Top Law Schools

Think MA, CA, NY, IL. What would the exit options be after a 2 year clerkship? Would like to do biglaw.

You probably won't be able to get biglaw.

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:You probably won't be able to get biglaw.

From what I've seen most firms (maybe not most, those who know more: feel free to correct) provide the clerkship bonus to federal clerkships and state's highest court clerkships. Doesn't that say something about the relative desirability of such a clerkship? Also, I'd have to think that a clerkship with the Delaware Supreme Court would be highly desirable for transactional practices.

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:You probably won't be able to get biglaw.

Why not? I would think that biglaw firms would like someone who has actually worked for the justices in the state... I mean, a fair number of their cases have to be in state courts.

A friend of mine just left a one-year clerkship at a CA trial court and got a biglaw offer. Granted, he was in the top 1% of the class (yet surprisingly did not get a biglaw job), so that probably made things easier.

Anonymous User wrote:A friend of mine just left a one-year clerkship at a CA trial court and got a biglaw offer. Granted, he was in the top 1% of the class (yet surprisingly did not get a biglaw job), so that probably made things easier.

I guess I should have qualified my earlier statement with: "Unless you already had the credentials to get biglaw in the first place...."

spleenworship wrote:

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:You probably won't be able to get biglaw.

Why not? I would think that biglaw firms would like someone who has actually worked for the justices in the state... I mean, a fair number of their cases have to be in state courts.

Well, let's go through the major biglaw practice areas:

IP: almost 100% federal
Securities: 100% federal
Corporate: usually Delaware state law. If you clerk for the Delaware Chancery Court or the Delaware Supreme Court, I could see some biglaw firms being interested in you.
Tax: 100% federal

I guess that leaves Mass Tort Litigation and other kinds of general commercial litigation that might be in state court. I'm not sure how many biglaw positions fit this mold as opposed to the areas listed above. But federal district court clerks get experience in the federal areas AND the state areas because of diversity jurisdiction. So as long as biglaw firms can hire district court clerks, I don't see why they'd go after state clerks.

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:

spleenworship wrote:

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:You probably won't be able to get biglaw.

Why not? I would think that biglaw firms would like someone who has actually worked for the justices in the state... I mean, a fair number of their cases have to be in state courts.

Well, let's go through the major biglaw practice areas:

IP: almost 100% federal
Securities: 100% federal
Corporate: usually Delaware state law. If you clerk for the Delaware Chancery Court or the Delaware Supreme Court, I could see some biglaw firms being interested in you.
Tax: 100% federal

I guess that leaves Mass Tort Litigation and other kinds of general commercial litigation that might be in state court. I'm not sure how many biglaw positions fit this mold as opposed to the areas listed above. But federal district court clerks get experience in the federal areas AND the state areas because of diversity jurisdiction. So as long as biglaw firms can hire district court clerks, I don't see why they'd go after state clerks.

Hmmmm.... I hadn't thought of it that way. You're probably right.

I did a SSC internship my 1L summer. All of the clerks (I'm talking the clerks, not the other interns) in our office and those that I met in other offices all had BigLaw, but I'm pretty sure they all had it from 2L OCI and didn't get it during the clerkship. There were mixed results on whether they got clerkship bonuses, but I don't remember which firms gave them and which didn't (and it's a pretty small sample size of firms).

This wasn't one of OP's listed markets, but it's probably close enough.

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:

spleenworship wrote:

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:You probably won't be able to get biglaw.

Why not? I would think that biglaw firms would like someone who has actually worked for the justices in the state... I mean, a fair number of their cases have to be in state courts.

Well, let's go through the major biglaw practice areas:

IP: almost 100% federal
Securities: 100% federal
Corporate: usually Delaware state law. If you clerk for the Delaware Chancery Court or the Delaware Supreme Court, I could see some biglaw firms being interested in you.
Tax: 100% federal

I guess that leaves Mass Tort Litigation and other kinds of general commercial litigation that might be in state court. I'm not sure how many biglaw positions fit this mold as opposed to the areas listed above. But federal district court clerks get experience in the federal areas AND the state areas because of diversity jurisdiction. So as long as biglaw firms can hire district court clerks, I don't see why they'd go after state clerks.

Ummmm, what? Most biglaw litigation is general commercial litigation. And these are usually the biggest practice area for most big law firms. I don't know about other states, but the impression I've got from firms in TX is that Texas Supreme Court can actually be one of the most valuable clerkships, in terms of what you will be doing at the firm.

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:

spleenworship wrote:

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:You probably won't be able to get biglaw.

Why not? I would think that biglaw firms would like someone who has actually worked for the justices in the state... I mean, a fair number of their cases have to be in state courts.

Well, let's go through the major biglaw practice areas:

IP: almost 100% federal
Securities: 100% federal
Corporate: usually Delaware state law. If you clerk for the Delaware Chancery Court or the Delaware Supreme Court, I could see some biglaw firms being interested in you.
Tax: 100% federal

I guess that leaves Mass Tort Litigation and other kinds of general commercial litigation that might be in state court. I'm not sure how many biglaw positions fit this mold as opposed to the areas listed above. But federal district court clerks get experience in the federal areas AND the state areas because of diversity jurisdiction. So as long as biglaw firms can hire district court clerks, I don't see why they'd go after state clerks.

Ummmm, what? Most biglaw litigation is general commercial litigation. And these are usually the biggest practice area for most big law firms. I don't know about other states, but the impression I've got from firms in TX is that Texas Supreme Court can actually be one of the most valuable clerkships, in terms of what you will be doing at the firm.

District court clerks do state law commercial litigation too and ITE it seems like there might not be so much demand for clerks in general that firms would hire state supreme court clerks. State supreme court clerks don't have experience that is as portable as federal district court clerking experience. I never said the OP definitely won't get biglaw. I just said he/she probably won't get it. Just look through the bios on firm webpages. You barely see any state clerks, but you see a lot of federal clerks even though there are WAY more state clerks than federal clerks.

I am doing a lot of research into high state court clerkships right now, and it seems like it doesn't affect your chances much for national Biglaw firms, such as Jones Day, etc. If you didn't have the credentials before the clerkship, it won't help you get it. If you were borderline, maybe.

But it does seem to help quite a bit with more local Biglaw firms. Not national, but regional large firms do seem to want state clerks, if not paying massive bonuses for it. At least, a number of the people I've spoken with who did a state court clerkship had plenty of good, if not phenomenal, exit options.

Of court, if national Biglaw is your goal, you can probably parlay a state supreme / appellate clerkship into a federal one.

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:State supreme court clerks don't have experience that is as portable to other cases as federal district court clerks.

Huh? The two clerks will have different experiences, and both will have skills that are unique to their clerking experience. And you really think that general commercial lit departments rely more on knowledge of federal law, that a district court clerk will be learning, as opposed to knowledge that a state supreme court clerk will be learning? (Texas probably has an increase of value for its state supreme court clerks since its all civil.)

Julio_El_Chavo wrote: Just look through the bios on firm webpages. You barely see any state clerks, but you see a lot of federal clerks even though there are WAY more state clerks than federal clerks.

With Texas firms it's not uncommon to see Texas Supreme Court clerks. And, there are more federal district court clerks than there are Texas supreme court clerks in Texas.

I'm not trying to say that state supreme court clerkships are more prestigious--they're not. But firms do seem to value them, as can be see by the same bonus being given. And the idea that big law firms don't do much work involving state law is a bit silly.

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:State supreme court clerks don't have experience that is as portable to other cases as federal district court clerks.

Huh? The two clerks will have different experiences, and both will have skills that are unique to their clerking experience. And you really think that general commercial lit departments rely more on knowledge of federal law, that a district court clerk will be learning, as opposed to knowledge that a state supreme court clerk will be learning? (Texas probably has an increase of value for its state supreme court clerks since its all civil.)

Julio_El_Chavo wrote: Just look through the bios on firm webpages. You barely see any state clerks, but you see a lot of federal clerks even though there are WAY more state clerks than federal clerks.

With Texas firms it's not uncommon to see Texas Supreme Court clerks. And, there are more federal district court clerks than there are Texas supreme court clerks in Texas.

I'm not trying to say that state supreme court clerkships are more prestigious--they're not. But firms do seem to value them, as can be see by the same bonus being given. And the idea that big law firms don't do much work involving state law is a bit silly.

I never said they don't do work involving state law. I just pointed out that you're relegated to commercial litigation which cuts out like half of all biglaw jobs.

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:State supreme court clerks don't have experience that is as portable to other cases as federal district court clerks.

Huh? The two clerks will have different experiences, and both will have skills that are unique to their clerking experience. And you really think that general commercial lit departments rely more on knowledge of federal law, that a district court clerk will be learning, as opposed to knowledge that a state supreme court clerk will be learning? (Texas probably has an increase of value for its state supreme court clerks since its all civil.)

Julio_El_Chavo wrote: Just look through the bios on firm webpages. You barely see any state clerks, but you see a lot of federal clerks even though there are WAY more state clerks than federal clerks.

With Texas firms it's not uncommon to see Texas Supreme Court clerks. And, there are more federal district court clerks than there are Texas supreme court clerks in Texas.

I'm not trying to say that state supreme court clerkships are more prestigious--they're not. But firms do seem to value them, as can be see by the same bonus being given. And the idea that big law firms don't do much work involving state law is a bit silly.

I never said they don't do work involving state law. I just pointed out that you're relegated to commercial litigation which cuts out like half of all biglaw jobs.

That might mean something if everything else was all litigation too. But it's not. Most people doing corporate don't do clerkships (which makes complete sense). Lit people are the ones doing clerkships and the biggest part of lit departments is usually going to be commercial litigation. That was the initial point I was trying to make in responding to that post of yours.

Noob sidebar question: do clerkship bonuses only get paid if you were a 2L at the firm and then came back after your clerkship, or do you get a clerkship bonus as well if you start with the firm only after the clerkship?

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:A friend of mine just left a one-year clerkship at a CA trial court and got a biglaw offer. Granted, he was in the top 1% of the class (yet surprisingly did not get a biglaw job), so that probably made things easier.

I guess I should have qualified my earlier statement with: "Unless you already had the credentials to get biglaw in the first place...."

Assume a T6 with top 1/3 grades but no biglaw SA 2L summer.

zomginternets wrote:Noob sidebar question: do clerkship bonuses only get paid if you were a 2L at the firm and then came back after your clerkship, or do you get a clerkship bonus as well if you start with the firm only after the clerkship?

Should be either situation, but you might want to ask this question in the Clerks answering Q's thread to get a more confident, more in-depth answer.

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:You probably won't be able to get biglaw.

With those states (and the requisite credentials), the OP almost certainly would.

goodolgil wrote:From what I've seen most firms (maybe not most, those who know more: feel free to correct) provide the clerkship bonus to federal clerkships and state's highest court clerkships. Doesn't that say something about the relative desirability of such a clerkship? Also, I'd have to think that a clerkship with the Delaware Supreme Court would be highly desirable for transactional practices.

i think this is true. HLS Career Services seem to imply that state supreme is still very prestigious