Clerkships v. straight to mid/big law Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
table3
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 12:21 pm
Clerkships v. straight to mid/big law
0L here. Generally speaking, are federal clerkships more desirable for fresh graduates than going straight to a mid/big law job? Obviously, each person has different goals, interests, and debt loads - but I'm wondering if there's a consensus one way or the other. And if we expanded the question to include state and local clerkships, how would they fit into the mix?
-
A. Nony Mouse
- Posts: 29293
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am
Re: Clerkships v. straight to mid/big law
This is kind of a huge question and if you play around with the search function, you'll probably find some previous discussions of this. The short, general answer is that many many people agree that a federal clerkship is an extremely valuable experience both for learning and prestige, and that it usually provides a boost to your career, but it will depend on what kind of practice you want to do and your personal circumstances. People who want to do transactional work exclusively often don't feel a clerkship is worthwhile, and many people headed to big law don't want to take the salary hit of a clerkship (clerkships pay about 1/2 of what biglaw pays and while firms usually give credit for a clerkship and a bonus, some people still don't feel it's worth it). Conversely, some people who strike out at biglaw the first time round find clerkships very valuable for giving them another year to get the kind of job they really want. The value of state clerkships (there aren't any local clerkships that aren't state clerkships) is debated - it varies by state, level of clerkship (trial v. appellate), and, again, what you want to do.
But the other thing I have to point out is that as 0L, you're not actually allowed to post in this forum. http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 3&t=189981 It's a great place to read, but you need to go the Ask A Law Student forum to post.
But the other thing I have to point out is that as 0L, you're not actually allowed to post in this forum. http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 3&t=189981 It's a great place to read, but you need to go the Ask A Law Student forum to post.
-
thesealocust
- Posts: 8525
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm
Re: Clerkships v. straight to mid/big law
No consensus. It's becoming more common for clerks to be hired after a stint at a firm instead of straight out of law school. It's also much less common/obviously beneficial for those going into non-litigation practices at a big firm.
