Will it significantly harm my career if I don't clerk? Forum

[Anonymous User]

At a T25. What's funny is that it seems like the students at my school who had the best shot at clerkships and ended up getting one already/are getting interviews were the ones like you: generally good students and/or with good personalities and CV, and who came in with NO interest at all in clerking and just wanted to start their big law or big fed job. For some reason these students were hounded by either a certain professor or judge telling them that they had to clerk, or were somehow discovered by the clerkship committee and in a way pressured to apply. I don't know if these professors enjoyed the chase/challenge of making these students interested in clerking, but it was insane the lengths they would go to. I know it made the Fed Soc/ACS students who were gunning for clerkships from day 1 furious.

Sounds like Notre Dame.

how so

Because I went there and this describes my experience exactly. The faculty is very aggressive about identifying students they see as clerkship material and pushing them to do it, whether they expressed any interest in it or not.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Clerking is way overhyped by law schools bc of the benefit to the institution: they get 3 times the value for 1) % of graduates employed at graduation 2) % of graduates who clerked and 3) developing (or further solidifying) a relationship with a sitting judge. This is not to say don’t clerk—it can be a great move—but go into it with eyes wide open.

[Anonymous User]

Agree that as District Ct. clerking is flame pushed by lawprofs on idiotic litigator-aspirants.

Clerking is complete flame for any transactional specialty, other than M&A and only if that clerkship is Del Ct Ch

[jotarokujo]

Agree that as District Ct. clerking is flame pushed by lawprofs on idiotic litigator-aspirants.

how so? most litigator aspirants don't want to stay in biglaw forever, and a district court clerkship is pretty helpful resume line when exiting

[Anonymous User]

Agree that as District Ct. clerking is flame pushed by lawprofs on idiotic litigator-aspirants.

Clerking is complete flame for any transactional specialty, other than M&A and only if that clerkship is Del Ct Ch

This post reeks of bitterness

[jotarokujo]

Agree that as District Ct. clerking is flame pushed by lawprofs on idiotic litigator-aspirants.

Clerking is complete flame for any transactional specialty, other than M&A and only if that clerkship is Del Ct Ch

This post reeks of bitterness

i think the weird part is specifically saying district court is flame when all other federal clerkships also suffer from the three incentives that law schools have in pushing them

[Anonymous User]

The economic earning power-value and portability of a feeder COA or SCOTUS clerkship so greatly outweighs that of a DCt clerkship and requires the same quantum of opportunity cost.

[nixy]

The economic earning power-value and portability of a feeder COA or SCOTUS clerkship so greatly outweighs that of a DCt clerkship and requires the same quantum of opportunity cost.

But there are also people who aren’t competitive for COAs (let alone SCOTUS) who have to weigh the value of a DCt clerkship, for whom the DCt adds more value than it will for the elite COA/SCOTUS clerks.

[Anonymous User]

The economic earning power-value and portability of a feeder COA or SCOTUS clerkship so greatly outweighs that of a DCt clerkship and requires the same quantum of opportunity cost.

Are you implying that unless you get a feeder/SCOTUS that it’s not worth “the same quantum of opportunity cost”? That’s absurd.

[lavarman84]

At a T25. What's funny is that it seems like the students at my school who had the best shot at clerkships and ended up getting one already/are getting interviews were the ones like you: generally good students and/or with good personalities and CV, and who came in with NO interest at all in clerking and just wanted to start their big law or big fed job. For some reason these students were hounded by either a certain professor or judge telling them that they had to clerk, or were somehow discovered by the clerkship committee and in a way pressured to apply. I don't know if these professors enjoyed the chase/challenge of making these students interested in clerking, but it was insane the lengths they would go to. I know it made the Fed Soc/ACS students who were gunning for clerkships from day 1 furious.

Yeah the profs are right. At a T25, the marginal value of a clerkship for your career as a litigator are very large. It’s one of the few resume signals that can make up for not going to a T14 (and then some), and elite litigation is v resume-conscious.

This is accurate. I'm glad some professors pulled me aside and talked me into clerking.

[jotarokujo]

The economic earning power-value and portability of a feeder COA or SCOTUS clerkship so greatly outweighs that of a DCt clerkship and requires the same quantum of opportunity cost.

Are you implying that unless you get a feeder/SCOTUS that it’s not worth “the same quantum of opportunity cost”? That’s absurd.

yeah that's what they're saying. seems wrong because plenty of jobs value 1 year of non-feeder coa, district, or magistrate more than 1 year of practice

[Anonymous User]

The economic earning power-value and portability of a feeder COA or SCOTUS clerkship so greatly outweighs that of a DCt clerkship and requires the same quantum of opportunity cost.

Is economic earning power and the portability of a feeder COA this significant? You see the payoff immediately for SCOTUS clerks but what’s the value of the Feeder COA for the clerk who misses out on SCOTUS? Is it really significantly above the standard Fed district court clerk?

[Anonymous User]

The economic earning power-value and portability of a feeder COA or SCOTUS clerkship so greatly outweighs that of a DCt clerkship and requires the same quantum of opportunity cost.

Is economic earning power and the portability of a feeder COA this significant? You see the payoff immediately for SCOTUS clerks but what’s the value of the Feeder COA for the clerk who misses out on SCOTUS? Is it really significantly above the standard Fed district court clerk?

If the feeder COA feeds you to SCOTUS, that's the value.

[Anonymous User]

The economic earning power-value and portability of a feeder COA or SCOTUS clerkship so greatly outweighs that of a DCt clerkship and requires the same quantum of opportunity cost.

Is economic earning power and the portability of a feeder COA this significant? You see the payoff immediately for SCOTUS clerks but what’s the value of the Feeder COA for the clerk who misses out on SCOTUS? Is it really significantly above the standard Fed district court clerk?

If the feeder COA feeds you to SCOTUS, that's the value.

Obviously, but is there still some special value if that doesn’t happen?

[jotarokujo]

Obviously, but is there still some special value if that doesn’t happen?

right that's the question because feeder CoA and scotus were broken out in the original statement

[nixy]

I mean even if a feeder doesn’t get you to SCOTUS, that’s a powerful and well-connected judge who will presumably support you in future. That’s valuable apart from whether the appellate work itself or the extra prestige signal over a DCt is actually useful to you.

[Anonymous User]

Obviously, but is there still some special value if that doesn’t happen?

right that's the question because feeder CoA and scotus were broken out in the original statement

Feeder COA should have been understood to have been broken out from COA in that statement. In general there is no inherently greater value in COA Feeder clerkship that doesn't feed you to SCOTUS than any other COA clerkship. Small exceptions persist (would be for a securities litigation lawyer interested in a firm career who clerked in 2nd for Caproni or something) but are exceptions.

[Anonymous User]

From my experience a clerkship is worth up to twice the experience practicing in biglaw in terms of transitioning to more competitive lit jobs (boutiques, USAO, other bigfed) -- I routinely see people with 2 years of clerkships & no years of biglaw hired, but rarely 2 years of biglaw and no clerkships -- the biglaw people tend to be year 4 or so. (Of course there is a point where the doubling doesn't work - an 8 year super associate has different skills than 2 years clerking + 2 years biglaw). And from the biglaw people I have spoken to, staying 4 years wasn't part of some master plan, it was just when they were able to get bites for the moves they wanted to make.

[Anonymous User]

You have to remember one thing: Everyone who newly graduates law school is pretty close to being a useless moron. Clerking helps plug that gap just a tiny bit, so you are slightly less than useless because you have at least gotten SOME real world training in handling real world appellate cases. If you choose not to clerk, that's probably perfectly fine in my opinion, as long as you have some other indicator that you are slightly less than useless. Clerking is not the only way to do that, but it is one way to do it.

[Anonymous User]

I joined the FTC as a lateral after spending several years at a firm, and have served on hiring committees here. You don't need to have clerked to get a job here (I didn't, for one), but as others have mentioned: (a) it certainly helps to give your resume a boost, especially if you did not attend a tippity-top law school; and (b) it will likely help to give you some valuable knowledge/understanding of litigation, especially compared to spending that year in big law, where you'll likely just review documents and play third or fourth fiddle on a case at best. So, I'd tell you to do it if you can.

[GFox345]

The economic earning power-value and portability of a feeder COA or SCOTUS clerkship so greatly outweighs that of a DCt clerkship and requires the same quantum of opportunity cost.

Literally NO ONE gets a SCOTUS clerkship without doing a COA first, so this is just objectively wrong. Beyond that, yeah, all you have to do is get a clerkship with one of the handful of feeder COA judges in the country. Piece of cake!

[Anonymous User]

clerking for one year with a reputable judge (whatever that means to you - I don't care to debate it) straight out of law school is ideal, and a better experience than being a first year lit associate almost any law firm.

the problem with Big Clerkship is that it's brainwashed impressionable law students into thinking:

(a) they should do multiple clerkships (sometimes multiple clerkships for multiple years) and that this is actually good / necessary to be a successful BigLaw lawyer for their BigLaw career; and

(b) it doesn't matter when they do them because "law firms love clerkships."

[Anonymous User]

clerking for one year with a reputable judge (whatever that means to you - I don't care to debate it) straight out of law school is ideal, and a better experience than being a first year lit associate almost any law firm.

the problem with Big Clerkship is that it's brainwashed impressionable law students into thinking:

(a) they should do multiple clerkships (sometimes multiple clerkships for multiple years) and that this is actually good / necessary to be a successful BigLaw lawyer for their BigLaw career; and

(b) it doesn't matter when they do them because "law firms love clerkships."

Eh, this probably isn't entirely wrong for people dedicated to Biglaw. But there is value to doing two different levels of clerkships - trial and appellate - and that's especially true for people who don't want to stay in Biglaw. I agree that you don't *have* to do multiple clerkships, like at all. But as someone who didn't get a federal clerkship initially, and who wanted/needed a federal clerkship for government employment goals, doing a state clerkship is what allowed me to get a federal clerkship which got me to the job I currently hold.

So I agree that there needs to be some nuance to clerkship advice, but don't think that the above quite fully addresses it either. (Though to the extent you mean that people pursue clerkships for the sake of clerking and because they feel they won't have collected all the brass rings possible if they don't do *all* the clerkships, regardless of specific career goals, yeah, I agree that's a problem.)

[lavarman84]

clerking for one year with a reputable judge (whatever that means to you - I don't care to debate it) straight out of law school is ideal, and a better experience than being a first year lit associate almost any law firm.

the problem with Big Clerkship is that it's brainwashed impressionable law students into thinking:

(a) they should do multiple clerkships (sometimes multiple clerkships for multiple years) and that this is actually good / necessary to be a successful BigLaw lawyer for their BigLaw career; and

(b) it doesn't matter when they do them because "law firms love clerkships."

I did multiple clerkships (D. Ct. + COA) straight out of law school. It was partly due to my desire to do high-level appellate work, partly for the prestigious resume lines, and partly for the experience. I'll say that I learned more as a D. Ct. clerk than a COA clerk, but both were valuable experiences. And the prestigious resume lines helped me land exactly the jobs I wanted following my clerkships. Plus, both clerkships have proven helpful because I do a healthy mix of appellate and trial litigation (mostly in the federal courts).

Would I have gotten the jobs I have without clerking? I don't believe so. My boss in my current job clerked and goes out of his way to hire people who have also clerked. And my previous job (a full-time appellate role) was generally only available to people with COA clerkships.

I should also mention that I knew I did not want to do biglaw, so unsurprisingly, I don't work in biglaw. Is a clerkship right for everyone? No. Do I think law schools push them so aggressively because it's in the law school's best interest? Yes. Do some students get screwed by being pushed to clerk when they either don't need it or are being pushed to a judge who is a horrible boss? Yes. But all in all, I'd recommend it, as long as you want to be a litigator and you're working for a judge who treats their clerks well.

[Anonymous User]

clerking for one year with a reputable judge (whatever that means to you - I don't care to debate it) straight out of law school is ideal, and a better experience than being a first year lit associate almost any law firm.

the problem with Big Clerkship is that it's brainwashed impressionable law students into thinking:

(a) they should do multiple clerkships (sometimes multiple clerkships for multiple years) and that this is actually good / necessary to be a successful BigLaw lawyer for their BigLaw career; and

(b) it doesn't matter when they do them because "law firms love clerkships."

I did multiple clerkships (D. Ct. + COA) straight out of law school. It was partly due to my desire to do high-level appellate work, partly for the prestigious resume lines, and partly for the experience. I'll say that I learned more as a D. Ct. clerk than a COA clerk, but both were valuable experiences. And the prestigious resume lines helped me land exactly the jobs I wanted following my clerkships. Plus, both clerkships have proven helpful because I do a healthy mix of appellate and trial litigation (mostly in the federal courts).

Would I have gotten the jobs I have without clerking? I don't believe so. My boss in my current job clerked and goes out of his way to hire people who have also clerked. And my previous job (a full-time appellate role) was generally only available to people with COA clerkships.

I should also mention that I knew I did not want to do biglaw, so unsurprisingly, I don't work in biglaw. Is a clerkship right for everyone? No. Do I think law schools push them so aggressively because it's in the law school's best interest? Yes. Do some students get screwed by being pushed to clerk when they either don't need it or are being pushed to a judge who is a horrible boss? Yes. But all in all, I'd recommend it, as long as you want to be a litigator and you're working for a judge who treats their clerks well.

TITCR. Despite some naysayers on TLS, having a COA clerkship—as well as clerking at multiple levels—will be a door opener for a lot of candidates that otherwise wouldn’t have a chance in a lot of places.

BigLaw will still value it highly too, FWIW. Any firm that will give you grief for taking a year/few years to clerk is probably a place that any former clerk wouldn’t like to and shouldn’t work for anyway.