HYS, T6 or UW for Seattle Law Forum

[abl]

Dude, seriously? You're not only consistently rude, but you're consistently missing the point. How many of those people do you think didn't do a clerkship? And if your argument is that you're just trying to show how few people do this in general, well, the "actual number of people working at those places" is only small because you've chosen a list that only includes a small number of firms (once again, probably because a longer list wouldn't favor Chicago as much -- thank you Leiter). In any event, even if the number of people at litigation boutiques OR doing appellate litigation OR doing DOJ Honors OR doing elite PI OR going into academia ... etc ... is pretty small, the aggregate number of people doing one of those things is sufficient to make *job opportunities* a meaningful advantage of clerking.

you're missing the point of this entire thread. the argument doesn't concern choosing between stanford and chicago at equal cost, it is whether one should forgo full scholarship at chicago for the advantages that accrue to an individual by going to stanford.

in that regard, the probability of securing x-outcome is important and must be considered against the backdrop of the amount of money being spent on that probability.

there are significantly more people who clerked who didn't achieve whatever "meaningful advantages" you claim come with clerking than there are people who utilized those advantages. Never mind the possibility that the clerkship might have been mere correlation for the infinitesimal group of people with the aforementioned outcomes.

I'm not missing the point. Things don't change even if we apply your latest argument to the problem. First, you have to calculate the value of clerking. For me, the personal value of a clerkship easily exceeds $500k, when considered in the context of my expected lifetime earnings potential. But I'll just say it's $500k. And I'd say that the personal value of one of the clerkship-advantaged jobs listed, for me, would be roughly $1,500,000 over my career (so I'd prefer to earn $3 million over my career instead of $5 million if I got to clerk and be a law professor as opposed to not clerk and be a litigator). Now, we have to discount the clerkship-advantaged jobs by the chances I'll actually get that job -- let's say 33% (what I'd argue that the improvement of chances for an SLS-clerk who made a concerted effort to get one of those jobs over an SLS non-clerk). So that leaves you with the total "value" of that clerkship at $1,000,000 ($500k for the clerkship + 500k for the improved career possibilities). Finally, we have to discount that by the difference in the chances you'll actually clerk between SLS and Chicago -- approximately 15%, right? So, in this scenario, the clerkship ALONE would be worth approximately $150,000 in value to me. Add in some of the other tangible and intangible advantages of going to SLS over to Chicago and it's easy to see why 200k could easily be justified. (Having lived in both Chicago and California, I'd value three years of summer in the Bay Area versus Chicago weather at almost $50k by itself.)

[mac2013]

Great feedback. I am interested in a clerkship but its not end all be all for me. In fact, one of the reasons why no debt is very appealing to me is that it gives me more career freedom. Vs. if I am 200,000 in debt I am stuck doing big law even if I end up hating it.


I am curious about the 4 people who choose UW. If you could write your reasons here or PM me that would be great. Especially if you have any insight on the Seattle market. Thanks.

[northwood]

Great feedback. I am interested in a clerkship but its not end all be all for me. In fact, one of the reasons why no debt is very appealing to me is that it gives me more career freedom. Vs. if I am 200,000 in debt I am stuck doing big law even if I end up hating it.


I am curious about the 4 people who choose UW. If you could write your reasons here or PM me that would be great. Especially if you have any insight on the Seattle market. Thanks.

enjoy Chicago!

[Blessedassurance]

Great feedback. I am interested in a clerkship but its not end all be all for me. In fact, one of the reasons why no debt is very appealing to me is that it gives me more career freedom. Vs. if I am 200,000 in debt I am stuck doing big law even if I end up hating it.


I am curious about the 4 people who choose UW. If you could write your reasons here or PM me that would be great. Especially if you have any insight on the Seattle market. Thanks.

UW is not going to give you any advantage in securing a seattle offer over basically any t14 (including georgetown). there are less SA positions in Seattle total than a single biglaw firm in new york like paul weiss or whatever.

go through this: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=187755

[jbagelboy]

Great feedback. I am interested in a clerkship but its not end all be all for me. In fact, one of the reasons why no debt is very appealing to me is that it gives me more career freedom. Vs. if I am 200,000 in debt I am stuck doing big law even if I end up hating it.


I am curious about the 4 people who choose UW. If you could write your reasons here or PM me that would be great. Especially if you have any insight on the Seattle market. Thanks.

UW is not going to give you any advantage in securing a seattle offer over basically any t14 (including georgetown). there are less SA positions in Seattle total than a single biglaw firm in new york like paul weiss or whatever.

go through this: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=187755

He's spot on. UW isn't a consideration here.

[mac2013]

Great feedback. I am interested in a clerkship but its not end all be all for me. In fact, one of the reasons why no debt is very appealing to me is that it gives me more career freedom. Vs. if I am 200,000 in debt I am stuck doing big law even if I end up hating it.


I am curious about the 4 people who choose UW. If you could write your reasons here or PM me that would be great. Especially if you have any insight on the Seattle market. Thanks.

UW is not going to give you any advantage in securing a seattle offer over basically any t14 (including georgetown). there are less SA positions in Seattle total than a single biglaw firm in new york like paul weiss or whatever.

go through this: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=187755

Thanks for the link, I will read that thread.

[Ohiobumpkin]

Great feedback. I am interested in a clerkship but its not end all be all for me. In fact, one of the reasons why no debt is very appealing to me is that it gives me more career freedom. Vs. if I am 200,000 in debt I am stuck doing big law even if I end up hating it.


I am curious about the 4 people who choose UW. If you could write your reasons here or PM me that would be great. Especially if you have any insight on the Seattle market. Thanks.

Then go to Chicago. No question about it.

[mac2013]

Updated the information. Wondering if the $21,000 at Stanford or the Full Scholarship at Berkeley changed anyone's perspectives.

[TheSpanishMain]

Great feedback. I am interested in a clerkship but its not end all be all for me. In fact, one of the reasons why no debt is very appealing to me is that it gives me more career freedom. Vs. if I am 200,000 in debt I am stuck doing big law even if I end up hating it.


I am curious about the 4 people who choose UW. If you could write your reasons here or PM me that would be great. Especially if you have any insight on the Seattle market. Thanks.

Then go to Chicago. No question about it.

Agreed. Paying $200,000 for an increased chance of a clerkship when it isn't even your primary goal (it sounds like your primary goal is just to have a legal job in Seattle) is insane. Take the money and enjoy the psychological peace that comes with knowing you don't have a sword of Damocles hanging over your head.

[rayiner]

It's not like a 9th circuit clerkship is a guarantee from Stanford either though. There are only a handful in Seattle, and while it's no SDNY or even Los Angeles feeders, you'll need a very solid H to P ratio your first three/five semesters depending on the judge. It will be very tough from Chicago, and still pretty difficult from Stanford. I think in this light it's foolish to bet $200,000 in non-dischargeable debt on it.

A 9th Cir clerkship in Seattle is easily harder to land than an SDNY/CDCA clerkship (am I misreading you, or did you imply otherwise?). But yea, I think we can all agree, regardless, that it's far from guaranteed at either school. That said, there's a big difference between how "not guaranteed" it is, and how "foolish" it is to base one's law school decision on it as an option depends on how set the OP is on that particular option. Academia is pretty near-impossible to break into these days, but that doesn't mean that it'd be "foolish" to bet $200,000 in (low-interest, LRAP-eligible) debt on it to choose SLS over, say, GW, especially since one's earning potential at a school like SLS is through the roof.

HYS isn't magic. Yeah, S offers a much better shot of clerking than Chicago, but a clerkship isn't a career, it's a one-year job. After the clerkship, you go back into big law, often at the same firm you were at before your clerkship, and almost always with plebes that just made top 1/3 at CCN. When it comes time to up-or-out you, nobody gives a shit you went to HYS and clerked. HYS and 2/9/DC clerkships will help open up a small number of places that are tangibly likely to boost your earnings potential (Munger, Susman, WLRK, etc), but these are available to a very small minority of clerks. And to have any shot at these firms, you need grades that are good enough where you would've gotten a clerkship anyway, whether you went to SLS or Chicago.

Moreover, aside from a tiny Susman office, there are no such elite firms in Seattle. You'll finish your 9th Circuit clerkship and go work at Perkins Coie or K&L Gates, which are great firms, but where you'll be in the same boat as folks who were top 15% at U of W and had no hope of any Article III clerkship. Your "earning potential" will be exactly the same as those folks, and you had better factor that in when considering how much debt to take on.

[ColbyBryant]

Dude berkeley for Free!

[northwood]

Chicago or Berkley...

45K for your goal of working in Seattle should be very doable from Berkley. However, if you have outstanding UG debt, you need to add this to your total cost of attendance. But I think Berkley should be better for your goals, but you should do your due diligence to make sure ( if its just a marginal bump- then id go to Chicago)

For your goals and with the options that you have, I don't think it makes sense to pay more than 50K for that JD. That being said, with your options, you should not be paying once cent to go to UW. As of now, id cross them off your list, as Berkley is a better school at the same cost.

[rayiner]

Why on earth would you go to Berkeley for $50k more than U Chicago? It makes no sense. If the guy has strong Seattle ties, then Seattle firms will be interested no matter where he goes. If he doesn't, they won't give a shit that NorCal is closer to Seattle than Chicago. Seattle firms are incredibly insular. Unlike Chicago firms, which consider the whole midwest "close enough," Seattle firms want you to be from Seattle. Not the west coast. Not the northwest. Not just from Washington. From Seattle, maybe Olympia.

[northwood]

I agree, but 45K at Berkley isn't that bad, although I personally would take Chicago and enjoy the peace of mind of not having to take any loans for LS.

[dixiecupdrinking]

(1) it would be nuts to pass up the Chicago scholarship. Period.
(2) don't listen to anyone who thinks that the only way to clerk in Washington is on the 9th Circuit.

[ManoftheHour]

You got a Ruby and you're considering paying $45,000 for UW?!

[ColbyBryant]

Oops- I confused you with another thread where the backup option was CA big law or PI, so berkeley for free was obvious. Ruby is clearly the best option here. Change my vote from B to Ruby.

[Blessedassurance]

Moreover, aside from a tiny Susman office, there are no such elite firms in Seattle. You'll finish your 9th Circuit clerkship and go work at Perkins Coie or K&L Gates, which are great firms, but where you'll be in the same boat as folks who were top 15% at U of W and had no hope of any Article III clerkship. Your "earning potential" will be exactly the same as those folks, and you had better factor that in when considering how much debt to take on.

susman isn't "elite" in seattle. perkins is more "prestigious" (whatever that means) in seattle, but nobody in seattle gives a shit about such distinctions nor is anyone going to try to draw distinctions between cooley, seattle and wsgr seattle. it's pretty hard to score perkins from uw (they had a total of 12 summers in 2013). seattle is very desirable even at hys and pretty hard to get.

[Blessedassurance]

also, OP, your Stanford grant will be reduced for 3L if you get an SA 2L summer (it gets worse if you do a 1L SA). If you go to Chicago you get to pocket your summer earnings.

[rpupkin]

Moreover, aside from a tiny Susman office, there are no such elite firms in Seattle. You'll finish your 9th Circuit clerkship and go work at Perkins Coie or K&L Gates, which are great firms, but where you'll be in the same boat as folks who were top 15% at U of W and had no hope of any Article III clerkship. Your "earning potential" will be exactly the same as those folks, and you had better factor that in when considering how much debt to take on.

susman isn't "elite" in seattle. perkins is more "prestigious" (whatever that means) in seattle, but nobody in seattle gives a shit about such distinctions nor is anyone going to try to draw distinctions between cooley, seattle and wsgr seattle. it's pretty hard to score perkins from uw (they had a total of 12 summers in 2013). seattle is very desirable even at hys and pretty hard to get.

Uh...are you talking about "lay prestige" or something? Because I'm not aware of any legal circles in which Perkins Coie is considered more prestigious than Susman, even in Seattle.

[Blessedassurance]

Moreover, aside from a tiny Susman office, there are no such elite firms in Seattle. You'll finish your 9th Circuit clerkship and go work at Perkins Coie or K&L Gates, which are great firms, but where you'll be in the same boat as folks who were top 15% at U of W and had no hope of any Article III clerkship. Your "earning potential" will be exactly the same as those folks, and you had better factor that in when considering how much debt to take on.

susman isn't "elite" in seattle. perkins is more "prestigious" (whatever that means) in seattle, but nobody in seattle gives a shit about such distinctions nor is anyone going to try to draw distinctions between cooley, seattle and wsgr seattle. it's pretty hard to score perkins from uw (they had a total of 12 summers in 2013). seattle is very desirable even at hys and pretty hard to get.

Uh...are you talking about "lay prestige" or something? Because I'm not aware of any legal circles in which Perkins Coie is considered more prestigious than Susman, even in Seattle.

what legal circles do you know in seattle? there are a shitton of lawyers in seattle who don't even know susman has a branch in seattle.

there are about 7 associates in susman's seattle office (20 lawyers total)...one from Berkeley, one from chicago (surprise, surprise), one from Columbia, two from UT and one from the University of Florida...why would you think it was more prestigious in seattle?

[rpupkin]

Uh...are you talking about "lay prestige" or something? Because I'm not aware of any legal circles in which Perkins Coie is considered more prestigious than Susman, even in Seattle.

what legal circles do you know in seattle?

I know one lawyer in the legal department of Amazon, one lawyer in the legal department of Microsoft, and two lawyers at Perkins.

there are a shitton of lawyers in seattle who don't even know susman has a branch in seattle.

I can believe that's true, but so what? Perkins has a huge office in Seattle (well, by Seattle standards) and is very well known. I guess I don't associate "well known" with "prestige." In San Francisco, for example, Orrick has a much larger presence than Munger, but few (if any) SF lawyers consider the former more "prestigious."

[rayiner]

Moreover, aside from a tiny Susman office, there are no such elite firms in Seattle. You'll finish your 9th Circuit clerkship and go work at Perkins Coie or K&L Gates, which are great firms, but where you'll be in the same boat as folks who were top 15% at U of W and had no hope of any Article III clerkship. Your "earning potential" will be exactly the same as those folks, and you had better factor that in when considering how much debt to take on.

susman isn't "elite" in seattle. perkins is more "prestigious" (whatever that means) in seattle, but nobody in seattle gives a shit about such distinctions nor is anyone going to try to draw distinctions between cooley, seattle and wsgr seattle. it's pretty hard to score perkins from uw (they had a total of 12 summers in 2013). seattle is very desirable even at hys and pretty hard to get.

I'm using the word "elite" in the context of earning potential, not prestige (which is a stupid lawyer fixation). Susman is elite because it pays fat bonuses.

As for Perkins being hard to get, it is, but not in the same sense as WLRK is hard to get. They're looking for deep Seattle ties. They're not looking just for people in the running for COA clerkships like say Munger. The fact that Stanford places better into COA isn't going to give you a big leg up at Perkins.

[jbagelboy]

I guess I don't associate "well known" with "prestige." In San Francisco, for example, Orrick has a much larger presence than Munger, but few (if any) SF lawyers consider the former more "prestigious."

Really? The only real industry "prestige" marker we have disagrees with this assessment of bay area prestige for these firms: http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/l ... sRankID=10. And since vault is the composite of the opinions of "SF" lawyers, evidently many find the opposite.

My impression was also that Orrick carries a little extra cache for some companies since its the oldest firm in san francisco by a stretch.

[Blessedassurance]

I'm using the word "elite" in the context of earning potential, not prestige (which is a stupid lawyer fixation). Susman is elite because it pays fat bonuses.

by that metric perkins wouldn't even be in the top five (maybe more) of the "elite" firms in seattle, which is laughable. there are many firms that pay more than perkins in seattle (from 4-5k more to the 160k-satellites etc.).

if all one wanted was more money, seattle would be the wrong city to be aiming for.