Top Law Schools

I am:
- 2L at MVP
- on LR
- estimating that i'm going to be top 15-25% after this past semester.

Just started thinking about clerkships. I have vague ambitions of applying to off-plan judges during spring semester, and will certainly apply to on-plan judges during 3L fall semester.

I would be happy with a district court gig in California, and I know COA9 is a big reach.

Tips, advice?

May depend upon your recommendations & how well your interviews go.

OP here. Assume average to above-average interviewing, and good (not stellar) recommendations.

If this (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =1&t=75513) is right, I really don't see top 25% at MVP doing it. Good luck though. Think your note/comment will be published?

G. T. L. Rev. wrote:I don't really think that post tells us that much, even if it is accurate and applicable ITE. But it is interesting.

I mean, it tells us that 10-13% of MVP grads got clerkships before the 2009 USNWR rankings (so very much ITE). I understand that 10-13% getting clerkships doesn't mean you need to be top 10-13%, but it certainly doesn't suggest that top 25% at MVP will find it easy to secure one, especially in CA districts, which are among the most competitive in the country.

OP here. Got most of my 2L first semester grades back. Assume top 15%, strong recs and at least 1 call frm former scotus clerk-professor.

Bump. No tips from the TLS maestros?

MrKappus wrote:

G. T. L. Rev. wrote:I don't really think that post tells us that much, even if it is accurate and applicable ITE. But it is interesting.

I mean, it tells us that 10-13% of MVP grads got clerkships before the 2009 USNWR rankings (so very much ITE). I understand that 10-13% getting clerkships doesn't mean you need to be top 10-13%, but it certainly doesn't suggest that top 25% at MVP will find it easy to secure one, especially in CA districts, which are among the most competitive in the country.

LOTS of people in the top 10 and 20% don't apply for clerkships. For example, all of the ones interested in transactional work. Even plenty of future litigators don't bother with it, especially if they are not contemplating any moves into academia or government at any point.

That said, you may be totally right that a person with these stats does not have a good shot at CA dct's, I have no idea.

MrKappus wrote:

G. T. L. Rev. wrote:I don't really think that post tells us that much, even if it is accurate and applicable ITE. But it is interesting.

I mean, it tells us that 10-13% of MVP grads got clerkships before the 2009 USNWR rankings (so very much ITE). I understand that 10-13% getting clerkships doesn't mean you need to be top 10-13%, but it certainly doesn't suggest that top 25% at MVP will find it easy to secure one, especially in CA districts, which are among the most competitive in the country.

That data is really not helpful for the following reasons:

(1) The first clerkship stats were inaccurate - many schools did not accurately report that information that year (e.g., North Dakota).

(2) That data is pre-ITE. It's from the 2009 US News rankings - which were released in April 2009. The data was compiled from 2008. The legal market lagged behind the financial market in taking. See Lawschuck's layoff tracker. (http://lawshucks.com/layoff-tracker/lay ... onth/#1q08). The first layoffs didn't start until 1st Q 2008. The 2008 grads, which are the ones reflected in the rankings, already had their clerkships by this point and there wasn't yet the massive flood of applications. Classes of 2009-10 would be the classes to look at for clerkships ITE.

(1) I think I made it pretty clear in my first post that I wasn't vouching for the data's accuracy ("If this is right...")
(2) That's a good point about ITE, but your point bolsters my conclusion (i.e., top 25% probably wouldn't do it for CA district courts) because you're saying it's even more competitive nowadays than it was at the time these data were released.