Top Law Schools

What's the story? Sure. Positive impact. But what if you're already at an elite firm based on 1L grades alone?

Likely zero impact for partnership decisions. The sun has come up and gone down way too many times post-clerkship for that to matter

Anonymous User wrote:What's the story? Sure. Positive impact. But what if you're already at an elite firm based on 1L grades alone?

Likely zero impact for partnership decisions. The sun has come up and gone down way too many times post-clerkship for that to matter

The major advantages are all over this board, but just to sum up:

- Judges take a more invested role in mentoring and professional development, leading to wider range of connections down the road.

- The previous point, combined with the increased opportunity for time to develop publication, provides a greater chance at academia down the road.

- For most associates at most firms, clerking provides a means to a considerable amount of substantive skill development not guaranteed as a first year associate. This, combined with the insight into the judicial process, can help one become a better litigator.

- Clerking, for many, is fun. It's the closest one will probably ever come to making the law, and you're exposed to a wide range of interesting cases and legal issues over the course of the term.

Substantively, it is too narrowly-focused. People clerk for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with partnership prospects, firm placement, or compensation.

This. I've had a good, solid career (I'm a early 2000s grad from a top 5 school) that has included lots of years in big firm and government practice. My name has been on the top of the signature block on briefs at every level in state and federal court (most of which were solely written by me), and I've argued orally at every level except the US Supreme Court. I "no commented" the regional paper a number of times, and the NYT once.

Still, not clerking out of school is something I always have regretted. A lot. Getting a behind-the-scenes look at how judges really operate would have been a great learning opportunity, and to this day, I think it would have made me a much better lawyer. (This is setting aside the fact that it would have made certain career avenues [academia, USAO, maybe the bench itself] a lot easier to attain.)

posting anonymously because I don't want my firm to figure out I'm considering lateraling. I wish you'd do some thinking through before you yell "Abuse of anonymous"

if anyone has thoughts about using a clerkship to lateral, whether this has any definitive upsides, etc., let me know. i'm willing to take a 60K haircut if a clerkship gives me definite lateraling options. I don't care about AUSA or professor or whatever else the hotshot lawyer who no comments NY Times is talking about - which is not my question in the first place.

To the extent that it "makes you a better lawyer" - I've heard the exact opposite, especially if you do an appellate clerkship and you want to litigate in the district courts - in which case the only meaningful upside is that you take a one-year long writing course when your class is learning about the firm. Some say it only has short-term benefits, and that 6 years out, a clerk versus a no-clerk is no different because you learn everything on the job.

There appear to be at least two posters abusing anon and alting in this thread. I don't have time to dig too deep into it, but if they're wise, they'll stop before I notice it again.