Biggest signing bonus for senior judicial clerk? Forum

[Joachim2017]

A lot of these takes seem like they are coming from people who do not write briefs for a living in Big Law. I'm not a SCOTUS clerk but have worked with a few at more than one firm. Here are a few things that are true (and that some folks in this thread apparently have no real knowledge of, based on their dumb takes):

1 -- SCOTUS clerks don't get staffed on cases where the client is a hedge fund, of all things (lol?) unless it's an appeal or a dispositive motion. When it is one of those two things, then:

2 -- When hard, complex cases are at dispositive-motion briefing or appellate briefing stage, it *absolutely* adds value to have a SCOTUS clerk on the team. If you think just any law school graduate or even a grad+COA clerk can fire up Westlaw, find some cases, write a brief, and persuade a judge, you haven't been working on sophisticated matters. There's strategy, nuance, restraint, creativity, and a true mastery of caselaw+persuasive technical writing+analysis required. People with SCOTUS-level training bring insight and ability that you can't easily get elsewhere (doubly true when the matters involve gov agencies). Firms know this, and if clients are skeptical, firms will take the steps necessary (haircuts, discounts, reshuffling staffing) to manage things.

3 -- Even if the SCOTUS clerk leaves in 12-24 months after a $450k bonus vests, it can be worth it to the firm in what's called -- shocking, I know -- the long-term. Having a SCOTUS clerk adds credibility, prestige, and visibility when trying to get the type of litigation work that can then bolster your *entire* litigation practice. The loss-leader appellate work can help attain the profit-generating commercial discovery-heavy work. These things aren't one-and-dones. You think law firm leaders can't calculate their own P&Ls? That firms that consistently hire SCOTUS clerks (not just Jones Day) somehow overlook this and just throw away money? Get real.

4 -- It's way more than just a gold star or checkbox for the clerk him/herself. The poster who notes that losing Big Law salary for the 3 years clerking is just breaking even with the $450k bonus is not taking into account the paths opened up (government, academia, senior-level private law etc.) to SCOTUS clerks. I know SCOTUS clerks who did 2 years in Big Law and now are at OLC, or DOJ, in mid-level positions. You can't get that with just a COA clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

So. Someone who thinks a hedge fund is a) hiring for appellate work b) scrutinizing the bill, let alone c) checking up exactly when you joined the firm is saying that I don't know how law firm billings work. Ok then.

many in-house legal depts require you to submit a SOW with rates per biller. no one cares if the partners are pricey but if a $1500/hr associate shows up they’re going to ask why.

Bit of a motte and bailey argument. Or maybe it's a straw man? Doesn't matter.

Plenty of associates are now billing at 1000-1200 and no one bats an eye. Maybe a scotus clerk commands more, maybe not. I did my math based on 1000/hr for 1500 hours (assuming lots of pro bono so not 2000). I never claimed 1500/hr.

But that's just one point. I was responding to the weird claim that hedge funds will balk at paying for a scotus clerk at class year. For multiple reasons, that's not how any of this works and it's obvious that whoever made that claim is not reliable.

[Anonymous User]

4 -- It's way more than just a gold star or checkbox for the clerk him/herself. The poster who notes that losing Big Law salary for the 3 years clerking is just breaking even with the $450k bonus is not taking into account the paths opened up (government, academia, senior-level private law etc.) to SCOTUS clerks. I know SCOTUS clerks who did 2 years in Big Law and now are at OLC, or DOJ, in mid-level positions. You can't get that with just a COA clerkship.

That was me, and yes I realize all that. I was just saying the $450K is not that much of a financial reward given how much salary you bypass for multiple years. There are obviously other, non-monetary rewards (although i'll note that for government or academia, you are essentially saying 'take a lower paying, preftigious job early in your career, so that you can have the reward of a lower paying, preftigious job later in your career'.. though obviously those jobs appeal to many people for whatever reason. i'm also skeptical that people that get SCOTUS clerkships-- i.e., that are from top schools with top grades and top intellects-- wouldnt do just as well even without the SCOTUS clerkship; there are a lot of 'just COA' clerks in academia. although obviously yes, do a scotus clerkship if you can and want to).

FWIW, when i was in-house (for a major O&G company that did lots and lots of legal work), i dont think saying "we had scotus clerks" would have mattered that much to the in house decision makers. i doubt a lot of the in house decision makers knew what scotus clerk meant. but obviously firms think its worth it, and i'm all for lawyers getting huge bonuses, so you won't find me arguing against it.

[Anonymous User]

4 -- It's way more than just a gold star or checkbox for the clerk him/herself. The poster who notes that losing Big Law salary for the 3 years clerking is just breaking even with the $450k bonus is not taking into account the paths opened up (government, academia, senior-level private law etc.) to SCOTUS clerks. I know SCOTUS clerks who did 2 years in Big Law and now are at OLC, or DOJ, in mid-level positions. You can't get that with just a COA clerkship.

That was me, and yes I realize all that. I was just saying the $450K is not that much of a financial reward given how much salary you bypass for multiple years. There are obviously other, non-monetary rewards (although i'll note that for government or academia, you are essentially saying 'take a lower paying, preftigious job early in your career, so that you can have the reward of a lower paying, preftigious job later in your career'.. though obviously those jobs appeal to many people for whatever reason. i'm also skeptical that people that get SCOTUS clerkships-- i.e., that are from top schools with top grades and top intellects-- wouldnt do just as well even without the SCOTUS clerkship; there are a lot of 'just COA' clerks in academia. although obviously yes, do a scotus clerkship if you can and want to).

FWIW, when i was in-house (for a major O&G company that did lots and lots of legal work), i dont think saying "we had scotus clerks" would have mattered that much to the in house decision makers. i doubt a lot of the in house decision makers knew what scotus clerk meant. but obviously firms think its worth it, and i'm all for lawyers getting huge bonuses, so you won't find me arguing against it.

SCOTUS clerkships are no longer a major criterion for academia. Only two SCOTUS clerks were hired as tenure-track faculty this year, and they did well (CLS and GULC), but not exceptionally so, and still did fellowships and/or advanced degrees.

[Anonymous User]

FWIW, when i was in-house (for a major O&G company that did lots and lots of legal work), i dont think saying "we had scotus clerks" would have mattered that much to the in house decision makers. i doubt a lot of the in house decision makers knew what scotus clerk meant. but obviously firms think its worth it, and i'm all for lawyers getting huge bonuses, so you won't find me arguing against it.

I doubt O&G clients are the target for this. And you probably still cared about prestige of the firm. Not as it's own factor but it factors somewhat. As a marketing technique is it less valid than, idk, putting your name on the side of a building?

SCOTUS clerkships are no longer a major criterion for academia. Only two SCOTUS clerks were hired as tenure-track faculty this year, and they did well (CLS and GULC), but not exceptionally so, and still did fellowships and/or advanced degrees.

Eh idk I think a SCOTUS clerk could easily get an academic job and the clerkship probably helped get the fellowship. More likely explanation is that SCOTUS clerks have more political goals. Take the half mil from JD, then float back and forth between elite govt jobs and boutiques until you run for office or get appointed to the bench.

[LBJ's Hair]

2 -- When hard, complex cases are at dispositive-motion briefing or appellate briefing stage, it *absolutely* adds value to have a SCOTUS clerk on the team. If you think just any law school graduate or even a grad+COA clerk can fire up Westlaw, find some cases, write a brief, and persuade a judge, you haven't been working on sophisticated matters. There's strategy, nuance, restraint, creativity, and a true mastery of caselaw+persuasive technical writing+analysis required. People with SCOTUS-level training bring insight and ability that you can't easily get elsewhere (doubly true when the matters involve gov agencies). Firms know this, and if clients are skeptical, firms will take the steps necessary (haircuts, discounts, reshuffling staffing) to manage things.

""you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head . . . ." etc

[Anonymous User]

FWIW, when i was in-house (for a major O&G company that did lots and lots of legal work), i dont think saying "we had scotus clerks" would have mattered that much to the in house decision makers. i doubt a lot of the in house decision makers knew what scotus clerk meant. but obviously firms think its worth it, and i'm all for lawyers getting huge bonuses, so you won't find me arguing against it.

I doubt O&G clients are the target for this. And you probably still cared about prestige of the firm. Not as it's own factor but it factors somewhat. As a marketing technique is it less valid than, idk, putting your name on the side of a building?

Yeah, I agree, but I guess the point it comes to is, as this thread discussed before, "hedge funds are not the target for this," and also, "O&G clients are not the target for this" and etc. etc. and so its like, well, who is the target for this ? like honestly who does it move the needle for, that has money to make it matter, to have all these scotus clerks (honest question... i trust that it does for someone, i just dont know because I dont get out of my practice much)?

[Anonymous User]

FWIW, when i was in-house (for a major O&G company that did lots and lots of legal work), i dont think saying "we had scotus clerks" would have mattered that much to the in house decision makers. i doubt a lot of the in house decision makers knew what scotus clerk meant. but obviously firms think its worth it, and i'm all for lawyers getting huge bonuses, so you won't find me arguing against it.

I doubt O&G clients are the target for this. And you probably still cared about prestige of the firm. Not as it's own factor but it factors somewhat. As a marketing technique is it less valid than, idk, putting your name on the side of a building?

SCOTUS clerkships are no longer a major criterion for academia. Only two SCOTUS clerks were hired as tenure-track faculty this year, and they did well (CLS and GULC), but not exceptionally so, and still did fellowships and/or advanced degrees.

Eh idk I think a SCOTUS clerk could easily get an academic job and the clerkship probably helped get the fellowship. More likely explanation is that SCOTUS clerks have more political goals. Take the half mil from JD, then float back and forth between elite govt jobs and boutiques until you run for office or get appointed to the bench.

I’d agree with this. I think too that academia tends to be more appealing to the left than to the right, and people regularly point out that there are fewer options for liberal clerks these days. So I agree it may be more that SCOTUS clerks have other goals rather than that the gig no longer carries any weight in academic hiring. I agree with the first anon to the extent that I don’t know that SCOTUS would make up for something like not having published at all, but only 2 SCOTUS clerks getting tt positions doesn’t say much about whether it’s still valued without knowing how many SCOTUS clerks were even on the academic market.

(Also, I would absolutely say that
candidates who got tenure track jobs at Columbia and Georgetown did much more than well. If you want to reserve “exceptionally well” only for those people who get hired at HYS, go for it, but doing well is getting a tenure track job at all. Getting hired at Columbia or Georgetown is a significant accomplishment.)

[Anonymous User]

In ye olden days, SCOTUS clerkships were the biggest pipeline to legal academia, and that's not even close to true nowadays. It's surely still a leg up on the path to a TT job, but clerkships in general now matter less in legal academia than they ever have before. I didn't mean to suggest that it doesn't help at all.

[Anonymous User]

FWIW, when i was in-house (for a major O&G company that did lots and lots of legal work), i dont think saying "we had scotus clerks" would have mattered that much to the in house decision makers. i doubt a lot of the in house decision makers knew what scotus clerk meant. but obviously firms think its worth it, and i'm all for lawyers getting huge bonuses, so you won't find me arguing against it.

I doubt O&G clients are the target for this. And you probably still cared about prestige of the firm. Not as it's own factor but it factors somewhat. As a marketing technique is it less valid than, idk, putting your name on the side of a building?

Yeah, I agree, but I guess the point it comes to is, as this thread discussed before, "hedge funds are not the target for this," and also, "O&G clients are not the target for this" and etc. etc. and so its like, well, who is the target for this ? like honestly who does it move the needle for, that has money to make it matter, to have all these scotus clerks (honest question... i trust that it does for someone, i just dont know because I dont get out of my practice much)?

Anon for obvious reasons. I know for a fact that at least one major financial institution (think Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup) has communicated a preference for staffing SCOTUS clerk associates to a V15 firm they regularly work with. I bet other sophisticated clients do the same. (No idea if this includes hedge funds, I have no experience with them.)

[Anonymous User]

FWIW, when i was in-house (for a major O&G company that did lots and lots of legal work), i dont think saying "we had scotus clerks" would have mattered that much to the in house decision makers. i doubt a lot of the in house decision makers knew what scotus clerk meant. but obviously firms think its worth it, and i'm all for lawyers getting huge bonuses, so you won't find me arguing against it.

I doubt O&G clients are the target for this. And you probably still cared about prestige of the firm. Not as it's own factor but it factors somewhat. As a marketing technique is it less valid than, idk, putting your name on the side of a building?

Yeah, I agree, but I guess the point it comes to is, as this thread discussed before, "hedge funds are not the target for this," and also, "O&G clients are not the target for this" and etc. etc. and so its like, well, who is the target for this ? like honestly who does it move the needle for, that has money to make it matter, to have all these scotus clerks (honest question... i trust that it does for someone, i just dont know because I dont get out of my practice much)?

Anon for obvious reasons. I know for a fact that at least one major financial institution (think Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup) has communicated a preference for staffing SCOTUS clerk associates to a V15 firm they regularly work with. I bet other sophisticated clients do the same. (No idea if this includes hedge funds, I have no experience with them.)

Similarly though, I know at least one megafund PE shop that expressed a preference not to have former clerks from the justices who wrote to overturn Roe on their matters any more, and that same client and another pushed a major law firm to take a strong stance on reproductive rights. I think conservative clerks in particular (the majority now of total clerks) are not going to be treated the same in that respect.

[Anonymous User]

FWIW, when i was in-house (for a major O&G company that did lots and lots of legal work), i dont think saying "we had scotus clerks" would have mattered that much to the in house decision makers. i doubt a lot of the in house decision makers knew what scotus clerk meant. but obviously firms think its worth it, and i'm all for lawyers getting huge bonuses, so you won't find me arguing against it.

I doubt O&G clients are the target for this. And you probably still cared about prestige of the firm. Not as it's own factor but it factors somewhat. As a marketing technique is it less valid than, idk, putting your name on the side of a building?

Yeah, I agree, but I guess the point it comes to is, as this thread discussed before, "hedge funds are not the target for this," and also, "O&G clients are not the target for this" and etc. etc. and so its like, well, who is the target for this ? like honestly who does it move the needle for, that has money to make it matter, to have all these scotus clerks (honest question... i trust that it does for someone, i just dont know because I dont get out of my practice much)?

Anon for obvious reasons. I know for a fact that at least one major financial institution (think Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup) has communicated a preference for staffing SCOTUS clerk associates to a V15 firm they regularly work with. I bet other sophisticated clients do the same. (No idea if this includes hedge funds, I have no experience with them.)

Similarly though, I know at least one megafund PE shop that expressed a preference not to have former clerks from the justices who wrote to overturn Roe on their matters any more, and that same client and another pushed a major law firm to take a strong stance on reproductive rights. I think conservative clerks in particular (the majority now of total clerks) are not going to be treated the same in that respect.

Maybe in the implausible situation where someone who was like a SCOTUS clerk for Alito and the firm is like hey don't worry X is on it, he clerked for the Supreme Court Justice named Samuel Alito and is very successful some clients may be like ew gross, but you're out of mind if you think an in house counsel is going to comb through associates in a matter and strike someone for clerking for like Elizabeth Branch.

[Anonymous User]

FWIW, when i was in-house (for a major O&G company that did lots and lots of legal work), i dont think saying "we had scotus clerks" would have mattered that much to the in house decision makers. i doubt a lot of the in house decision makers knew what scotus clerk meant. but obviously firms think its worth it, and i'm all for lawyers getting huge bonuses, so you won't find me arguing against it.

I doubt O&G clients are the target for this. And you probably still cared about prestige of the firm. Not as it's own factor but it factors somewhat. As a marketing technique is it less valid than, idk, putting your name on the side of a building?

Yeah, I agree, but I guess the point it comes to is, as this thread discussed before, "hedge funds are not the target for this," and also, "O&G clients are not the target for this" and etc. etc. and so its like, well, who is the target for this ? like honestly who does it move the needle for, that has money to make it matter, to have all these scotus clerks (honest question... i trust that it does for someone, i just dont know because I dont get out of my practice much)?

Anon for obvious reasons. I know for a fact that at least one major financial institution (think Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup) has communicated a preference for staffing SCOTUS clerk associates to a V15 firm they regularly work with. I bet other sophisticated clients do the same. (No idea if this includes hedge funds, I have no experience with them.)

Similarly though, I know at least one megafund PE shop that expressed a preference not to have former clerks from the justices who wrote to overturn Roe on their matters any more, and that same client and another pushed a major law firm to take a strong stance on reproductive rights. I think conservative clerks in particular (the majority now of total clerks) are not going to be treated the same in that respect.

Maybe in the implausible situation where someone who was like a SCOTUS clerk for Alito and the firm is like hey don't worry X is on it, he clerked for the Supreme Court Justice named Samuel Alito and is very successful some clients may be like ew gross, but you're out of mind if you think an in house counsel is going to comb through associates in a matter and strike someone for clerking for like Elizabeth Branch.

Even then, this situation seems like a massive stretch. I hesitate to speculate about motives, but I wonder if some of the posts in this thread are from (1) unsuccessful SCOTUS applicants disgruntled with the arbitrariness of the system or (2) progressives expressing understandable dismay with the composition of the current court. Anecdotes aside, the SCOTUS bonus just went up $50,000 over last year. That means firms are either irrational and misinformed, or they know things about the legal market the anonymous posters here do not.

[Anonymous User]

Even then, this situation seems like a massive stretch. I hesitate to speculate about motives, but I wonder if some of the posts in this thread are from (1) unsuccessful SCOTUS applicants disgruntled with the arbitrariness of the system or (2) progressives expressing understandable dismay with the composition of the current court. Anecdotes aside, the SCOTUS bonus just went up $50,000 over last year. That means firms are either irrational and misinformed, or they know things about the legal market the anonymous posters here do not.

A lot of this does sound like wishcasting and sour grapes. I understand why firms might want to stop throwing crazy amounts of money at SCOTUS clerks, but I can confirm that the only difficulty this year's class is having on the job market is trying to find time to fit in so many interviews.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

4 -- It's way more than just a gold star or checkbox for the clerk him/herself. The poster who notes that losing Big Law salary for the 3 years clerking is just breaking even with the $450k bonus is not taking into account the paths opened up (government, academia, senior-level private law etc.) to SCOTUS clerks. I know SCOTUS clerks who did 2 years in Big Law and now are at OLC, or DOJ, in mid-level positions. You can't get that with just a COA clerkship.

That was me, and yes I realize all that. I was just saying the $450K is not that much of a financial reward given how much salary you bypass for multiple years. There are obviously other, non-monetary rewards (although i'll note that for government or academia, you are essentially saying 'take a lower paying, preftigious job early in your career, so that you can have the reward of a lower paying, preftigious job later in your career'.. though obviously those jobs appeal to many people for whatever reason. i'm also skeptical that people that get SCOTUS clerkships-- i.e., that are from top schools with top grades and top intellects-- wouldnt do just as well even without the SCOTUS clerkship; there are a lot of 'just COA' clerks in academia. although obviously yes, do a scotus clerkship if you can and want to).

FWIW, when i was in-house (for a major O&G company that did lots and lots of legal work), i dont think saying "we had scotus clerks" would have mattered that much to the in house decision makers. i doubt a lot of the in house decision makers knew what scotus clerk meant. but obviously firms think its worth it, and i'm all for lawyers getting huge bonuses, so you won't find me arguing against it.

I ran the numbers on all possible clerkship outcomes a couple years ago when I was applying to them (single clerkship, double clerkship, single clerkship then SCOTUS, double clerkship then SCOTUS) with each clerkship either getting the standard $50k or the $100k that some boutiques pay for COA. For SCOTUS, I assumed a signing bonus of $450k. For clerkship salaries, I ran it in high COL cities to make sure I wasn’t undercounting that adjustment.

In all possible scenarios, clerking was a net financial loss as compared to the potential BigLaw income during those same years (even after the bonus), except one: doing SCOTUS after a single clerkship, which put you very slightly ahead. Doing SCOTUS after two lower clerkships was a loss.

However, when I ran these numbers we were still on the $190k scale. I haven’t re-ran the math on the current $215k scale, but I’m pretty sure the outcomes are way worse for clerking now, including single clerkship > SCOTUS.


Of course, as others have pointed out there are all sorts of non-monetary benefits so I’m not saying you shouldn’t do SCOTUS, or that I wouldn’t have done it given the chance. I will say that many of the doors that open seem to be fancy or cool, but not necessarily big money makers. Yeah you could go scotus > BigLaw > OLC/whatever > important political position > BigLaw partner or something. But that’s a lot of years during which you could just try to make partner normally, while collecting a much higher salary.

[Anonymous User]

FWIW, when i was in-house (for a major O&G company that did lots and lots of legal work), i dont think saying "we had scotus clerks" would have mattered that much to the in house decision makers. i doubt a lot of the in house decision makers knew what scotus clerk meant. but obviously firms think its worth it, and i'm all for lawyers getting huge bonuses, so you won't find me arguing against it.

I doubt O&G clients are the target for this. And you probably still cared about prestige of the firm. Not as it's own factor but it factors somewhat. As a marketing technique is it less valid than, idk, putting your name on the side of a building?

Yeah, I agree, but I guess the point it comes to is, as this thread discussed before, "hedge funds are not the target for this," and also, "O&G clients are not the target for this" and etc. etc. and so its like, well, who is the target for this ? like honestly who does it move the needle for, that has money to make it matter, to have all these scotus clerks (honest question... i trust that it does for someone, i just dont know because I dont get out of my practice much)?

Anon for obvious reasons. I know for a fact that at least one major financial institution (think Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup) has communicated a preference for staffing SCOTUS clerk associates to a V15 firm they regularly work with. I bet other sophisticated clients do the same. (No idea if this includes hedge funds, I have no experience with them.)

Similarly though, I know at least one megafund PE shop that expressed a preference not to have former clerks from the justices who wrote to overturn Roe on their matters any more, and that same client and another pushed a major law firm to take a strong stance on reproductive rights. I think conservative clerks in particular (the majority now of total clerks) are not going to be treated the same in that respect.

if you guys are just going to make shit up try to do so like you’re not just posting on Reddit

[Anonymous User]

Very late-era TLS how the topic shifted to this pointless SCOTUS clerk debate and no one really answered OP's question.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. I'm rarer than a SCOTUS clerk. There are dozens of them every year.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. I'm rarer than a SCOTUS clerk. There are dozens of them every year.

There's literally only one of me but nobody is throwing money at me either.

[Anonymous User]

Very late-era TLS how the topic shifted to this pointless SCOTUS clerk debate and no one really answered OP's question.

The op’s question was essentially “I’m in an extremely unique situation that I can’t tell anyone about, what’s the highest bonus I can get?” It was more pointless than the “debate” that followed.

[Anonymous User]

Very late-era TLS how the topic shifted to this pointless SCOTUS clerk debate and no one really answered OP's question.

The op’s question was essentially “I’m in an extremely unique situation that I can’t tell anyone about, what’s the highest bonus I can get?” It was more pointless than the “debate” that followed.

Fair. Especially when they popped up after my comment to say they are more special than a SCOTUS clerk.....

[Anonymous User]

Very late-era TLS how the topic shifted to this pointless SCOTUS clerk debate and no one really answered OP's question.

The op’s question was essentially “I’m in an extremely unique situation that I can’t tell anyone about, what’s the highest bonus I can get?” It was more pointless than the “debate” that followed.

Agreed. Even calling this a "debate" is a stretch. Posters shared common knowledge (corroborated by independent news sources) that the current SCOTUS signing bonus is $450k. A couple posters thought this was too much money to spend / wanted to see conservative clerks punished for Dobbs. Fair enough, but the market apparently disagrees.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry but I must keep this vague. I am a senior associate who just finished a judicial clerkship that is very important in the field of law that I practice.

I really don’t know what this would refer to. A bankruptcy or tax clerk, maybe? But I’m still not sure why this means the OP would command more than market.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry but I must keep this vague. I am a senior associate who just finished a judicial clerkship that is very important in the field of law that I practice.

I really don’t know what this would refer to. A bankruptcy or tax clerk, maybe? But I’m still not sure why this means the OP would command more than market.

I was almost thinking ICJ/ICC clerk (or some similar international adjudicative body), or maybe some weird international arbitration clerk (are those a thing?). Those might actually be rarer than SCOTUS and more important in that specific world.