Clerking vs. law firm Forum

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

But if you're just going back to your old job, you're not getting any of that "this helps me change jobs" benefit from clerking, which seemed to be half the argument of waiting to clerk.

The real issue is that many people find working at a firm significantly different from their experience as a summer. That leads to the whole "My God, how soon can I lateral?" phenomenon.

If you work first, and you realize it's not like being a summer (in a bad way), then clerking can provide you with an opportunity to take a break and simultaneously make yourself look more attractive on the lateral market. But, you'll still have the security of being able to return to your old job if you don't like your lateral options.

By contrast, if you clerk first, you put off the whole "This is nothing like being a summer associate!" shock for a year. Sure, you can stick it out for 2 years after that and then lateral, but the point is you most likely "returned" from the clerkship to a job you knew nothing about (because many summers don't really get a feel for associate life). Effectively, you used the clerkship to further yourself into a position you don't really want (because you've never really held it before).

Maybe this is too fine a distinction, but when I was putting together apps, it was important to me. I didn't want to put off finding out what it was like to be a "real associate" before heading too far down that career path.

[Anonymous User]

That was my interpretation, as well, and it conforms, I think, to what I have seen in practice. It's easier to get into a clerkship coming off of a couple years experience, but it can be tougher coming out of the clerkship (depending on what the person in question wants to do). By contrast, it's tough to get into a clerkship straight from LS, but it can be easier to find work after (again, depending on the person and what they want to do).

These are broad strokes, of course, but that's what I've seen thus far.

Can you explain this? In my experience firms have always been supportive of someone who wants to clerk and they will keep your old job waiting for you. I'm not clear on how it's "easier to find work" straight out of school when you don't even need to look at all if you leave biglaw to clerk (because you can just go back to your old job).

To this point, most people going into clerkships straight out of law school already have an offer for biglaw, or have the credentials necessary to get it. Not all, certainly, but the vast majority. If they summered in biglaw, typically they also have a standing offer to return, so that essentially balances out.

But there are class issues at work here, if you're trying to use clerking to lateral. Most attorneys that are more attractive as laterals are more attractive because they have expertise, experience, a book of business, or all three in a certain practice area. That is why the sweet spot tends to be for midlevel associates, and not entry-level ones. If you work two years, you are still essentially entry level. Then you clerk for a year, remaining entry level for biglaw because you haven't spent that third year assuming more responsibility and getting more biglaw experience. So now, trying to lateral to another firm, you're trying to come in as a fourth year, with commensurate pay, with a second year's experience at best (it's also possible you lose out on the clerkship bonus this way, too, unless you're clerking for SCOTUS or something).

Additionally, there is a process in place, albeit a loose one, for hiring law clerks into entry level positions (bonus pay, class credit, timeline, etc.). Firms hire JD-clerkship applicants every year for their entering class. That all goes out the window if they are coming off non-negligible time in biglaw, because you aren't looking to fill your incoming class, you're looking to fill a specific job. There are some similar difficulties in government, though it depends entirely on what government job someone is trying to move into.

There are plenty of biglaw refugees who clerk, but typically it is best used as a transition out of biglaw, rather than a stepping stone into other biglaw. You'd be better served, if you want to jump firm to firm, by just lateraling as relevant positions open up.

Again, though, I'm just one person with anecdata. Take this all with a grain of salt.

[Anonymous User]

That was my interpretation, as well, and it conforms, I think, to what I have seen in practice. It's easier to get into a clerkship coming off of a couple years experience, but it can be tougher coming out of the clerkship (depending on what the person in question wants to do). By contrast, it's tough to get into a clerkship straight from LS, but it can be easier to find work after (again, depending on the person and what they want to do).

These are broad strokes, of course, but that's what I've seen thus far.

Can you explain this? In my experience firms have always been supportive of someone who wants to clerk and they will keep your old job waiting for you. I'm not clear on how it's "easier to find work" straight out of school when you don't even need to look at all if you leave biglaw to clerk (because you can just go back to your old job).

To this point, most people going into clerkships straight out of law school already have an offer for biglaw, or have the credentials necessary to get it. Not all, certainly, but the vast majority. If they summered in biglaw, typically they also have a standing offer to return, so that essentially balances out.

But there are class issues at work here, if you're trying to use clerking to lateral. Most attorneys that are more attractive as laterals are more attractive because they have expertise, experience, a book of business, or all three in a certain practice area. That is why the sweet spot tends to be for midlevel associates, and not entry-level ones. If you work two years, you are still essentially entry level. Then you clerk for a year, remaining entry level for biglaw because you haven't spent that third year assuming more responsibility and getting more biglaw experience. So now, trying to lateral to another firm, you're trying to come in as a fourth year, with commensurate pay, with a second year's experience at best (it's also possible you lose out on the clerkship bonus this way, too, unless you're clerking for SCOTUS or something).

Additionally, there is a process in place, albeit a loose one, for hiring law clerks into entry level positions (bonus pay, class credit, timeline, etc.). Firms hire JD-clerkship applicants every year for their entering class. That all goes out the window if they are coming off non-negligible time in biglaw, because you aren't looking to fill your incoming class, you're looking to fill a specific job. There are some similar difficulties in government, though it depends entirely on what government job someone is trying to move into.

There are plenty of biglaw refugees who clerk, but typically it is best used as a transition out of biglaw, rather than a stepping stone into other biglaw. You'd be better served, if you want to jump firm to firm, by just lateraling as relevant positions open up.

Again, though, I'm just one person with anecdata. Take this all with a grain of salt.

My sense is that this is more a problem in biglaw than with boutiques or government - mostly because "class year" means less in those two environments.

While I generally agree with the post, I also wanted to point out that there are LOTS of people in New York, LA, DC, and SF who have worked for 1 year and then clerked for two (either clerk->firm-> clerk or firm->clerk x2) because of the way judges hire in those cities. There are also a decent number of people who have clerked for 3 years (by virtue of having 1 2-year clerkship).

[Anonymous User]

That was my interpretation, as well, and it conforms, I think, to what I have seen in practice. It's easier to get into a clerkship coming off of a couple years experience, but it can be tougher coming out of the clerkship (depending on what the person in question wants to do). By contrast, it's tough to get into a clerkship straight from LS, but it can be easier to find work after (again, depending on the person and what they want to do).

These are broad strokes, of course, but that's what I've seen thus far.

Can you explain this? In my experience firms have always been supportive of someone who wants to clerk and they will keep your old job waiting for you. I'm not clear on how it's "easier to find work" straight out of school when you don't even need to look at all if you leave biglaw to clerk (because you can just go back to your old job).

To this point, most people going into clerkships straight out of law school already have an offer for biglaw, or have the credentials necessary to get it. Not all, certainly, but the vast majority. If they summered in biglaw, typically they also have a standing offer to return, so that essentially balances out.

But there are class issues at work here, if you're trying to use clerking to lateral. Most attorneys that are more attractive as laterals are more attractive because they have expertise, experience, a book of business, or all three in a certain practice area. That is why the sweet spot tends to be for midlevel associates, and not entry-level ones. If you work two years, you are still essentially entry level. Then you clerk for a year, remaining entry level for biglaw because you haven't spent that third year assuming more responsibility and getting more biglaw experience. So now, trying to lateral to another firm, you're trying to come in as a fourth year, with commensurate pay, with a second year's experience at best (it's also possible you lose out on the clerkship bonus this way, too, unless you're clerking for SCOTUS or something).

Additionally, there is a process in place, albeit a loose one, for hiring law clerks into entry level positions (bonus pay, class credit, timeline, etc.). Firms hire JD-clerkship applicants every year for their entering class. That all goes out the window if they are coming off non-negligible time in biglaw, because you aren't looking to fill your incoming class, you're looking to fill a specific job. There are some similar difficulties in government, though it depends entirely on what government job someone is trying to move into.

There are plenty of biglaw refugees who clerk, but typically it is best used as a transition out of biglaw, rather than a stepping stone into other biglaw. You'd be better served, if you want to jump firm to firm, by just lateraling as relevant positions open up.

Again, though, I'm just one person with anecdata. Take this all with a grain of salt.

My sense is that this is more a problem in biglaw than with boutiques or government - mostly because "class year" means less in those two environments.

While I generally agree with the post, I also wanted to point out that there are LOTS of people in New York, LA, DC, and SF who have worked for 1 year and then clerked for two (either clerk->firm-> clerk or firm->clerk x2) because of the way judges hire in those cities. There are also a decent number of people who have clerked for 3 years (by virtue of having 1 2-year clerkship).

bump for additional thoughts on this.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

In terms of "other thoughts" I generally disagree, but we're all probably just talking about anecdotes anyway, so none of this is universal or definitive.

First, the experience you get as a clerk matters a lot to firms. I can think of 3 offhand that bring in former clerks not at entry level but as second years. Also, the only firm I ever heard of that tried to deny a clerkship bonus was a regional midlaw firm.

In terms of transitioning, this experience can be huge. Look at it this way: someone with no IP lit experience clerks for a year and during the year writes 3 claim construction orders. That person now has very relevant experience that can open doors for them.

As for the whole "hasn't taken on responsibility as a third year" thing - that sounds like older advice that may not be super relevant anymore. As other posters have commented on in other threads, biglaw lit has changed and first years don't spend 80% of their time doing doc review anymore. The idea that missing 3rd year to clerk means you missed out on some huge experience booster seems more questionable now than it might have circa 2007.

Finally it's worth pointing out that some of our differences over this topic might also be regional - I'm in California and there can be something of a "Munger effect" in terms of how firms here tend to view clerkships; maybe it's different elsewhere in the country.

[nickelanddime]

In terms of "other thoughts" I generally disagree, but we're all probably just talking about anecdotes anyway, so none of this is universal or definitive.

First, the experience you get as a clerk matters a lot to firms. I can think of 3 offhand that bring in former clerks not at entry level but as second years. Also, the only firm I ever heard of that tried to deny a clerkship bonus was a regional midlaw firm.

In terms of transitioning, this experience can be huge. Look at it this way: someone with no IP lit experience clerks for a year and during the year writes 3 claim construction orders. That person now has very relevant experience that can open doors for them.

As for the whole "hasn't taken on responsibility as a third year" thing - that sounds like older advice that may not be super relevant anymore. As other posters have commented on in other threads, biglaw lit has changed and first years don't spend 80% of their time doing doc review anymore. The idea that missing 3rd year to clerk means you missed out on some huge experience booster seems more questionable now than it might have circa 2007.

Finally it's worth pointing out that some of our differences over this topic might also be regional - I'm in California and there can be something of a "Munger effect" in terms of how firms here tend to view clerkships; maybe it's different elsewhere in the country.

Part of the issue is just the availability of positions. Even the most selective summer programs in the country probably have 5-6 spots - even if you're clerking for 2 years following graduation, you're still competing for one of 5-6 spots at the point of application (OCI). However, when you're lateraling as a 4th year, you may find your options much more limited as not all firms will be looking for even a single 4th year lit associate, and those that are searching might be looking for a very specific set of qualifications. That's not to say clerking itself limits your options - just that it probably is easier to get hired out of OCI than out of a clerkship.

[bk1]

bump for additional thoughts on this.

Personally I would not want to be looking for 4th year biglaw positions without a single year of biglaw experience. People who clerk too much often end up struggling to find jobs.

[Anonymous User]

bump for additional thoughts on this.

Personally I would not want to be looking for 4th year biglaw positions without a single year of biglaw experience. People who clerk too much often end up struggling to find jobs.

I mean, generally we're talking about 2 years of clerking (district + COA), which lots of people do, and which lots of people do in major markets after 1 or 2 years of biglaw. I agree that it might be tough to sell yourself as a biglaw 4th year. But I think you'll still have biglaw + other private practice options. I don't really have any intuition as to whether these options are more or less available to people that either didn't clerk, or worked in biglaw for a year after clerking.

[Anonymous User]

Relevant to this discussion, although I'm not entirely sure what to take away from it. Posters seem split between thinking the OP is trolling and thinking it's obvious that he's a bad biglaw candidate:

http://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id ... forum_id=2