2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Seek and share information about clerkship applications, clerkship hiring timelines, and post-clerkship employment opportunities.
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about clerkship applications and clerkship hiring. 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."
Anonymous User
Posts: 312851
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Apr 11, 2017 3:28 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Any actual movement at Sidley?


I applied months ago and have heard nothing.

Same. Just the EEO forms.

User avatar
proleteriate

New
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:48 pm

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby proleteriate » Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:38 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Any actual movement at Sidley?


I applied months ago and have heard nothing.

Same. Just the EEO forms.


EEO?

Anonymous User
Posts: 312851
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:14 pm

proleteriate wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Any actual movement at Sidley?


I applied months ago and have heard nothing.

Same. Just the EEO forms.


EEO?


EEOC forms: https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1surv ... cation.cfm

Sidley sent them out to applicants a while back for a couple of their offices.

Anonymous User
Posts: 312851
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:09 am

Anonymous User wrote:
proleteriate wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Any actual movement at Sidley?


I applied months ago and have heard nothing.

Same. Just the EEO forms.


EEO?


EEOC forms: https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1surv ... cation.cfm

Sidley sent them out to applicants a while back for a couple of their offices.


Anon from above: I haven't even received those (applied only to Chicago).

Anonymous User
Posts: 312851
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:49 am

Sidley DC is done hiring. Source: employee who knows

Barrred

Bronze
Posts: 147
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:49 pm

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Barrred » Wed Apr 12, 2017 11:44 am

Anonymous User wrote:Current D. Ct. clerk, will be clerking for senior COA judge next term. Curious as to whether and how much my COA judge's senior status will affect post-clerkship employment prospects. Am I likely to notice any tangible difference from the other clerks within my circuit?


My impression is: No, you wont notice a difference. In fact, you don't even need to indicate that your judge is a senior judge on your resume. I have spoken with several people who clerked for senior judges who said that during interviews they felt they had a leg up on active-judge clerks because their senior judges had a lot more name recognition among the partners, were more likely to personally know partners, and have a much larger clerk alumni network, however YMMV (depends a lot on your individual judge's reputation).

I think the biggest exception to the above is if your judge is known to have a severely diminished case-load (e.g., if he only takes a 25% caseload). If that is the case, I can see people looking at your clerkship differently than they would someone who clerked for an active COA judge.

Anonymous User
Posts: 312851
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:38 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:D. Ct. Clerk. DC Crowell & Moring rejection. Applied yesterday.


Don't worry - you dodged a bullet there.


can you elaborate?

Anonymous User
Posts: 312851
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Apr 12, 2017 6:00 pm

It's my impression that Munger D.C. is currently actively looking to hire clerks.

Anonymous User
Posts: 312851
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Apr 12, 2017 7:28 pm

Anonymous User wrote:It's my impression that Munger D.C. is currently actively looking to hire clerks.

lol no

Anonymous User
Posts: 312851
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Apr 12, 2017 7:52 pm

I apologize. The lawyers who work there must have been mistaken.

Anonymous User
Posts: 312851
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:08 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I apologize. The lawyers who work there must have been mistaken.


I don't doubt that they may be adding a SCOTUS clerk/equivalent or two, but to say they are "actively looking to hire clerks" is misleading. From what I've been told, they aren't even letting some of their most qualified LA hires transfer over to DC.

Anonymous User
Posts: 312851
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I apologize. The lawyers who work there must have been mistaken.


I don't doubt that they may be adding a SCOTUS clerk/equivalent or two, but to say they are "actively looking to hire clerks" is misleading. From what I've been told, they aren't even letting some of their most qualified LA hires transfer over to DC.

There are likely clerks on this board with, maybe not scotus clerkships, clerkships and grades that are similar to that of SCOTUS clerks. I don't get why it's wrong to say that Munger D.C. is looking.

ETA: different anon

Barrred

Bronze
Posts: 147
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:49 pm

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Barrred » Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:47 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I apologize. The lawyers who work there must have been mistaken.


I don't doubt that they may be adding a SCOTUS clerk/equivalent or two, but to say they are "actively looking to hire clerks" is misleading. From what I've been told, they aren't even letting some of their most qualified LA hires transfer over to DC.


I don't see what is misleading about that statement. I think it goes without saying that in order to get an offer from Munger you need to have top grades and a top clerkship. A lot of people with those qualifications exist.

Anonymous User
Posts: 312851
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:50 pm

Has anyone heard anything from Baker Botts or Fried Frank DC?

Anonymous User
Posts: 312851
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:28 am

Anonymous User wrote:Has anyone heard anything from Baker Botts or Fried Frank DC?


Fried Frank rejection in mid January two days after emailed application.

Anonymous User
Posts: 312851
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:54 am

Updates in DC?

Anonymous User
Posts: 312851
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Apr 18, 2017 12:05 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Updates in DC?


For me the steady stream of ding emails has slowed to a trickle. The rest will likely never send a rejection or otherwise contact me again.

S&C's snail mail ding last week was very S&C. No "despite your impressive qualifications" or "good luck in your legal career," just a flat out "you were not selected."

Anonymous User
Posts: 312851
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:55 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Updates in DC?


For me the steady stream of ding emails has slowed to a trickle. The rest will likely never send a rejection or otherwise contact me again.

S&C's snail mail ding last week was very S&C. No "despite your impressive qualifications" or "good luck in your legal career," just a flat out "you were not selected."

A firm I had a callback with earlier this year, but was rejected from, has a posting for a different associate position. What would it look like if I applied for that position? If I sent everything in to the recruiter, should I mention that they've already interviewed me for a different position?

It feels awkward, so any advice helps.

Anonymous User
Posts: 312851
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:56 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Updates in DC?


For me the steady stream of ding emails has slowed to a trickle. The rest will likely never send a rejection or otherwise contact me again.

S&C's snail mail ding last week was very S&C. No "despite your impressive qualifications" or "good luck in your legal career," just a flat out "you were not selected."


Oops. Accidentally posted in response to this. And now twice. My apologies. I don't want to clutter the thread, so I'm leaving the post above this alone.

clerk1251

Bronze
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:35 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby clerk1251 » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:16 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Updates in DC?


For me the steady stream of ding emails has slowed to a trickle. The rest will likely never send a rejection or otherwise contact me again.

S&C's snail mail ding last week was very S&C. No "despite your impressive qualifications" or "good luck in your legal career," just a flat out "you were not selected."

A firm I had a callback with earlier this year, but was rejected from, has a posting for a different associate position. What would it look like if I applied for that position? If I sent everything in to the recruiter, should I mention that they've already interviewed me for a different position?

It feels awkward, so any advice helps.


I think it would be weird. I also think they are unlikely to interview you again, if you've already had a callback there. However, couldn't hurt to just email the recruiter and mention that you've previously applied and interviewed, and you are wondering if you can be considered for this new position. I imagine the chances are slim to non, but it couldn't hurt.

Anonymous User
Posts: 312851
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:37 am

I think it would be weird. I also think they are unlikely to interview you again, if you've already had a callback there. However, couldn't hurt to just email the recruiter and mention that you've previously applied and interviewed, and you are wondering if you can be considered for this new position. I imagine the chances are slim to non, but it couldn't hurt.


First, who cares if it's "awkward"? The firm already rejected you, so it's not like an awkward interaction now would sour any future relationship. And second, what does it even mean to make that situation "awkward"? A law firm is a business entity, not a human person. Don't make the mistake of projecting complex human emotions onto any decisions made by a hiring committee.

If you want to apply, apply. If not, don't.

Anonymous User
Posts: 312851
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:14 am

Anonymous User wrote:
I think it would be weird. I also think they are unlikely to interview you again, if you've already had a callback there. However, couldn't hurt to just email the recruiter and mention that you've previously applied and interviewed, and you are wondering if you can be considered for this new position. I imagine the chances are slim to non, but it couldn't hurt.


First, who cares if it's "awkward"? The firm already rejected you, so it's not like an awkward interaction now would sour any future relationship. And second, what does it even mean to make that situation "awkward"? A law firm is a business entity, not a human person. Don't make the mistake of projecting complex human emotions onto any decisions made by a hiring committee.

If you want to apply, apply. If not, don't.

Thanks for this reminder. I needed a push to suck up my ego issues.

Anonymous User
Posts: 312851
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:01 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
I think it would be weird. I also think they are unlikely to interview you again, if you've already had a callback there. However, couldn't hurt to just email the recruiter and mention that you've previously applied and interviewed, and you are wondering if you can be considered for this new position. I imagine the chances are slim to non, but it couldn't hurt.


First, who cares if it's "awkward"? The firm already rejected you, so it's not like an awkward interaction now would sour any future relationship. And second, what does it even mean to make that situation "awkward"? A law firm is a business entity, not a human person. Don't make the mistake of projecting complex human emotions onto any decisions made by a hiring committee.

If you want to apply, apply. If not, don't.


Agreed. I have been offered interviews with firms that I have had unsuccessful callbacks with in the past, though not during the same cycle.

clerk1251

Bronze
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:35 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby clerk1251 » Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:03 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
I think it would be weird. I also think they are unlikely to interview you again, if you've already had a callback there. However, couldn't hurt to just email the recruiter and mention that you've previously applied and interviewed, and you are wondering if you can be considered for this new position. I imagine the chances are slim to non, but it couldn't hurt.


First, who cares if it's "awkward"? The firm already rejected you, so it's not like an awkward interaction now would sour any future relationship. And second, what does it even mean to make that situation "awkward"? A law firm is a business entity, not a human person. Don't make the mistake of projecting complex human emotions onto any decisions made by a hiring committee.

If you want to apply, apply. If not, don't.


For the record, I said it would be "weird." I don't believe I ever said it would be awkward. I don't think there is anything awkward about it, it would just be weird. It would be weird as in, unusual, uncommon, and strange. The result of such a weird/unusual/uncommon/strange application will most likely be that they do not respond or they ding you. But again, as I concluded in my original advice, it couldn't hurt - you've got nothing to lose.

Anonymous User
Posts: 312851
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2016-17 Post-Clerkship Hiring Thread

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:44 pm

Pretty sure he/she was responding to the post that you were also responding to, which noted that the situation "feels awkward."



Return to “Judicial Clerkships?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.