Should I be gunning for a clerkship? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm a 2L, top 10% at a T14, and just accepted an SA at a NY V5.

I want to do litigation and am interested in general commercial lit/securities/antitrust. I would like to spend my whole career in private practice, with the lofty goal of making partner at a biglaw firm, and with the secondary, more realistic (I think?) goal of making partner at a midlaw/litigation boutique/plaintiffs firm. (These goals entail working a ton all the time--I understand this.) I have no interest in doing government/public interest work, unless it gets me closer to my goal of firm partner. Also, I would like to spend my whole career in NYC/tri-state area.

With those goals, should I be gunning for a clerkship during my 2L and 3L years? With my current grades I think I'm competitive for some decent clerkships, but I, like most 2Ls and 3Ls, would love to spend my time chilling before I jump into the hectic firm life--so I really only want to keep my foot on the gas to land a good clerkship if it will really give me a significant boost in achieving my goal of making partner somewhere. Also, while I think a clerkship would be a good experience, I'm not dying to go clerk and don't really want to give up the lost salary for that year. I've heard that clerkships are most important if you have aspirations to become an AUSA/fed defender/work in bigfed one day (I do not have those aspirations)... Is this accurate?

In sum: if you want to spend your whole career as a private practice litigator with the goal of making partner somewhere, how important to your career is clerking?

[Pneumonia]

Short answer is yes. It won't be the difference in making partner, but neither will any other single factor. You're at a good law school, you've got great grades, and you want to litigate. No reason not to clerk.

[Lacepiece23]

I just think clerking is good for becoming a better lawyer. I’d do a district court clerkship, which is most relevant for litigation. You’ll learn a ton. Trust me. You’ll also go back to practice with a bit more confidence.

[Lacepiece23]

I just think clerking is good for becoming a better lawyer. I’d do a district court clerkship, which is most relevant for litigation. You’ll learn a ton. Trust me. You’ll also go back to practice with a bit more confidence.

[york1614]

Agreed that the short answer is yes. With few exceptions, a clerkship will make you a better writer, thinker, and strategist. You'll notice those things from your perspective, but maybe more importantly, senior associates and partners at your firm will view you as having those clerkship-related qualities. Plus some partners will naturally/implicitly feel a little more comfortable touting your participation on a matter to in-house counsel who may have clerked. One (underrated?) benefit of clerking is the connections outside of your firm that it can give you also, e.g. other clerks, AUSAs/Fed. Defenders, your judge/other judges, etc. Firms can be pretty isolating so I've found it nice to have resources outside the firm when I need them.

To the extent that you're really hesitant and don't want to "waste" time/money on just any clerkship, focus on judges in the tri-state area and other major courts nationwide, e.g. 7/9/D.C. Cirs., N.D. Ill., D.D.C., N.D. Cal., and C.D. Cal. Your V5 firm will have cases in those courts (and probably a lot of others), so those will be a nice blend of prestigious/functional.

[QContinuum]

I just think clerking is good for becoming a better lawyer. I’d do a district court clerkship, which is most relevant for litigation. You’ll learn a ton. Trust me. You’ll also go back to practice with a bit more confidence.

That's true, but in the legal market, prestige is everything. CoA is more prestigious and thus more highly valued (even though the vast majority of CoA clerks won't end up practicing appellate lit). Thus OP should try to do appellate if he's able to snag one.

[Elston Gunn]

I just think clerking is good for becoming a better lawyer. I’d do a district court clerkship, which is most relevant for litigation. You’ll learn a ton. Trust me. You’ll also go back to practice with a bit more confidence.

That's true, but in the legal market, prestige is everything. CoA is more prestigious and thus more highly valued (even though the vast majority of CoA clerks won't end up practicing appellate lit). Thus OP should try to do appellate if he's able to snag one.

I honestly doubt that the type of COA clerkship a top 10% T14 student would be competitive for is going to matter at all 10+ years from now in terms of partnership decisions. (Which is to say I suspect a few super elite clerkships make a difference, but for the most part it’s unlikely to matter much as a resume line.) Perfectly legit to prefer the clerkship that will be more relevant to day-to-day practice.

OP, to your question, I don’t think you’re going to get any kind of definitive answers, you’ll just get impressionistic anecdote-based answers like mine above. One thing I’ll caution you is to just not get too certain about what you’ll want to do 5 years from now. If you want to change jobs as a third or fourth year, which there’s quite a good chance you will, I suspect having a clerkship will be more likely to make a difference then than in a hypothetical partnership decision.

Something also to consider is that you may be interested in lateralling to a boutique (or joining one initially after a clerkship) and the best ones tend to care very much about clerkships.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Thanks for all the responses. As much as I was hoping this thread would just be pouring over with encouragement for me to spend these next two years watching Netflix and pulling Bs, it makes sense that the general consensus is to pursue a clerkship if I want to be a career litigator in any capacity.

As far as district court v. appellate court, I tend to favor a district court. This is, to some extent, because I want to stay in the tri-state area and I think that I stand a much better chance at a EDNY/DNJ/DCT (and SDNY, but not a great chance there) clerkship than I do a 2d Circuit clerkship. Day-to-day applicability aside, does anyone have insight on whether the prestige/resume line of a COA clerkship anywhere would get me closer to my goals than a EDNY/DNJ/DCT clerkship would (noted than any boost would be marginal in either scenario)?

[Elston Gunn]

There’s an appreciable prestige difference between any random COA and DNJ/D. Conn. imo, but not so much that I personally would uproot my life for it. So I obviously think it’s reasonable to take that approach. EDNY it’s a little less clear that there’s any difference, especially since you presumably are going to be practicing in NYC.

[QContinuum]

There’s an appreciable prestige difference between any random COA and DNJ/D. Conn. imo, but not so much that I personally would uproot my life for it. So I obviously think it’s reasonable to take that approach. EDNY it’s a little less clear that there’s any difference, especially since you presumably are going to be practicing in NYC.

If I wanted to litigate, I'd personally go to some length to try to clerk on a CoA - I really do think it's worth it, compared to clerking on DNJ/DConn or the like. (SDNY's the obvious exception; SDNY may even be more prestigious than clerking on a "less prestigious" CoA.) I might not move to Alaska in order to clerk on the 9th (as one of my friends did, once upon a time), but otherwise I'd be willing to spend a year in most places.

Ofc it depends to some extent on OP's personal/family situation and how much s/he wants to prioritize career vs. personal life. Certainly it wouldn't sink a litigation career to go without a CoA clerkship (although having one would certainly be a boost).

[Anonymous User]

I just think clerking is good for becoming a better lawyer. I’d do a district court clerkship, which is most relevant for litigation. You’ll learn a ton. Trust me. You’ll also go back to practice with a bit more confidence.

That's true, but in the legal market, prestige is everything. CoA is more prestigious and thus more highly valued (even though the vast majority of CoA clerks won't end up practicing appellate lit). Thus OP should try to do appellate if he's able to snag one.

I honestly doubt that the type of COA clerkship a top 10% T14 student would be competitive for is going to matter at all 10+ years from now in terms of partnership decisions. (Which is to say I suspect a few super elite clerkships make a difference, but for the most part it’s unlikely to matter much as a resume line.) Perfectly legit to prefer the clerkship that will be more relevant to day-to-day practice.

OP, to your question, I don’t think you’re going to get any kind of definitive answers, you’ll just get impressionistic anecdote-based answers like mine above. One thing I’ll caution you is to just not get too certain about what you’ll want to do 5 years from now. If you want to change jobs as a third or fourth year, which there’s quite a good chance you will, I suspect having a clerkship will be more likely to make a difference then than in a hypothetical partnership decision.

Something also to consider is that you may be interested in lateralling to a boutique (or joining one initially after a clerkship) and the best ones tend to care very much about clerkships.

I'm not so sure this is true. I won't go into which is more beneficial since they both have plusses, but I am 6 years out and many jobs have cared greatly about the COA resume line. Now, some of these are government, but some are also those elite firms and boutiques. I'm not saying it would help making partner, but it still feels like a big deal (and I'm not even saying it should). Also, those were basically my stats and mine was particularly "elite."

[lavarman84]

There’s an appreciable prestige difference between any random COA and DNJ/D. Conn. imo, but not so much that I personally would uproot my life for it. So I obviously think it’s reasonable to take that approach. EDNY it’s a little less clear that there’s any difference, especially since you presumably are going to be practicing in NYC.

If I wanted to litigate, I'd personally go to some length to try to clerk on a CoA - I really do think it's worth it, compared to clerking on DNJ/DConn or the like. (SDNY's the obvious exception; SDNY may even be more prestigious than clerking on a "less prestigious" CoA.) I might not move to Alaska in order to clerk on the 9th (as one of my friends did, once upon a time), but otherwise I'd be willing to spend a year in most places.

Ofc it depends to some extent on OP's personal/family situation and how much s/he wants to prioritize career vs. personal life. Certainly it wouldn't sink a litigation career to go without a CoA clerkship (although having one would certainly be a boost).

I'd be tempted to go the other direction. A COA clerkship is generally more prestigious, but I see a D. Ct. clerkship as more practically useful for a litigator who doesn't intend to do appellate work.

[QContinuum]

There’s an appreciable prestige difference between any random COA and DNJ/D. Conn. imo, but not so much that I personally would uproot my life for it. So I obviously think it’s reasonable to take that approach. EDNY it’s a little less clear that there’s any difference, especially since you presumably are going to be practicing in NYC.

If I wanted to litigate, I'd personally go to some length to try to clerk on a CoA - I really do think it's worth it, compared to clerking on DNJ/DConn or the like. (SDNY's the obvious exception; SDNY may even be more prestigious than clerking on a "less prestigious" CoA.) I might not move to Alaska in order to clerk on the 9th (as one of my friends did, once upon a time), but otherwise I'd be willing to spend a year in most places.

Ofc it depends to some extent on OP's personal/family situation and how much s/he wants to prioritize career vs. personal life. Certainly it wouldn't sink a litigation career to go without a CoA clerkship (although having one would certainly be a boost).

I'd be tempted to go the other direction. A COA clerkship is generally more prestigious, but I see a D. Ct. clerkship as more practically useful for a litigator who doesn't intend to do appellate work.

*shrugs* We don't disagree. I just think prestige is more important than practical usefulness. Most CoA clerks appear to agree - the vast majority of them will never practice appellate (you'd need at least a feeder CoA judge to land appellate practice).

[ConfusedNYer]

I was in a similar position (thought I had a decent chance of clerking, but really wanted to enjoy 2/3L) and just wanted to add that from a practical perspective applying for clerkships really isn't that hard and won't really interfere with your ability to enjoy your life, especially if you pick a class load of easier classes / things with guaranteed higher grades like clinics (though may be school dependent.) In the end I still spent a good chunk of my last two years going on fun trips, going out with friends, and generally not worrying too hard - I just had to throw in a few hours here and there getting the material together and sending everything out. Honestly physically preparing and sending out paper applications was probably the most time consuming part.

I have a few friends with better grades who wanted to clerk but couldn't overcome the momentum hurdle of getting the process going (though part of that is the fear of rejection that I think stops a lot of applicants.) Once you cross the threshold and actually start preparing your applications the whole thing becomes way less daunting.

I'd also recommend setting aside some SA money for the travel expenses though, as they can build up.

[lavarman84]

There’s an appreciable prestige difference between any random COA and DNJ/D. Conn. imo, but not so much that I personally would uproot my life for it. So I obviously think it’s reasonable to take that approach. EDNY it’s a little less clear that there’s any difference, especially since you presumably are going to be practicing in NYC.

If I wanted to litigate, I'd personally go to some length to try to clerk on a CoA - I really do think it's worth it, compared to clerking on DNJ/DConn or the like. (SDNY's the obvious exception; SDNY may even be more prestigious than clerking on a "less prestigious" CoA.) I might not move to Alaska in order to clerk on the 9th (as one of my friends did, once upon a time), but otherwise I'd be willing to spend a year in most places.

Ofc it depends to some extent on OP's personal/family situation and how much s/he wants to prioritize career vs. personal life. Certainly it wouldn't sink a litigation career to go without a CoA clerkship (although having one would certainly be a boost).

I'd be tempted to go the other direction. A COA clerkship is generally more prestigious, but I see a D. Ct. clerkship as more practically useful for a litigator who doesn't intend to do appellate work.

*shrugs* We don't disagree. I just think prestige is more important than practical usefulness. Most CoA clerks appear to agree - the vast majority of them will never practice appellate (you'd need at least a feeder CoA judge to land appellate practice).

I don't really know what goes into becoming a biglaw partner, so I don't know how far the COA prestige goes there. I'm just saying that I think a D. Ct. clerkship would do more for preparing OP for biglaw than would a COA clerkship. I am currently a D. Ct. clerk now. I will be starting a COA clerkship next fall (because I want to do appellate work). I've talked to a number of people who did both, and the consensus opinion is that the D. Ct. clerkship is better practical experience. It seems we agree there. As I said before, I don't know how far the COA clerkship prestige advantage will go when it's time to make partnership decisions. If it would make a lot of difference, that obviously changes the calculus. If it doesn't, I think a D. Ct. clerkship will better prepare OP to litigate, especially if he or she can clerk in the EDNY.

[Barrred]

Because district court experience translates better into the day-to-day work of a litigation associate, it would seem that district court experience has a greater potential to improve the quality of an associate's day-to-day work moreso than COA experience (all else being equal). Doing great work is a far bigger factor in making partner at a firm than resume prestige. It logically follows that district court experience does more to improve an associate's chances at partnership.

Are any of these premises flawed?

[Lacepiece23]

Because district court experience translates better into the day-to-day work of a litigation associate, it would seem that district court experience has a greater potential to improve the quality of an associate's day-to-day work moreso than COA experience (all else being equal). Doing great work is a far bigger factor in making partner at a firm than resume prestige. It logically follows that district court experience does more to improve an associate's chances at partnership.

Are any of these premises flawed?

I don’t that was basically my point from the beginning, but didn’t feel like typing it out. Sitting in and watching god and bad lawyers practice is invaluable. You get to see oral advocat and written advocacy. It takes being good at both to be a good litigator. I wouldn’t argue that you’d become a better writer doing a COA clerkship. Even simple things, however. like understanding ECF and knowing what moves the needle with trial courts is more valuable in my day to day.

[Anonymous User]

There’s an appreciable prestige difference between any random COA and DNJ/D. Conn. imo, but not so much that I personally would uproot my life for it. So I obviously think it’s reasonable to take that approach. EDNY it’s a little less clear that there’s any difference, especially since you presumably are going to be practicing in NYC.

If I wanted to litigate, I'd personally go to some length to try to clerk on a CoA - I really do think it's worth it, compared to clerking on DNJ/DConn or the like. (SDNY's the obvious exception; SDNY may even be more prestigious than clerking on a "less prestigious" CoA.) I might not move to Alaska in order to clerk on the 9th (as one of my friends did, once upon a time), but otherwise I'd be willing to spend a year in most places.

Ofc it depends to some extent on OP's personal/family situation and how much s/he wants to prioritize career vs. personal life. Certainly it wouldn't sink a litigation career to go without a CoA clerkship (although having one would certainly be a boost).

I'd be tempted to go the other direction. A COA clerkship is generally more prestigious, but I see a D. Ct. clerkship as more practically useful for a litigator who doesn't intend to do appellate work.

*shrugs* We don't disagree. I just think prestige is more important than practical usefulness. Most CoA clerks appear to agree - the vast majority of them will never practice appellate (you'd need at least a feeder CoA judge to land appellate practice).

I don't really know what goes into becoming a biglaw partner, so I don't know how far the COA prestige goes there. I'm just saying that I think a D. Ct. clerkship would do more for preparing OP for biglaw than would a COA clerkship. I am currently a D. Ct. clerk now. I will be starting a COA clerkship next fall (because I want to do appellate work). I've talked to a number of people who did both, and the consensus opinion is that the D. Ct. clerkship is better practical experience. It seems we agree there. As I said before, I don't know how far the COA clerkship prestige advantage will go when it's time to make partnership decisions. If it would make a lot of difference, that obviously changes the calculus. If it doesn't, I think a D. Ct. clerkship will better prepare OP to litigate, especially if he or she can clerk in the EDNY.

OP again. Thanks for this discussion. I definitely have personal reasons (family, SO, friends) for wanting to stay tri-state and do DNJ/D Conn. (assuming I can't land EDNY/SDNY) instead of a random COA, but I'm relatively young and could get through doing a year out of the area if it would be very beneficial for me.

However, after reading through some of this, I'm maybe a little skeptical on district court clerkship yielding more practical preparation for a non-appellate-litigator than a COA clerkship? I'm sure a district court would get me more familiar with motion practice/discovery disputes/ECF/trials, but if being a "successful" litigator is generally a combination of being great at oral advocacy and great at written advocacy, wouldn't I develop those particular skills just as well at a COA (where the work is very writing intensive + I'd be observing oral arguments at the appellate level) as I would at a district court (where the writing intensivity is probably roughly equal but maybe slightly less complex + I'd be observing oral arguments for motions). Plus the "boost" in prestige of random COA over DNJ/D Conn almost makes me start to lean COA . . . . Or is it just the case that the type of opinions I'd be writing at the district court are more applicable to the day-to-day of a litigator than the opinions at the appellate level, and therefore the district court experience is more practical not because the skill development is superior, but because I'm working more closely with the motions I'll one day actually be arguing?

[nixy]

If you’re going for prestige alone, sure, COA, but no, the writing and oral advocacy you do there isn’t like most of litigation. Your average litigator spends WAY more time in motions practice than in appellate litigation, and the writing and arguing in each are very different. Personally I agree that district court is way more useful to day to day litigation - because yes, you are working with the kinds of motions you’ll one day be arguing.

[lavarman84]

However, after reading through some of this, I'm maybe a little skeptical on district court clerkship yielding more practical preparation for a non-appellate-litigator than a COA clerkship?

If you don't want to take my word for it, I recommend talking to some people who have clerked at both levels. I expect you'll find the same consensus that I did.

I'm sure a district court would get me more familiar with motion practice/discovery disputes/ECF/trials, but if being a "successful" litigator is generally a combination of being great at oral advocacy and great at written advocacy, wouldn't I develop those particular skills just as well at a COA (where the work is very writing intensive + I'd be observing oral arguments at the appellate level) as I would at a district court (where the writing intensivity is probably roughly equal but maybe slightly less complex + I'd be observing oral arguments for motions).

You won't develop the same understanding of the work you'll actually be doing, you won't get to observe and work on trials (which are very different than oral arguments), and you won't get the benefit of understanding how a trial judge's chambers operates. Those three things are massive benefits. Plus, if you work for the EDNY and work for a NYC firm, your firm might have cases that go before your judge (which makes you an extremely valuable resource).

Plus the "boost" in prestige of random COA over DNJ/D Conn almost makes me start to lean COA . . . . Or is it just the case that the type of opinions I'd be writing at the district court are more applicable to the day-to-day of a litigator than the opinions at the appellate level, and therefore the district court experience is more practical not because the skill development is superior, but because I'm working more closely with the motions I'll one day actually be arguing?

A COA clerkship is going to be more prestigious. There's no doubt about it. But I don't see you getting the same practical benefits if you aren't going to do appellate work. Yes, working closely with those motions (and with your judge on those motions) will be a great help to you early in your career, but there's so much more to it. It's one of those things you just have to do to really understand. Managing every case from start to finish gives you such a valuable understanding of how litigating a case works, and working within a trial court's chambers gives you an institutional knowledge you won't get elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong. You'll likely get great experience during a COA clerkship. It just won't be as practical for you if you aren't doing appellate work. I'll also note that COA clerkships are very competitive, so if you're interested in either, it is likely best to just apply for both (apply as broadly as you want for COA and as narrowly as you want for the D. Ct.). There's no guarantee you'll get a COA clerkship, but your credentials will allow you to be competitive.

[Lacepiece23]

However, after reading through some of this, I'm maybe a little skeptical on district court clerkship yielding more practical preparation for a non-appellate-litigator than a COA clerkship?

If you don't want to take my word for it, I recommend talking to some people who have clerked at both levels. I expect you'll find the same consensus that I did.

I'm sure a district court would get me more familiar with motion practice/discovery disputes/ECF/trials, but if being a "successful" litigator is generally a combination of being great at oral advocacy and great at written advocacy, wouldn't I develop those particular skills just as well at a COA (where the work is very writing intensive + I'd be observing oral arguments at the appellate level) as I would at a district court (where the writing intensivity is probably roughly equal but maybe slightly less complex + I'd be observing oral arguments for motions).

You won't develop the same understanding of the work you'll actually be doing, you won't get to observe and work on trials (which are very different than oral arguments), and you won't get the benefit of understanding how a trial judge's chambers operates. Those three things are massive benefits. Plus, if you work for the EDNY and work for a NYC firm, your firm might have cases that go before your judge (which makes you an extremely valuable resource).

Plus the "boost" in prestige of random COA over DNJ/D Conn almost makes me start to lean COA . . . . Or is it just the case that the type of opinions I'd be writing at the district court are more applicable to the day-to-day of a litigator than the opinions at the appellate level, and therefore the district court experience is more practical not because the skill development is superior, but because I'm working more closely with the motions I'll one day actually be arguing?

A COA clerkship is going to be more prestigious. There's no doubt about it. But I don't see you getting the same practical benefits if you aren't going to do appellate work. Yes, working closely with those motions (and with your judge on those motions) will be a great help to you early in your career, but there's so much more to it. It's one of those things you just have to do to really understand. Managing every case from start to finish gives you such a valuable understanding of how litigating a case works, and working within a trial court's chambers gives you an institutional knowledge you won't get elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong. You'll likely get great experience during a COA clerkship. It just won't be as practical for you if you aren't doing appellate work. I'll also note that COA clerkships are very competitive, so if you're interested in either, it is likely best to just apply for both (apply as broadly as you want for COA and as narrowly as you want for the D. Ct.). There's no guarantee you'll get a COA clerkship, but your credentials will allow you to be competitive.

All of this. TCR.

[Quichelorraine]

OP again. Thanks for this discussion. I definitely have personal reasons (family, SO, friends) for wanting to stay tri-state and do DNJ/D Conn. (assuming I can't land EDNY/SDNY) instead of a random COA, but I'm relatively young and could get through doing a year out of the area if it would be very beneficial for me.

A word about DNJ: it's a bad idea to consider the District a "backup" if you strike out in NY. DNJ, and DNJ-Newark especially, is very insular. Some judges have a strong preference for Jersey ties. If you don't have that, it can be tough to get off the pile. DNJ-Trenton is less picky, I'm told, but that commute can be a bitch. D. Conn. might actually be less of a lift because of this.

Otherwise, I should say that I agree with TCR above. District court work--trial court work in general--is far more like actual day-to-day litigation, complete with last-minute scrambles, emergencies, and the obligation to actually develop a factual record. You have to look nice, because the parties (and their lawyers) will see you. You might even *interact* with them. You'll work on cases that have been going on for years, toiling on pretrial orders and renewed motions for summary judgment. There is always too much work, so triaging and doing the right amount becomes a must (you can't beat a dead horse with the 6-month list deadline looming). Amidst all of this, you'll quickly learn the kinds of things lawyers do that drive everyone nuts, and resolve to never, ever do them in practice.

COA work is like law school. It's research and writing, all day. With certain exceptions, you have dead cases on a closed factual record. If an attorney calls, it's almost certainly because she's dialed the wrong extension. If your boss doesn't care, you can look like a slob, because nobody ever sees you. The entire public-facing part of my job was sitting on the side of the courtroom during argument days, hoping that I looked "serious" instead of "hungover."

[BlackAndOrange84]

OP, I don't know why you wouldn't do two clerkships, one D.Ct. and one COA if it's at all feasible (given family situation, debt, etc.). As the consensus here seems to be: COA will give you the prestige/abstract resume boost and D.Ct. gives you useful experience. Why not do both if you can make it work?

[Anonymous User]

However, after reading through some of this, I'm maybe a little skeptical on district court clerkship yielding more practical preparation for a non-appellate-litigator than a COA clerkship?

If you don't want to take my word for it, I recommend talking to some people who have clerked at both levels. I expect you'll find the same consensus that I did.

I'm sure a district court would get me more familiar with motion practice/discovery disputes/ECF/trials, but if being a "successful" litigator is generally a combination of being great at oral advocacy and great at written advocacy, wouldn't I develop those particular skills just as well at a COA (where the work is very writing intensive + I'd be observing oral arguments at the appellate level) as I would at a district court (where the writing intensivity is probably roughly equal but maybe slightly less complex + I'd be observing oral arguments for motions).

You won't develop the same understanding of the work you'll actually be doing, you won't get to observe and work on trials (which are very different than oral arguments), and you won't get the benefit of understanding how a trial judge's chambers operates. Those three things are massive benefits. Plus, if you work for the EDNY and work for a NYC firm, your firm might have cases that go before your judge (which makes you an extremely valuable resource).

Plus the "boost" in prestige of random COA over DNJ/D Conn almost makes me start to lean COA . . . . Or is it just the case that the type of opinions I'd be writing at the district court are more applicable to the day-to-day of a litigator than the opinions at the appellate level, and therefore the district court experience is more practical not because the skill development is superior, but because I'm working more closely with the motions I'll one day actually be arguing?

A COA clerkship is going to be more prestigious. There's no doubt about it. But I don't see you getting the same practical benefits if you aren't going to do appellate work. Yes, working closely with those motions (and with your judge on those motions) will be a great help to you early in your career, but there's so much more to it. It's one of those things you just have to do to really understand. Managing every case from start to finish gives you such a valuable understanding of how litigating a case works, and working within a trial court's chambers gives you an institutional knowledge you won't get elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong. You'll likely get great experience during a COA clerkship. It just won't be as practical for you if you aren't doing appellate work. I'll also note that COA clerkships are very competitive, so if you're interested in either, it is likely best to just apply for both (apply as broadly as you want for COA and as narrowly as you want for the D. Ct.). There's no guarantee you'll get a COA clerkship, but your credentials will allow you to be competitive.

OP again. Great post. Points all taken.

To the other two posters:
(1) I definitely don't view DNJ or D Conn as "backups" like one would view a safety school when picking colleges. I think it's pretty settled that EDNY/SDNY are more preftigious, and I'd rather be living in the city than commuting to/living in the suburbs, so I imagine when applying I would stagger my applications such that my EDNY/SDNY apps go out earlier so I can maximize my chances of landing one of those courts and not end up taking a DNJ/D Conn clerkship before all my EDNY/SDNY apps are looked at. Nevertheless, I would of course be thrilled to land a clerkship in either of DNJ or D Conn.
(2) I would consider doing both district court and COA if I was lucky enough to land both, but you hit the nail on the head with both family concerns and debt. Since my plan is to stay in private practice (and hopefully make good money) for my whole career maybe the debt shouldn't be the biggest concern, but I'll leave law school pushing close to the 200k mark. It would probably come down to the personal decision of whether I'd want to be away from my SO for a year if I left to do random COA.

[BlackAndOrange84]

Re: financial concerns, you don't have to do the two clerkships consecutively right out of law school. Indeed, it's increasingly less common to do so. If you hold off, you can pay down some debt in the interim and come into your clerkship making more money because higher up the JS scale. Also, if you can land the D.Ct. clerkship for after graduation, you'll be a stronger candidate for COA clerkships, particularly since you'll be anticipated to have a year or two of practice experience .