Clerkship Bonus Increase Forum

[Anonymous User]

DPW's letter to incoming 1st year associates says the clerkship bonus is 75K for one clerkship and 100K for two clerkships.

[Anonymous User]

Quinn to 175/200...? Check out their website.

[thirdandlong]

Quinn to 175/200...? Check out their website.

Looks like it. Holy shit. Feel like I have to apply.

[Anonymous User]

Quinn to 175/200...? Check out their website.

No offense to clerks, but...how on earth does 1/2 years clerking add $175/200 of value? That's a crazy high valuation for non-SCOTUS. (If I squint I can *kinda* see it for SCOTUS clerks @ their current market rate just by dint of how rare they are but even at the circuit level there are way too many of y'all.)

[Anonymous User]

Quinn to 175/200...? Check out their website.

No offense to clerks, but...how on earth does 1/2 years clerking add $175/200 of value? That's a crazy high valuation for non-SCOTUS. (If I squint I can *kinda* see it for SCOTUS clerks @ their current market rate just by dint of how rare they are but even at the circuit level there are way too many of y'all.)

It doesn't, but you're thinking about it the wrong way. This is a recruiting tool, not a pay-for-what-you're-worth tool. Firms are competing for clerks.

[Anonymous User]

Quinn to 175/200...? Check out their website.

No offense to clerks, but...how on earth does 1/2 years clerking add $175/200 of value? That's a crazy high valuation for non-SCOTUS. (If I squint I can *kinda* see it for SCOTUS clerks @ their current market rate just by dint of how rare they are but even at the circuit level there are way too many of y'all.)

It doesn't, but you're thinking about it the wrong way. This is a recruiting tool, not a pay-for-what-you're-worth tool. Firms are competing for clerks.

Right, but at a certain point the value of winning over a given candidate has to be outweighed by how much a firm "paid" for them. I'm saying 175/200 surely must be past that point for non-SCOTUS clerks.

[Anonymous User]

Quinn to 175/200...? Check out their website.

No offense to clerks, but...how on earth does 1/2 years clerking add $175/200 of value? That's a crazy high valuation for non-SCOTUS. (If I squint I can *kinda* see it for SCOTUS clerks @ their current market rate just by dint of how rare they are but even at the circuit level there are way too many of y'all.)

It doesn't, but you're thinking about it the wrong way. This is a recruiting tool, not a pay-for-what-you're-worth tool. Firms are competing for clerks.

Right, but at a certain point the value of winning over a given candidate has to be outweighed by how much a firm "paid" for them. I'm saying 175/200 surely must be past that point for non-SCOTUS clerks.

If I'm coming in as a third year, the firm is saving 510 (245+265) AND I arguably come in with better experience than a third year who didn't clerk. Paying 200 seems like a lot in a vacuum, but 175/200 is much closer to making clerks whole than 50/70.

TLDR: Clerking is a terrible short-term financial decision.

[Anonymous User]

Quinn to 175/200...? Check out their website.

No offense to clerks, but...how on earth does 1/2 years clerking add $175/200 of value? That's a crazy high valuation for non-SCOTUS. (If I squint I can *kinda* see it for SCOTUS clerks @ their current market rate just by dint of how rare they are but even at the circuit level there are way too many of y'all.)

It doesn't, but you're thinking about it the wrong way. This is a recruiting tool, not a pay-for-what-you're-worth tool. Firms are competing for clerks.

Right, but at a certain point the value of winning over a given candidate has to be outweighed by how much a firm "paid" for them. I'm saying 175/200 surely must be past that point for non-SCOTUS clerks.

If I'm coming in as a third year, the firm is saving 510 (245+265) AND I arguably come in with better experience than a third year who didn't clerk. Paying 200 seems like a lot in a vacuum, but 175/200 is much closer to making clerks whole than 50/70.

TLDR: Clerking is a terrible short-term financial decision.

Bad argument. Firms pay you at every year at a rate below the money that you make them, even for brand new grads. They're not "saving" anything when they hire clerks any more than when they hire laterals. And what makes you "whole" is of no interest to firms, and therefore doesn't enter their calculus.

Now arguably, yes, a double clerk straight out of law school will probably have a more valuable set of experiences. That's what the bonus is partly for. (It's also partly for firm's prestige of having a bunch of fancy clerks on their roster.) Query whether shelling out $175,000 or $200,000 from jump overvalues those aspects of a former clerk. I'd say yes, easily.

[Anonymous User]

Quinn to 175/200...? Check out their website.

No offense to clerks, but...how on earth does 1/2 years clerking add $175/200 of value? That's a crazy high valuation for non-SCOTUS. (If I squint I can *kinda* see it for SCOTUS clerks @ their current market rate just by dint of how rare they are but even at the circuit level there are way too many of y'all.)

It doesn't, but you're thinking about it the wrong way. This is a recruiting tool, not a pay-for-what-you're-worth tool. Firms are competing for clerks.

Right, but at a certain point the value of winning over a given candidate has to be outweighed by how much a firm "paid" for them. I'm saying 175/200 surely must be past that point for non-SCOTUS clerks.

If I'm coming in as a third year, the firm is saving 510 (245+265) AND I arguably come in with better experience than a third year who didn't clerk. Paying 200 seems like a lot in a vacuum, but 175/200 is much closer to making clerks whole than 50/70.

TLDR: Clerking is a terrible short-term financial decision.

Bad argument. Firms pay you at every year at a rate below the money that you make them, even for brand new grads. They're not "saving" anything when they hire clerks any more than when they hire laterals. And what makes you "whole" is of no interest to firms, and therefore doesn't enter their calculus.

Now arguably, yes, a double clerk straight out of law school will probably have a more valuable set of experiences. That's what the bonus is partly for. (It's also partly for firm's prestige of having a bunch of fancy clerks on their roster.) Query whether shelling out $175,000 or $200,000 from jump overvalues those aspects of a former clerk. I'd say yes, easily.

I'm a current clerk and to be honest I'm totally wondering what about me makes me worth 175k. Is the experience that first and second years get really that dismal? All I really do is basically just write orders and stuff and memos. Doesn't feel that much different than law school to be honest. Can't imagine what skills I have to provide.

[Anonymous User]

Quinn to 175/200...? Check out their website.

No offense to clerks, but...how on earth does 1/2 years clerking add $175/200 of value? That's a crazy high valuation for non-SCOTUS. (If I squint I can *kinda* see it for SCOTUS clerks @ their current market rate just by dint of how rare they are but even at the circuit level there are way too many of y'all.)

It doesn't, but you're thinking about it the wrong way. This is a recruiting tool, not a pay-for-what-you're-worth tool. Firms are competing for clerks.

Right, but at a certain point the value of winning over a given candidate has to be outweighed by how much a firm "paid" for them. I'm saying 175/200 surely must be past that point for non-SCOTUS clerks.

If I'm coming in as a third year, the firm is saving 510 (245+265) AND I arguably come in with better experience than a third year who didn't clerk. Paying 200 seems like a lot in a vacuum, but 175/200 is much closer to making clerks whole than 50/70.

TLDR: Clerking is a terrible short-term financial decision.

Bad argument. Firms pay you at every year at a rate below the money that you make them, even for brand new grads. They're not "saving" anything when they hire clerks any more than when they hire laterals. And what makes you "whole" is of no interest to firms, and therefore doesn't enter their calculus.

Now arguably, yes, a double clerk straight out of law school will probably have a more valuable set of experiences. That's what the bonus is partly for. (It's also partly for firm's prestige of having a bunch of fancy clerks on their roster.) Query whether shelling out $175,000 or $200,000 from jump overvalues those aspects of a former clerk. I'd say yes, easily.

I'm a current clerk and to be honest I'm totally wondering what about me makes me worth 175k. Is the experience that first and second years get really that dismal? All I really do is basically just write orders and stuff and memos. Doesn't feel that much different than law school to be honest. Can't imagine what skills I have to provide.

You have a shiny gold star next to your name on the firm website that clients care about. You have valuable insight into how that judge thinks about cases, and you also intimately know the local rules in your district or Circuit that partners can rely on.

And most of the other juniors who went directly to the firm spent their first two years doing doc review, while you spent literally every day honing your researching and writing skills under an expert.

[Anonymous User]

No offense to clerks, but...how on earth does 1/2 years clerking add $175/200 of value? That's a crazy high valuation for non-SCOTUS. (If I squint I can *kinda* see it for SCOTUS clerks @ their current market rate just by dint of how rare they are but even at the circuit level there are way too many of y'all.)

It doesn't, but you're thinking about it the wrong way. This is a recruiting tool, not a pay-for-what-you're-worth tool. Firms are competing for clerks.

Right, but at a certain point the value of winning over a given candidate has to be outweighed by how much a firm "paid" for them. I'm saying 175/200 surely must be past that point for non-SCOTUS clerks.

If I'm coming in as a third year, the firm is saving 510 (245+265) AND I arguably come in with better experience than a third year who didn't clerk. Paying 200 seems like a lot in a vacuum, but 175/200 is much closer to making clerks whole than 50/70.

TLDR: Clerking is a terrible short-term financial decision.

Bad argument. Firms pay you at every year at a rate below the money that you make them, even for brand new grads. They're not "saving" anything when they hire clerks any more than when they hire laterals. And what makes you "whole" is of no interest to firms, and therefore doesn't enter their calculus.

Now arguably, yes, a double clerk straight out of law school will probably have a more valuable set of experiences. That's what the bonus is partly for. (It's also partly for firm's prestige of having a bunch of fancy clerks on their roster.) Query whether shelling out $175,000 or $200,000 from jump overvalues those aspects of a former clerk. I'd say yes, easily.

I'm a current clerk and to be honest I'm totally wondering what about me makes me worth 175k. Is the experience that first and second years get really that dismal? All I really do is basically just write orders and stuff and memos. Doesn't feel that much different than law school to be honest. Can't imagine what skills I have to provide.

You have a shiny gold star next to your name on the firm website that clients care about. You have valuable insight into how that judge thinks about cases, and you also intimately know the local rules in your district or Circuit that partners can rely on.

And most of the other juniors who went directly to the firm spent their first two years doing doc review, while you spent literally every day honing your researching and writing skills under an expert.

I don't intimately know the local rules in my district or circuit at all lol. I just write memos and orders and assist with trial. I don't even know how I would get acquainted with these local rules.

[Anonymous User]

It doesn't, but you're thinking about it the wrong way. This is a recruiting tool, not a pay-for-what-you're-worth tool. Firms are competing for clerks.

Right, but at a certain point the value of winning over a given candidate has to be outweighed by how much a firm "paid" for them. I'm saying 175/200 surely must be past that point for non-SCOTUS clerks.

If I'm coming in as a third year, the firm is saving 510 (245+265) AND I arguably come in with better experience than a third year who didn't clerk. Paying 200 seems like a lot in a vacuum, but 175/200 is much closer to making clerks whole than 50/70.

TLDR: Clerking is a terrible short-term financial decision.

Bad argument. Firms pay you at every year at a rate below the money that you make them, even for brand new grads. They're not "saving" anything when they hire clerks any more than when they hire laterals. And what makes you "whole" is of no interest to firms, and therefore doesn't enter their calculus.

Now arguably, yes, a double clerk straight out of law school will probably have a more valuable set of experiences. That's what the bonus is partly for. (It's also partly for firm's prestige of having a bunch of fancy clerks on their roster.) Query whether shelling out $175,000 or $200,000 from jump overvalues those aspects of a former clerk. I'd say yes, easily.

I'm a current clerk and to be honest I'm totally wondering what about me makes me worth 175k. Is the experience that first and second years get really that dismal? All I really do is basically just write orders and stuff and memos. Doesn't feel that much different than law school to be honest. Can't imagine what skills I have to provide.

You have a shiny gold star next to your name on the firm website that clients care about. You have valuable insight into how that judge thinks about cases, and you also intimately know the local rules in your district or Circuit that partners can rely on.

And most of the other juniors who went directly to the firm spent their first two years doing doc review, while you spent literally every day honing your researching and writing skills under an expert.

I don't intimately know the local rules in my district or circuit at all lol. I just write memos and orders and assist with trial. I don't even know how I would get acquainted with these local rules.

Sounds like your judge is very independent. Your job sounds like the experience that some interns get, not the experience that most clerks get. Although I agree lol - I doubt most clerks have intimate knowledge of the local rules, just general knowledge of the most important ones like the default response/reply dates and 56.1 statement requirements, etc.

[Anonymous User]

Right, but at a certain point the value of winning over a given candidate has to be outweighed by how much a firm "paid" for them. I'm saying 175/200 surely must be past that point for non-SCOTUS clerks.

If I'm coming in as a third year, the firm is saving 510 (245+265) AND I arguably come in with better experience than a third year who didn't clerk. Paying 200 seems like a lot in a vacuum, but 175/200 is much closer to making clerks whole than 50/70.

TLDR: Clerking is a terrible short-term financial decision.

Bad argument. Firms pay you at every year at a rate below the money that you make them, even for brand new grads. They're not "saving" anything when they hire clerks any more than when they hire laterals. And what makes you "whole" is of no interest to firms, and therefore doesn't enter their calculus.

Now arguably, yes, a double clerk straight out of law school will probably have a more valuable set of experiences. That's what the bonus is partly for. (It's also partly for firm's prestige of having a bunch of fancy clerks on their roster.) Query whether shelling out $175,000 or $200,000 from jump overvalues those aspects of a former clerk. I'd say yes, easily.

I'm a current clerk and to be honest I'm totally wondering what about me makes me worth 175k. Is the experience that first and second years get really that dismal? All I really do is basically just write orders and stuff and memos. Doesn't feel that much different than law school to be honest. Can't imagine what skills I have to provide.

You have a shiny gold star next to your name on the firm website that clients care about. You have valuable insight into how that judge thinks about cases, and you also intimately know the local rules in your district or Circuit that partners can rely on.

And most of the other juniors who went directly to the firm spent their first two years doing doc review, while you spent literally every day honing your researching and writing skills under an expert.

I don't intimately know the local rules in my district or circuit at all lol. I just write memos and orders and assist with trial. I don't even know how I would get acquainted with these local rules.

Sounds like your judge is very independent. Your job sounds like the experience that some interns get, not the experience that most clerks get. Although I agree lol - I doubt most clerks have intimate knowledge of the local rules, just general knowledge of the most important ones like the default response/reply dates and 56.1 statement requirements, etc.

When I was at the sixth circuit the local rules and statement requirements were completely not the responsibility of the judge or the clerks. In fact, my judge was didn't even really use the computer and we handled everything. I was curious and reached out to clerks to other judges I knew from my time there and they said the same thing. maybe it is different at other circuits, but from the sixth none of the clerks would intimately know the rules unless they did so on their own initiative.

[Anonymous User]

I didn’t learn anything about the local rules from clerking, either.

I do think clerking gives people valuable perspective for moving ahead in litigation, just not knowledge of the local rules.

[Anonymous User]

Any more news? What's the goss? What are my fellow clerks seeing?

[Anonymous User]

Any more news? What's the goss? What are my fellow clerks seeing?

From what I heard, DPW is pretty strict on the 75/100 limit. Even in the face of a competing offer.

[Anonymous User]

Any word on Akin Gump?

[Anonymous User]

Any word on Akin Gump?

That’s not the type of firm that I would expect to match in a world where DPW and S&C are refusing to budge.

The more interesting segment to watch are the Hueston Hennigan / Susman types. Will they match the new Quinn bonuses? As the previous bonus comp leader, will Kellogg Hansen push bonuses even higher? Maybe not this year. But tough to see how the above-listed firms stay where they are and allow Quinn to monopolize top-of-the-market bonus comp.

[Anonymous User]

Is there any information on bonuses for than 2 clerkships? (3?)

[Anonymous User]

Is there any information on bonuses for than 2 clerkships? (3?)

I'm pretty sure virtually no firm has a general policy of paying out for more than 2 (nor should they, frankly). Unless #3 is with SCOTUS (which is an entirely different conversation) or an otherwise specialized court before which your potential firm/practice appears a lot, I'm pretty sure you'll have no luck squeezing out more $$, even on an ad hoc basis.

[Anonymous User]

Any word on Akin Gump?

That’s not the type of firm that I would expect to match in a world where DPW and S&C are refusing to budge.

The more interesting segment to watch are the Hueston Hennigan / Susman types. Will they match the new Quinn bonuses? As the previous bonus comp leader, will Kellogg Hansen push bonuses even higher? Maybe not this year. But tough to see how the above-listed firms stay where they are and allow Quinn to monopolize top-of-the-market bonus comp.

I’m pretty sure HH is already top of the comp scale for clerkship bonuses ($180,000).

[Anonymous User]

Apparently Latham matched Cravath. Not sure what this means for the boutiques, but assume the rest of biglaw matches.

[Anonymous User]

What is the typical clawback for this? A firm gave me an $125k offer for a one-year flyover district court clerkship but said there is a 2-year clawback. Is this something that is negotiable? I don't want to ask because it might imply that I am going to leave in a year (I am lol), but I am curious if this is something folks have successfully negotiated.

[Anonymous User]

That's pretty standard. I think W&C doesn't have a clawback? But they're the only ones I know of.

[Anonymous User]

Is DPW still sticking to their 75/100 guns. Feels weird they would let themselves be outclassed by the other V10s given they ostensibly try to be a market leader on the comp.