Can a federal judicial clerkship make you LESS competitive? Forum

[typ3]

Wife had a fed clerkship and took the offer and backed out on judge after a few months much to the flame of the LS and professors because recommendation from practicing attorneys was fed clerkship slots you in hiring committees for litigation and precludes you from a lot of prosecution jobs. But in general yes fed clerkships can black list you from some jobs because clerkships are bullshit and academic in nature. Clerkship experience is pretty worthless for the big boy world.

[jrf12886]

Wife had a fed clerkship and took the offer and backed out on judge after a few months much to the flame of the LS and professors because recommendation from practicing attorneys was fed clerkship slots you in hiring committees for litigation and precludes you from a lot of prosecution jobs. But in general yes fed clerkships can black list you from some jobs because clerkships are bullshit and academic in nature. Clerkship experience is pretty worthless for the big boy world.

Wat?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Wife had a fed clerkship and took the offer and backed out on judge after a few months much to the flame of the LS and professors because recommendation from practicing attorneys was fed clerkship slots you in hiring committees for litigation and precludes you from a lot of prosecution jobs. But in general yes fed clerkships can black list you from some jobs because clerkships are bullshit and academic in nature. Clerkship experience is pretty worthless for the big boy world.

Wat?

This. I know tons of prosecutors who clerked. In the federal system, it's pretty much required.

(I also never get how people decide clerking is academic when you're writing orders that determine the outcome of cases. It's pretty practical, really.)

Edit to add: There are plenty of perfectly fine reasons not to clerk, but the ones above are not them.

[ScottRiqui]

Wife had a fed clerkship and took the offer and backed out on judge after a few months much to the flame of the LS and professors because recommendation from practicing attorneys was fed clerkship slots you in hiring committees for litigation and precludes you from a lot of prosecution jobs. But in general yes fed clerkships can black list you from some jobs because clerkships are bullshit and academic in nature. Clerkship experience is pretty worthless for the big boy world.

Wat?

This. I know tons of prosecutors who clerked. In the federal system, it's pretty much required.

(I also never get how people decide clerking is academic when you're writing orders that determine the outcome of cases. It's pretty practical, really.)

And if clerkships are "bullshit", "academic" and "worthless", why do firms generally give bonuses and seniority bumps to new associates coming off of a clerkship? If the clerkship didn't hold any value for the firm, they could just skip the bonus and make the new hire a first-year associate.

[typ3]

It depends on the firm. As you get away from vault firms fed clerk means less. Also the bonuses for fed clerks was greater in previous decades than it is now. Because of lawyer glut the advantage of a fed clerk isn't what it once was.

To answer your question specifically, the reason firms wanted former fed clerks was because they could bill their work for more to clients, firms could bill more for prestige and for saying the legal copy pasta was done by a former fed clerk. Also previously there was a lack of attorneys and non employed former fed clerks (you can hire former fed clerks on the doc review circuit and eLance) that were burnouts pretty easily. Most clients have caught onto this and won't pay for the extra gold star. Plus the bump to starting isn't really an advantage considering you forfeited a year or two of income versus your graduating class peers for fed clerk salary. The bump is just to ring you in line with your peer group and it is an outdated vestige of the pre legal industry bubble crash that I'm sure will fix itself soon.

But, what corp do you hear is lining up to pay more for prestige ite other than the clients of the obvious white shoe firms (skadden etc)? I can't remember the article but look at bimodal client consolidation and rev growth occurring in V100 firms and consolidation. It's not that clerkships themselves can't be practical but a lot of them depending on the district say (flyover states) are largely academic and bullshit compared to corp firm work. Those aren't solely my words but those from a variety of hiring partners I've talked to about this. If you do fed clerk you're basically slotted by the hiring committee to be lit and only lit which can pigeonhole you for hiring. TLDR: fed clerk is a boost if you want to lit, can hurt you if you want transactional or patent prosecution etc. because your w/e isn't relevant other than having more lawl prestige.

[A. Nony Mouse]

But that's not really what you originally said at all.

I agree that clerking isn't helpful for transactional work, which a lot of people on this site have also acknowledged (which was what my edit was getting at). As for flyover clerking, I'd argue it's much less academic than the elite clerkships. There's very little academic about ruling on motions for summary judgment by some local government being sued by a former employee, or preparing jury instructions for a drug trafficking trial. It's true that's not relevant to corporate work, but that doesn't make it academic, either.

[typ3]

But that's not really what you originally said at all.

I agree that clerking isn't helpful for transactional work, which a lot of people on this site have also acknowledged (which was what my edit was getting at). As for flyover clerking, I'd argue it's much less academic than the elite clerkships. There's very little academic about ruling on motions for summary judgment by some local government being sued by a former employee, or preparing jury instructions for a drug trafficking trial. It's true that's not relevant to corporate work, but that doesn't make it academic, either.

Ok sure but what big firms care about hiring the federal clerk for Montana fed district court? Even if those clerkships are more practical the experience and relationships aren't portable to major market firms which is the problem with clerkships is that not all clerkships are created equal. Fed clerk in LA/NYC/DC/any major metro you're ok. Clerk in bumblef$&k flyover and it doesn't help you much of at all for a law firm in a decent sized market.

Also regarding my original post, clerking doesn't matter at all once you do get hired on and can limit you from moving out of litigation should you ever want to. People are still making the common error of thinking that legal experience and skills with writing briefs etc is that important in the big boy world of law which revolves around social connections, rainmaking , and developing soft business skills that the overwhelming majority of law school students lack.

[ScottRiqui]

I think we're talking about two different things. It's possible for clerkships to hold value for the firm, as evidenced by the fact that many are still paying bonuses and giving seniority bumps, especially the larger firms in the larger markets. But it can be simultaneously true that clerkships don't hold much value for the lawyer (lower salary while clerking, losing a year of firm experience, clerking not translating well to the skills you'll need as a more-senior lawyer, etc).

So going back to the OP, I guess it depends on what you mean by "competitive", and what stage of your career you're in, but he(?) seems to be talking about getting hired at a firm immediately post-clerkship, and not about being competitive for partnership or for a cushy lateral move later on.

[A. Nony Mouse]

But that's not really what you originally said at all.

I agree that clerking isn't helpful for transactional work, which a lot of people on this site have also acknowledged (which was what my edit was getting at). As for flyover clerking, I'd argue it's much less academic than the elite clerkships. There's very little academic about ruling on motions for summary judgment by some local government being sued by a former employee, or preparing jury instructions for a drug trafficking trial. It's true that's not relevant to corporate work, but that doesn't make it academic, either.

Ok sure but what big firms care about hiring the federal clerk for Montana fed district court? Even if those clerkships are more practical the experience and relationships aren't portable to major market firms which is the problem with clerkships is that not all clerkships are created equal. Fed clerk in LA/NYC/DC/any major metro you're ok. Clerk in bumblef$&k flyover and it doesn't help you much of at all for a law firm in a decent sized market.

Also regarding my original post, clerking doesn't matter at all once you do get hired on and can limit you from moving out of litigation should you ever want to. People are still making the common error of thinking that legal experience and skills with writing briefs etc is that important in the big boy world of law which revolves around social connections, rainmaking , and developing soft business skills that the overwhelming majority of law school students lack.

So now the problem with clerkships is that they're not all created equal? I thought it was that they were academic bullshit.

I think if you start in litigation you're not going to have a great shot at moving out of it whether you clerked or not, but then, some of us actually want to work in litigation. And I think you have a fairly narrow view of law jobs, but that's fine. (The original point of the thread was that someone clerking in a major market was having a hard time getting hired post-clerkship, at all, not that s/he was having a hard time switching from lit to corp or getting into the big boy world of law, which is the stupidest fucking thing I've heard it called in a long time.)

[run26.2]

People are still making the common error of thinking that legal experience and skills with writing briefs etc is that important in the big boy world of law which revolves around social connections, rainmaking , and developing soft business skills that the overwhelming majority of law school students lack.

This is a very simplistic view of things, and misleading, if not flat-out wrong. In my experience, most rainmakers are very good lawyers. They have excellent legal skills and can write a court document, if they need to. Maybe they're distanced from it some because they can delegate the work to juniors. But it's not like they bypassed those parts of the legal industry requiring those skills because they were good at making social connections.

[ClerkAdvisor]

But that's not really what you originally said at all.

I agree that clerking isn't helpful for transactional work, which a lot of people on this site have also acknowledged (which was what my edit was getting at). As for flyover clerking, I'd argue it's much less academic than the elite clerkships. There's very little academic about ruling on motions for summary judgment by some local government being sued by a former employee, or preparing jury instructions for a drug trafficking trial. It's true that's not relevant to corporate work, but that doesn't make it academic, either.

Ok sure but what big firms care about hiring the federal clerk for Montana fed district court? Even if those clerkships are more practical the experience and relationships aren't portable to major market firms which is the problem with clerkships is that not all clerkships are created equal. Fed clerk in LA/NYC/DC/any major metro you're ok. Clerk in bumblef$&k flyover and it doesn't help you much of at all for a law firm in a decent sized market.

Also regarding my original post, clerking doesn't matter at all once you do get hired on and can limit you from moving out of litigation should you ever want to. People are still making the common error of thinking that legal experience and skills with writing briefs etc is that important in the big boy world of law which revolves around social connections, rainmaking , and developing soft business skills that the overwhelming majority of law school students lack.

I think you undervalue the importance of being a good lawyer in addition to soft skills. Plus, aren't you a 3L who's going in house directly after law school?

[ClerkAdvisor]

Wife had a fed clerkship and took the offer and backed out on judge after a few months much to the flame of the LS and professors because recommendation from practicing attorneys was fed clerkship slots you in hiring committees for litigation and precludes you from a lot of prosecution jobs. But in general yes fed clerkships can black list you from some jobs because clerkships are bullshit and academic in nature. Clerkship experience is pretty worthless for the big boy world.

Very few clerkships are "academic in nature." And, of course clerkships make it more likely that you will do lit... and there's not much point in doing a clerkship unless you want to do lit. And, it's pretty clear that you don't understand that every post-law school job slots you into particular career paths. If you go to a firm and do lit for 5 years, then it will be hard to get non-lit jobs because you are a lit expert. Likewise, if you go do capital markets work for 5 years, not many people will want to hire you for lit, because you would be a novice.

Look, clerkships aren't for everyone, and some are better than others. But, it surprises me when 3Ls want to make blanket statements like "clerkships are bullshit and academic in nature" and "clerkship experience is pretty worthless for the big boy world."

[typ3]

But that's not really what you originally said at all.

I agree that clerking isn't helpful for transactional work, which a lot of people on this site have also acknowledged (which was what my edit was getting at). As for flyover clerking, I'd argue it's much less academic than the elite clerkships. There's very little academic about ruling on motions for summary judgment by some local government being sued by a former employee, or preparing jury instructions for a drug trafficking trial. It's true that's not relevant to corporate work, but that doesn't make it academic, either.

Ok sure but what big firms care about hiring the federal clerk for Montana fed district court? Even if those clerkships are more practical the experience and relationships aren't portable to major market firms which is the problem with clerkships is that not all clerkships are created equal. Fed clerk in LA/NYC/DC/any major metro you're ok. Clerk in bumblef$&k flyover and it doesn't help you much of at all for a law firm in a decent sized market.

Also regarding my original post, clerking doesn't matter at all once you do get hired on and can limit you from moving out of litigation should you ever want to. People are still making the common error of thinking that legal experience and skills with writing briefs etc is that important in the big boy world of law which revolves around social connections, rainmaking , and developing soft business skills that the overwhelming majority of law school students lack.

I think you undervalue the importance of being a good lawyer in addition to soft skills. Plus, aren't you a 3L who's going in house directly after law school?

Yep 4th gen lawyer though. Never said that legal skills + soft skills don't matter but that clerkship isn't that big of a boost and to answer OP can make getting hired harder in a market where there are too many lawyers and not enough work. Legal skills are easy to acquire, work is not.

[09042014]

Wife had a fed clerkship and took the offer and backed out on judge after a few months much to the flame of the LS and professors because recommendation from practicing attorneys was fed clerkship slots you in hiring committees for litigation and precludes you from a lot of prosecution jobs. But in general yes fed clerkships can black list you from some jobs because clerkships are bullshit and academic in nature. Clerkship experience is pretty worthless for the big boy world.

Wat?

This. I know tons of prosecutors who clerked. In the federal system, it's pretty much required.

(I also never get how people decide clerking is academic when you're writing orders that determine the outcome of cases. It's pretty practical, really.)

And if clerkships are "bullshit", "academic" and "worthless", why do firms generally give bonuses and seniority bumps to new associates coming off of a clerkship? If the clerkship didn't hold any value for the firm, they could just skip the bonus and make the new hire a first-year associate.

There is no incentive to making them a first year. The more they make in billing rates makes it worth the modest increase in salary.

As to the bonus, it's a vestige of glory days when firms were fighting anyone with a t14 on their resume. Just like salaries haven't fallen despite the fact they could easily fill classes at 100k or even less.

I don't know enough to say whether firms value or don't value clerkships, but the bonus and year of seniority doesn't mean shit.

[09042014]

What about being a clerk really improves your legal skills? I'm curious. The people I know who clerk seem to write pretty sparsely compared to what I'd imagine. Also, wouldn't this depend on how good your Judge is at teaching good writing?

[IAFG]

Also some firms have been pressuring hires to come in at lower class years. I know a couple of people who have had to do it (one at a V10).

[run26.2]

So you're saying they don't necessarily have to come in at the lower year?

I also have seen this happen, but my impression was it occurred because that class year was deferred. In other words, it wasn't optional.

It may not be the worst thing to come in at the lower year. You get extra shelf life, so to speak. And to the extent you actually acquire some relevant skills during the clerkship, you probably have a better chance for promotion to partner or counsel, or to be able to lateral later on.

[ScottRiqui]

There is no incentive to making them a first year. The more they make in billing rates makes it worth the modest increase in salary.

Hadn't considered that at all. TYFT.

[rpupkin]

What about being a clerk really improves your legal skills?

Many things, but I'd say the main one is getting a sense for how to present an argument in a way that will persuade a judge. You also get a birds-eye view of litigation that is tougher to get in practice.

I'm curious. The people I know who clerk seem to write pretty sparsely compared to what I'd imagine.

Why did you imagine that the former clerks wouldn't write sparsely? Direct and succinct is almost always better. The judges (and their clerks) are busy and generally don't have a lot of time to read long and complicated arguments.

[XxSpyKEx]

What about being a clerk really improves your legal skills? I'm curious.

In addition to what rpupkin said, I think it can really improve your writing (at least at a CoA). At the appellate level, so much scrutiny goes into practically every single word that's used and to make sure that what you're saying couldn't be interpreted to mean something that you didn't intend it to mean. When I was clerking, it seemed like pretty much everything got quoted to support argument, including dicta footnotes, and if something could be interpreted in a way that the authoring judge didn't intend, it probably will be. In my experience, actually practicing is a lot looser (i.e. whoever your boss is on a case probably isn't going to be nearly as rigorous with every single document filed as if it were a published decision).

Also, you get mad bluebook skills (the judges at my court were very picky about following bluebook rules to the T with published decisions), which you'll probably never need when actually practicing (at least not to that extent--I'm not sure that my office even has a bluebook lol).

[Anonymous User]

What about being a clerk really improves your legal skills? I'm curious. The people I know who clerk seem to write pretty sparsely compared to what I'd imagine. Also, wouldn't this depend on how good your Judge is at teaching good writing?

Clerk in a district court here. I write 2-4 substantive orders a week (not including scheduling orders, pretrial orders, etc.). Probably half of those orders are on dispositive motions. The upshot of this is that I'm exposed to a lot of different substantive areas (both federal and state law - we get a lot of diversity cases), read a lot of briefs, and write a lot. I don't know that the judge scrutinizes every single word or citation in the same way the COA poster describes, but the judge is a critical reader and won't sign his/her name to anything he/she thinks is not up to snuff.

I also work on trials sometimes, and you get a lot of experience with the nitty-gritty parts of litigation that way. You see the aftermath of discovery fights, deal with evidentiary motions, see what goes into drafting jury instructions, and get a sense of what works and what doesn't work at trial.

The long and short of it is that there's a lot of learning by osmosis, and the ratio of substantive work to boring, mindless work is very high. Not saying that everything you work on in a district court is intellectually challenging or interesting (e.g. Social Security, habeas, FDCPA, etc.), but a lot of it is really stimulating, and even the stuff that isn't helps you become a better lawyer.

[englawyer]

What about being a clerk really improves your legal skills? I'm curious. The people I know who clerk seem to write pretty sparsely compared to what I'd imagine. Also, wouldn't this depend on how good your Judge is at teaching good writing?

Clerk in a district court here. I write 2-4 substantive orders a week (not including scheduling orders, pretrial orders, etc.). Probably half of those orders are on dispositive motions. The upshot of this is that I'm exposed to a lot of different substantive areas (both federal and state law - we get a lot of diversity cases), read a lot of briefs, and write a lot. I don't know that the judge scrutinizes every single word or citation in the same way the COA poster describes, but the judge is a critical reader and won't sign his/her name to anything he/she thinks is not up to snuff.

I also work on trials sometimes, and you get a lot of experience with the nitty-gritty parts of litigation that way. You see the aftermath of discovery fights, deal with evidentiary motions, see what goes into drafting jury instructions, and get a sense of what works and what doesn't work at trial.

The long and short of it is that there's a lot of learning by osmosis, and the ratio of substantive work to boring, mindless work is very high. Not saying that everything you work on in a district court is intellectually challenging or interesting (e.g. Social Security, habeas, FDCPA, etc.), but a lot of it is really stimulating, and even the stuff that isn't helps you become a better lawyer.

What I think is missing from this type of argument is that most of the litigation "bodies" in a big law firm do not need the skills listed here. Perhaps firms and clients are realizing that most of the lawyers they hire need different skills than the ones obtained in a traditional clerkship. Thus, it might be better to just use a cheaper straight-through law school grad who may be more willing to "get their hands dirty" in the more boring aspects of litigation. Of course there is some need for traditional clerkship skills in Appellate Work, Brief Writing, and Oral Argument, but those aspects of litigation are a relatively small part of biglaw practice and thus less bodies are required (could make it harder for clerks to get offers).

It seems that the vast majority of billable hours focus on discovery: document collection, document review, document production, negotiating the scope of discovery, discovery correspondence, depo prep, taking/second chair depos, etc. The key to winning in modern biglaw litigation is properly handling the ever-increasing "Big Data" of corporate email accounts and documents: both your client's files and the opposition's files. How do you find the 20 key documents to ask about in a deposition or cite to in a MSJ, out of the literally millions of candidates? And as much as we would like to pretend that our legal argumentative skills are the key to victory, it is more likely that fact-finders, clients, and opposing counsel will be persuaded by the hard evidence rather than a clever distinction of an unfavorable on-point case. Perhaps in the good old days before email, there were fewer documents available and thus legal argument was more important. Now, it seems more about the facts, and specifically finding needles in haystacks. Biglaw litigators need to identify the key evidence that would be used in the "fun" parts of brief writing or trial, even though most cases will never reach the fun parts because the parties will be able to somewhat accurately assess their chances based on how the discovery process went and will settle for an appropriate amount.

[legalese_retard]

What about being a clerk really improves your legal skills? I'm curious. The people I know who clerk seem to write pretty sparsely compared to what I'd imagine. Also, wouldn't this depend on how good your Judge is at teaching good writing?

This was recently posted on ATL:

I noted in an earlier column that law firms prefer relevant law-firm experience to clerkship experience. Thereafter, I received a letter from a partner from a major NYC firm who expressed the belief that, while this may be a current recruitment trend, the best litigators in his firm have all had the experience of being judicial law clerks. He asserted that junior attorneys should opt to be clerks whenever possible as this is a strong long-term career strategy.

1. I am a clerk in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the X Circuit. I was expecting that firms would come looking for clerks with this type of experience; however, this has not been the case. Have clerkships lost their appeal in the eyes of Biglaw firms?

No, clerkships have not lost their appeal to future employers; however, in a bad economy, few firms feel the need to woo clerks as they had done in the past. This credential will serve you well; however, you will need to approach the firms that are of interest to you. If you are not successful with a broad mailing campaign, use whatever contacts your judge has in his or her circuit.

http://abovethelaw.com/2014/05/anonymou ... ns-part-2/

[rayiner]

Also regarding my original post, clerking doesn't matter at all once you do get hired on and can limit you from moving out of litigation should you ever want to. People are still making the common error of thinking that legal experience and skills with writing briefs etc is that important in the big boy world of law which revolves around social connections, rainmaking , and developing soft business skills that the overwhelming majority of law school students lack.

The social aspect is important, but legal experience and skills still drives rainmaking at big law firms. Read Mark Hermann's ATL articles about how he hires and assigns work to outside counsel at his F500. Clients hire lawyers for their expertise and track record of delivering excellent work product. They will usually assign significant matters based on "beauty contests" in which firms pitch their credentials and experience and submit estimated budgets. Being recognized as an expert in a particular area is another way rainmakers bring in business.

And as a practical matter, partners were associates once, and as an associate you don't get to work on the important cases and be exposed to the clients unless you have a track record of producing excellent work. Because whether or not the partner is golf buddies with the client, he's still on the hook to produce excellent work product.

Of course, I wouldn't say that clerking has anything to do with the quality of your work product or your legal skills.