you actually lawyering in the trial court?

Here's another way of looking at it: why would an employer think that your federal district court clerkship makes you more attractive after you just got finished with a two-year state appellate clerkship?


pre-post-edit: I wrote the above before I quickly re-skimmed your post. Your post is unclear, but it looks like that you might want to go from a state appellate court to a state trial court (and not a federal district court)? No future employer is going to see a state trial court clerkship as beneficial after you just did a state appellate court clerkship.

I think the OP meant federal district court clerkships, and presuming that's the case, I don't really agree with the above. Doing an appellate clerkship tells you a lot about what's going on at trial, but is not at all the same as working at the trial court level - especially in SSC, where you're working primarily on cases where the law is unsettled, which doesn't describe the vast majority of trial court work. You get a very different perspective actually going through a trial with a judge. And as for why an employer would find a district court clerkship attractive: well, first, federal court tends to be more prestigious and federal judges more valued as connections (I'm not saying this is right, but I think it's true). More importantly, though, if you want a job with an employer that appears in federal court, federal court experience is much more relevant than state appellate. (Federal court practice is actually quite different from state court practice, even though obviously a good cross-exam is a good cross-exam wherever you go.) I'd also say that federal practice is a little more portable than state - you can move around within the same circuit without having to learn new law, but even moving from one circuit to another, federal statutes etc. are the same wherever you go.

That is, assuming the OP does mean federal district court. If not, never mind.

OP, as to your questions, I think you have a shot (judges often like previous clerkship experience), but you will do best by applying broadly (your experience won't be relevant only in your current state, though of course your judge is likely to have the most connections in-state, so your chances may be better there). The career clerk thing is a danger, but I think two clerkships at two different level courts (and state/federal as well) is understandable, and if one of the clerkships was 2 years, well, most people should realize you don't have much choice about that. (I think if you do multiple clerkships at the same court you look much more like a career-clerk type than in the hypothetical you raise.)

[Anonymous User]

OP here - Thanks for both helpful responses (even if from different perspectives). To clarify, I did mean federal district court clerkships. I should have specified. I also want to clarify that I am currently at an intermediate appellate court, if that changes anybody's opinion.

Another question to add to the mix: If I want to get into the academia world (either law school or undergrad), is a federal district court clerkship necessary? I have heard that it is.

[A. Nony Mouse]

OP here - Thanks for both helpful responses (even if from different perspectives). To clarify, I did mean federal district court clerkships. I should have specified. I also want to clarify that I am currently at an intermediate appellate court, if that changes anybody's opinion.

Another question to add to the mix: If I want to get into the academia world (either law school or undergrad), is a federal district court clerkship necessary? I have heard that it is.

Honestly, most academics seem to have high-level COA clerkships. Federal district court is better than no federal clerkship, but I don't think it's a huge bonus for academics. At this point, publishing in highly-ranked law reviews is going to be a better route to academia, I think.

(Also, keep in mind that most undergraduate institutions are looking for someone to have a PhD or an MA in an academic subject, not a professional degree, which is how the JD is seen. There is the odd JD here and there teaching in political science departments, and more in paralegal programs. But if you want a full time, tenure-track job in a traditional university, a JD alone - if that's your situation - is going to have a very very very hard time of it. I don't think clerking will be especially relevant to undergraduate institutions, though.)

[Anonymous User]

OP again - Very helpful post regarding academia. I guess looking to be an adjunct somewhere would be a more likely route.

Last question. When should I start to apply if my current clerkship ends in June 2015?

[station4]

OP again - Very helpful post regarding academia. I guess looking to be an adjunct somewhere would be a more likely route.

Last question. When should I start to apply if my current clerkship ends in June 2015?

Now. Clerkships starting in 2015 - and 2016 - are actively posted on OSCAR, interviewing, and filling.

[Anonymous User]

OP here - You are right. I need to get on it.

Last question (I lied earlier). Is it acceptable/expected for me to have a LOR from my current judge?

[Anonymous User]

OP here - You are right. I need to get on it.

Last question (I lied earlier). Is it acceptable/expected for me to have a LOR from my current judge?

It's completely acceptable. I wouldn't say it's expected, but I think it could be a little curious to not have one from him or her. More importantly, I think the judge would be among the best (i.e., most relevant) reference you could use.

The LOR I got from a judge I interned for in law school was essentially what got me my clerkship. (It was an "extraordinarily strong" LOR, according to my current judge.) And that same judge has pulled a lot of strings for other things I've been applying to for after my clerkship.

I would definitely get a LOR from your judge if you can.

[Anonymous User]

OP here - You are right. I need to get on it.

Last question (I lied earlier). Is it acceptable/expected for me to have a LOR from my current judge?

It's completely acceptable. I wouldn't say it's expected, but I think it could be a little curious to not have one from him or her. More importantly, I think the judge would be among the best (i.e., most relevant) reference you could use.

The LOR I got from a judge I interned for in law school was essentially what got me my clerkship. (It was an "extraordinarily strong" LOR, according to my current judge.) And that same judge has pulled a lot of strings for other things I've been applying to for after my clerkship.

I would definitely get a LOR from your judge if you can.

Unfortunately, I know a fair amount of judges who have a blanket policy of not writing letters.

[Anonymous User]

OP here - You are right. I need to get on it.

Last question (I lied earlier). Is it acceptable/expected for me to have a LOR from my current judge?

It's completely acceptable. I wouldn't say it's expected, but I think it could be a little curious to not have one from him or her. More importantly, I think the judge would be among the best (i.e., most relevant) reference you could use.

The LOR I got from a judge I interned for in law school was essentially what got me my clerkship. (It was an "extraordinarily strong" LOR, according to my current judge.) And that same judge has pulled a lot of strings for other things I've been applying to for after my clerkship.

I would definitely get a LOR from your judge if you can.

Unfortunately, I know a fair amount of judges who have a blanket policy of not writing letters.

That's true. One I interned for was like that, but she still offered to serve as a reference.

[Green Crayons]

I think the OP meant federal district court clerkships, and presuming that's the case, I don't really agree with the above. Doing an appellate clerkship tells you a lot about what's going on at trial, but is not at all the same as working at the trial court level - especially in SSC, where you're working primarily on cases where the law is unsettled, which doesn't describe the vast majority of trial court work. You get a very different perspective actually going through a trial with a judge. And as for why an employer would find a district court clerkship attractive: well, first, federal court tends to be more prestigious and federal judges more valued as connections (I'm not saying this is right, but I think it's true). More importantly, though, if you want a job with an employer that appears in federal court, federal court experience is much more relevant than state appellate. (Federal court practice is actually quite different from state court practice, even though obviously a good cross-exam is a good cross-exam wherever you go.) I'd also say that federal practice is a little more portable than state - you can move around within the same circuit without having to learn new law, but even moving from one circuit to another, federal statutes etc. are the same wherever you go.

These are all very legitimate points about trial v. appellate clerkships, and state v. federal clerkships. And I actually agree with these points -- if we are talking about looking for one's first clerkship gig, or even a 1 year appellate clerkship to a 1 year district court clerkship.

But that's not the context of this discussion. OP is asking to weigh the added benefits of a federal district court clerkship against putting oneself three years out of school with only clerkship experience. I think the additional benefits of a federal district court clerkship -- yup, I agree they do exist -- are outweighed by the three year stigma.


(I was the originally quoted response, I didn't realize I had clicked anon reply for my earlier post.)