Top Law Schools

So I am in a bit of a quandary. I have an offer in hand for a regional "biglaw" (if that exists, 70-80 attorneys, big name recognition in this outside-if-main-city-market). The first year pay isn't fantastic, and is indeed only about 45% more than a clerkship. I want to remain in this market.

The District Court judge that I worked for 1L summer reached out the day after I received the offer, thinking I still needed employment, and offered to put me in contact with the SC of my state -- he can apparently more or less assure me a clerkship there.

My question then is what might I not be considering in terms of career benefits for the clerkship? Am I making a mistake passing that up in favor of a bit more money right away? Are you fundamentally handicapped by not having a clerkship, later in your career?

Thanks for any input.

Are you looking to do litigation or appellate work? A clerkship is generally beneficial in the former (though you'd learn more in a trial-level court) but pretty much required for the latter. If you want to focus on transactional work, you probably won't get much of a boost from the clerkship.

Many people rave about their time clerking, and it's essentially the only job for which you're really prepared coming out of law school. But a lot depends on your judge, and some clerks can be miserable if their personalities don't mesh with the judge's.

Good question, sorry I didn't include that fact initially. Ideally my career trajectory would be a few years in transactional work and moving to in-house.

Where "a few years" is defined as between 3 and 33.

Anonymous User wrote:Good question, sorry I didn't include that fact initially. Ideally my career trajectory would be a few years in transactional work and moving to in-house.

Where "a few years" is defined as between 3 and 33.

In that case, I think a clerkship would be of rather limited utility.

If it were me, I would probably take the state SC clerkship.

I think it is more helpful for future employment. It will be a great learning experience and if you like to network, it could have a lot of great networking opportunities until later.

I think it will be a great talking point for future job interviews. You can spin a clerkship any way you want to and it sounds prestigious.

Edit: For what it is worth, I work as in house counsel and my boss served as a law clerk for a
State Supreme Court justice right out of law school. I, however, didn't have that opportunity.

Thanks for the input, folks -- the prestige or "conversation piece" factor was something I had been wondering about.

Anonymous User wrote:Thanks for the input, folks -- the prestige or "conversation piece" factor was something I had been wondering about.

Clerking really doesn't help with transactional practice. Plus, isn't it only for a year and then you have to find something else? I would go for the firm.
It speaks well for you that your judge reached out to help you. Good job with that!

Many thanks!

Looks like the consensus is there is no consensus.

Anonymous User wrote:Many thanks!

Looks like the consensus is there is no consensus.

The general rule is that a clerkship isn't worthwhile for a transactional attorney. But depending on the legal market where you are, and on your ultimate career goals, it might not be a bad option.

Prestige-wise, state supreme court clerkships are more or less on par with federal district court clerkships. There are some exceptions, such as New York's Court of Appeals or the California Supreme Court, which are probably closer in prestige to federal circuits. The Delaware Court of Chancery is also fairly prestigious. If you're in a smaller state with a less-well-known state supreme court, a clerkship there might not be seen as very prestigious by out-of-staters, but in the local legal market, it probably will carry some weight.

Aeon wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Many thanks!

Looks like the consensus is there is no consensus.

The general rule is that a clerkship isn't worthwhile for a transactional attorney. But depending on the legal market where you are, and on your ultimate career goals, it might not be a bad option.

Prestige-wise, state supreme court clerkships are more or less on par with federal district court clerkships. There are some exceptions, such as New York's Court of Appeals or the California Supreme Court, which are probably closer in prestige to federal circuits. The Delaware Court of Chancery is also fairly prestigious. If you're in a smaller state with a less-well-known state supreme court, a clerkship there might not be seen as very prestigious by out-of-staters, but in the local legal market, it probably will carry some weight.

OP has a job now instead of looking for one again in less than a year. I'm not sure what the prestige might bring him, but your point is worth considering.
Maybe OPs firm would let him defer a year if this is really a prestigious thing. It might be worth asking the firm if OP has a good relationship with someone. It would make me question whether he wants corporate, but it may not be an issue at his firm.