Top Law Schools

I know this has discussed multiple times on TLS, but I wanted to get some more specific input.

I'm primarily interested in areas of the law that are corporate/transactional or regulatory. From speaking with transactional attorneys, it seems it would fit my personality better than litigation. I prefer problem solving to debate, cooperation to conflict, etc.

However, I don't necessarily dislike litigation, and I enjoy argument (especially written) to an extent. Depending on what it's like to actually do real litigation/transactional work, and depending on the people in each group, it's at least possible I could wind up preferring litigation. The issue is I won't get to experience any of that in a firm until after most clerkship opportunities are gone.

I'm working for one of the Delaware "big 4" firms for my 2L summer and hopefully I'll get a FT offer afterwards, for whatever impact that has. I don't really want to deal with the application and interview process and I don't want to take the $40K-ish dock in pay, but if a clerkship could still be valuable in terms of either practice or long-term career options, then I'll probably apply.

Thanks for any input you have.

*Posted in legal employment rather than judicial clerkships in hopes of a broader response*

Clerkships are not nearly as useful if you're not doing litigation. It doesn't sound like your heart is in it. Don't apply for clerkships just for the sake of preserving your options - apply because you actually want to do the work.

If you change your mind and want to switch to litigation you could apply during 3L year or after practicing a while. There's no reason a clerkship has to be right after law school. Clerkship opportunities are not gone once your SA position starts. In fact, many judges prefer clerks with experience.

Anonymous User wrote: However, I don't necessarily dislike litigation, and I enjoy argument (especially written) to an extent. Depending on what it's like to actually do real litigation/transactional work, and depending on the people in each group, it's at least possible I could wind up preferring litigation. The issue is I won't get to experience any of that in a firm until after most clerkship opportunities are gone.

I might just be dense, but I don't really get this.

los blancos wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: However, I don't necessarily dislike litigation, and I enjoy argument (especially written) to an extent. Depending on what it's like to actually do real litigation/transactional work, and depending on the people in each group, it's at least possible I could wind up preferring litigation. The issue is I won't get to experience any of that in a firm until after most clerkship opportunities are gone.

I might just be dense, but I don't really get this.

Sorry, I meant that if I end up loving the litigation group at my summer firm or hating transactional and I decide I want to clerk, a lot of fed clerkships will be taken up by that point since the timeline is so early. I.e., to clerk right after law school, I need to decide fairly soon.

You can clerk after working, too.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:You can clerk after working, too.

Yeah, basically this. I've never done the math, so maybe clerking after year one is a bigger financial cost, but I feel like clerking as an alum has unique benefits and probably makes you more competitive/a lot of judges seem to be moving in that direction.

ETA: the only risk I can see is if you go fully transactional and hate it. I think we've had discussions on this board about using clerkships to transition from transactional -> lit, but having a very corporate resume might make it more difficult to get said clerkship? That said, I can't see how it would help at that point to have already clerked. If your firm will let you sit on the fence and try both areas, seems to me that the best idea is to just try both, and then apply for clerkships if you really like litigation and still want to clerk.

FWIW (and others that have grappled with this choice more can probably speak better to it - I never even considered corporate), I think finding the practice area that has the tasks you actually enjoy is more important than some concept of personality 'fit'. There are a lot of great litigators who aren't particularly confrontational people.

Take it all w/ a grain of salt, etc.