Coming off clerkship as 3rd yr associate? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hey, does anyone have any experience coming off a 2 year clerkship and entering a V10 firm as a 3rd year associate? (stub yr is 2nd yr associate) I have never worked in a law firm before, and I am kind of nervous about starting as a 2nd year associate and moving to a 3rd year in a few months. Is the level you start at off a clerkship a lot more responsibility than a junior? Is it manageable?

[objctnyrhnr]

Hey, does anyone have any experience coming off a 2 year clerkship and entering a V10 firm as a 3rd year associate? (stub yr is 2nd yr associate) I have never worked in a law firm before, and I am kind of nervous about starting as a 2nd year associate and moving to a 3rd year in a few months. Is the level you start at off a clerkship a lot more responsibility than a junior? Is it manageable?

It’s more than manageable. You’ll have skills that your peers won’t. Your relative lack of knowledge Re billing or e discovery will be rectified quickly. I made a more extreme move than this and was fine.

[Pulsar]

You'll be fine. You may be given less discovery and doc review projects, and more legal research and writing projects, because partners may assume that you are smart and/or have had more experience doing that work than your 3rd year peers.

Clerking is nice because it allows you to skip the doc-review heavy days of being a first year.

[BeeTeeZ]

Hey, does anyone have any experience coming off a 2 year clerkship and entering a V10 firm as a 3rd year associate? (stub yr is 2nd yr associate) I have never worked in a law firm before, and I am kind of nervous about starting as a 2nd year associate and moving to a 3rd year in a few months. Is the level you start at off a clerkship a lot more responsibility than a junior? Is it manageable?

It’s more than manageable. You’ll have skills that your peers won’t. Your relative lack of knowledge Re billing or e discovery will be rectified quickly. I made a more extreme move than this and was fine.

What relevant skills (i.e., relevant to working as an associate in a law firm) will she/he have that her/his peers wouldn't have developed while practicing law for two years?

I understand that clerking has value. But I can't imagine a relevant skill developed while clerking (e.g., research, writing objective memos, legal analysis) that wouldn't be developed while actually practicing law.

Conversely, I can imagine many relevant skills that a practicing attorney would develop (e.g., writing motions, writing/arguing persuasively, negotiation/advocacy/ADR) that a clerk wouldn't.

I'm trying to gain a better understanding of the skills developed while clerking--beyond the usual "you get to see how the sausage is made" rhetoric. Can you please offer a couple examples?

[justanotherlurker]

Hey, does anyone have any experience coming off a 2 year clerkship and entering a V10 firm as a 3rd year associate? (stub yr is 2nd yr associate) I have never worked in a law firm before, and I am kind of nervous about starting as a 2nd year associate and moving to a 3rd year in a few months. Is the level you start at off a clerkship a lot more responsibility than a junior? Is it manageable?

It’s more than manageable. You’ll have skills that your peers won’t. Your relative lack of knowledge Re billing or e discovery will be rectified quickly. I made a more extreme move than this and was fine.

What relevant skills (i.e., relevant to working as an associate in a law firm) will she/he have that her/his peers wouldn't have developed while practicing law for two years?

I understand that clerking has value. But I can't imagine a relevant skill developed while clerking (e.g., research, writing objective memos, legal analysis) that wouldn't be developed while actually practicing law.

Conversely, I can imagine many relevant skills that a practicing attorney would develop (e.g., writing motions, writing/arguing persuasively, negotiation/advocacy/ADR) that a clerk wouldn't.

I'm trying to gain a better understanding of the skills developed while clerking--beyond the usual "you get to see how the sausage is made" rhetoric. Can you please offer a couple examples?

Agree with the other posters: you'll have a learning curve, but it isn't steep -- you'll figure out billing, discovery requests/responses, etc. without much difficulty.

BeTeeZ: There are a lot of overlap between practicing and clerking, but also a lot that is divergent.
A law clerk won't be involved much in e-discovery or discovery generally (e.g., writing and responding to RFPs, Rogs, etc.; document collection/review; prepping for taking/defending depositions; drafting pleadings; fact investigations) -- all bread and butter of a junior litigator. It's not all legal memos and brief-writing; that's a small fraction of what a junior litigator at a biglaw firm is doing.

A junior associate, however, won't get the "big picture" view of litigation that a clerk gets. In particular, junior associates often won't be involved in much dispositive motion practice, that is the bread and butter of a law clerk. E.g., how to put together a persuasive MSJ; spotting procedural or substantive issues that are the basis for a MTD; thinking about how requests from litigants might be viewed from the judge's perspective, etc. It's that kind of experience that a junior associate doesn't get much (or any) exposure to in a year or two, but is what a clerk does in spades.

[esther0123]

Hey, does anyone have any experience coming off a 2 year clerkship and entering a V10 firm as a 3rd year associate? (stub yr is 2nd yr associate) I have never worked in a law firm before, and I am kind of nervous about starting as a 2nd year associate and moving to a 3rd year in a few months. Is the level you start at off a clerkship a lot more responsibility than a junior? Is it manageable?

It’s more than manageable. You’ll have skills that your peers won’t. Your relative lack of knowledge Re billing or e discovery will be rectified quickly. I made a more extreme move than this and was fine.

What relevant skills (i.e., relevant to working as an associate in a law firm) will she/he have that her/his peers wouldn't have developed while practicing law for two years?

I understand that clerking has value. But I can't imagine a relevant skill developed while clerking (e.g., research, writing objective memos, legal analysis) that wouldn't be developed while actually practicing law.

Conversely, I can imagine many relevant skills that a practicing attorney would develop (e.g., writing motions, writing/arguing persuasively, negotiation/advocacy/ADR) that a clerk wouldn't.

I'm trying to gain a better understanding of the skills developed while clerking--beyond the usual "you get to see how the sausage is made" rhetoric. Can you please offer a couple examples?

Agree with the other posters: you'll have a learning curve, but it isn't steep -- you'll figure out billing, discovery requests/responses, etc. without much difficulty.

BeTeeZ: There are a lot of overlap between practicing and clerking, but also a lot that is divergent.
A law clerk won't be involved much in e-discovery or discovery generally (e.g., writing and responding to RFPs, Rogs, etc.; document collection/review; prepping for taking/defending depositions; drafting pleadings; fact investigations) -- all bread and butter of a junior litigator. It's not all legal memos and brief-writing; that's a small fraction of what a junior litigator at a biglaw firm is doing.

A junior associate, however, won't get the "big picture" view of litigation that a clerk gets. In particular, junior associates often won't be involved in much dispositive motion practice, that is the bread and butter of a law clerk. E.g., how to put together a persuasive MSJ; spotting procedural or substantive issues that are the basis for a MTD; thinking about how requests from litigants might be viewed from the judge's perspective, etc. It's that kind of experience that a junior associate doesn't get much (or any) exposure to in a year or two, but is what a clerk does in spades.

Very much agree with this assessment of what it is like to come in after clerkship. Discovery disputes/document collection and review/taking or defending depositions actually all come fairly easily once you have the bigger picture down. You know what it's being used for, and you can see from miles away what kind of things will become problematic/important in a dispositive motion. You're also typically aware of court deadlines, which ones will move/which ones won't move, and you have an intuitive grasp of the rhythm of the case. Because most juniors (and may I even say some mid levels/seniors) don't have this ability, you become a huge asset to the team. There is a learning curve, but it's not much.

[decimalsanddollars]

Hey guys, related question. I am finishing my first clerkship (mag judge) and starting my second (bankruptcy judge) next month. Do you know if most firms start someone in my position as a 3rd year (like OP) or a second year? Is it common for firms not to "count" an Article I clerkship---or count mag but not bankruptcy (or vice versa)? I've never gotten clear answers on this

[BeeTeeZ]

Hey, does anyone have any experience coming off a 2 year clerkship and entering a V10 firm as a 3rd year associate? (stub yr is 2nd yr associate) I have never worked in a law firm before, and I am kind of nervous about starting as a 2nd year associate and moving to a 3rd year in a few months. Is the level you start at off a clerkship a lot more responsibility than a junior? Is it manageable?

It’s more than manageable. You’ll have skills that your peers won’t. Your relative lack of knowledge Re billing or e discovery will be rectified quickly. I made a more extreme move than this and was fine.

What relevant skills (i.e., relevant to working as an associate in a law firm) will she/he have that her/his peers wouldn't have developed while practicing law for two years?

I understand that clerking has value. But I can't imagine a relevant skill developed while clerking (e.g., research, writing objective memos, legal analysis) that wouldn't be developed while actually practicing law.

Conversely, I can imagine many relevant skills that a practicing attorney would develop (e.g., writing motions, writing/arguing persuasively, negotiation/advocacy/ADR) that a clerk wouldn't.

I'm trying to gain a better understanding of the skills developed while clerking--beyond the usual "you get to see how the sausage is made" rhetoric. Can you please offer a couple examples?

Agree with the other posters: you'll have a learning curve, but it isn't steep -- you'll figure out billing, discovery requests/responses, etc. without much difficulty.

BeTeeZ: There are a lot of overlap between practicing and clerking, but also a lot that is divergent.
A law clerk won't be involved much in e-discovery or discovery generally (e.g., writing and responding to RFPs, Rogs, etc.; document collection/review; prepping for taking/defending depositions; drafting pleadings; fact investigations) -- all bread and butter of a junior litigator. It's not all legal memos and brief-writing; that's a small fraction of what a junior litigator at a biglaw firm is doing.

A junior associate, however, won't get the "big picture" view of litigation that a clerk gets. In particular, junior associates often won't be involved in much dispositive motion practice, that is the bread and butter of a law clerk. E.g., how to put together a persuasive MSJ; spotting procedural or substantive issues that are the basis for a MTD; thinking about how requests from litigants might be viewed from the judge's perspective, etc. It's that kind of experience that a junior associate doesn't get much (or any) exposure to in a year or two, but is what a clerk does in spades.

Very much agree with this assessment of what it is like to come in after clerkship. Discovery disputes/document collection and review/taking or defending depositions actually all come fairly easily once you have the bigger picture down. You know what it's being used for, and you can see from miles away what kind of things will become problematic/important in a dispositive motion. You're also typically aware of court deadlines, which ones will move/which ones won't move, and you have an intuitive grasp of the rhythm of the case. Because most juniors (and may I even say some mid levels/seniors) don't have this ability, you become a huge asset to the team. There is a learning curve, but it's not much.

Thank you both for your insight!

[objctnyrhnr]

My answer is a bit simpler: it’s literally analyzing arguments and writing about them. Put another way, a partner might analyze a junior associate’s draft of a dispositive motions’s memo and tell you what he think one could do to improve it, thereby maximizing chances of success. But a judge will directly help you to learn which arguments get him thinking, and which are just annoyances that you have to address in a footnote so that nobody complains. The latter type of insight, IMO, is invaluable for a litigator and way better than the former.

[Citizen Genet]

I'll quickly offer a different view. I'm a double clerk who has been at a firm (one of the top litigation shops in my market) for about three years.

Clerking offers little practical value as a young associate. I'll start with what I think is the most likely benefit of clerking: improved research and writing. You will undoubtedly, out of sheer necessity, become a better researcher as a clerk. That can be helpful in showing off how quickly you can find support for arguments more senior attorneys want to make and even identifying new arguments to make. But the opportunities for that quality to shine are few and far between for junior associates.

You will have opportunities to showcase your writing. The better the writer you are, the more credible you will be with other attorneys. Even if you're not drafting briefs, your memos will be easier to read and that builds your reputation. But clerking isn't a guarantee of better writing. Not all judges - I'd say most judges, based on my conversations with other clerks - actively develop their clerks' writing. Many will emphasize their idiosyncrasies with their clerks, but that is different from improving writing. And, truth be told, a fair number of judges are mediocre to bad writers. On average they're better. But there's a significant chunk of federal judges who you should not use as writing role models. So just because you clerk doesn't mean you'll be a better writer. Worse, it will set expectations that you're a better writer, and if your writing is sub-par, it will really stand out.

Now to debunk. A lot of people here are lauding clerks' ability to "see the big picture." I thought this too when I first began working at my firm. The older I got, the more I realized that's mostly just clerking hubris. Clerks do see more of the litigation process than others, but rarely do they understand how that translates in practice. And any good non-clerk junior figures out how everything they're doing connect to the bigger picture. It's not tough to understand that discovery leads to dispositive motions leads to trial issues. The real value juniors add in "seeing the big picture" is understanding the big picture of the particular facts of a case, and no amount of clerking teaches you how to sort through the mess of discovery to connect those facts.

It is true you will do less straight doc review than non-clerks, generally. But that's more just a numbers game about what rates a partner can bill. If you never learn how to deal with the administrative nightmare that is discovery - where BigLaw litigators earn the bulk of their fees - you will not become a successful senior associate. And if clerking so much makes you skip that whole process, you will lose out on a valuable skill set. So my recommendation to new clerks is to quickly find a senior associate who will actively teach you the discovery process. (If you're in appellate, ignore this advice.)

A final related point: lots of BigLaw "litigators" do the vast majority of their work in internal investigations, arbitration, or regulatory agencies that have very different rules from federal court. Clerkships are even less practically helpful for those fields.

Now, setting aside practical value, clerking has great signaling value. Partners can sell a client on, "Oh we've got someone whose brilliant who just finished clerking." It will be on your firm bio from now until you don't have one. So it makes you more marketable because people mistakenly believe it means you've got some special skill set that you don't. I hope they keep on believing that because it's helped me a ton so far. I just happen to think it's way overrated.

(None of this is to say people shouldn't clerk. Clerking is a ridiculous amount of fun for anyone who enjoys the law. And you will get an opportunity to see lots of different fields of law, so it can help you narrow down a field you might be interested in. Just please don't finish clerking and think, like I did, that you know have some edge that makes you particularly great. You don't.)

[objctnyrhnr]

I'll quickly offer a different view. I'm a double clerk who has been at a firm (one of the top litigation shops in my market) for about three years.

Clerking offers little practical value as a young associate. I'll start with what I think is the most likely benefit of clerking: improved research and writing. You will undoubtedly, out of sheer necessity, become a better researcher as a clerk. That can be helpful in showing off how quickly you can find support for arguments more senior attorneys want to make and even identifying new arguments to make. But the opportunities for that quality to shine are few and far between for junior associates.

You will have opportunities to showcase your writing. The better the writer you are, the more credible you will be with other attorneys. Even if you're not drafting briefs, your memos will be easier to read and that builds your reputation. But clerking isn't a guarantee of better writing. Not all judges - I'd say most judges, based on my conversations with other clerks - actively develop their clerks' writing. Many will emphasize their idiosyncrasies with their clerks, but that is different from improving writing. And, truth be told, a fair number of judges are mediocre to bad writers. On average they're better. But there's a significant chunk of federal judges who you should not use as writing role models. So just because you clerk doesn't mean you'll be a better writer. Worse, it will set expectations that you're a better writer, and if your writing is sub-par, it will really stand out.

Now to debunk. A lot of people here are lauding clerks' ability to "see the big picture." I thought this too when I first began working at my firm. The older I got, the more I realized that's mostly just clerking hubris. Clerks do see more of the litigation process than others, but rarely do they understand how that translates in practice. And any good non-clerk junior figures out how everything they're doing connect to the bigger picture. It's not tough to understand that discovery leads to dispositive motions leads to trial issues. The real value juniors add in "seeing the big picture" is understanding the big picture of the particular facts of a case, and no amount of clerking teaches you how to sort through the mess of discovery to connect those facts.

It is true you will do less straight doc review than non-clerks, generally. But that's more just a numbers game about what rates a partner can bill. If you never learn how to deal with the administrative nightmare that is discovery - where BigLaw litigators earn the bulk of their fees - you will not become a successful senior associate. And if clerking so much makes you skip that whole process, you will lose out on a valuable skill set. So my recommendation to new clerks is to quickly find a senior associate who will actively teach you the discovery process. (If you're in appellate, ignore this advice.)

A final related point: lots of BigLaw "litigators" do the vast majority of their work in internal investigations, arbitration, or regulatory agencies that have very different rules from federal court. Clerkships are even less practically helpful for those fields.

Now, setting aside practical value, clerking has great signaling value. Partners can sell a client on, "Oh we've got someone whose brilliant who just finished clerking." It will be on your firm bio from now until you don't have one. So it makes you more marketable because people mistakenly believe it means you've got some special skill set that you don't. I hope they keep on believing that because it's helped me a ton so far. I just happen to think it's way overrated.

(None of this is to say people shouldn't clerk. Clerking is a ridiculous amount of fun for anyone who enjoys the law. And you will get an opportunity to see lots of different fields of law, so it can help you narrow down a field you might be interested in. Just please don't finish clerking and think, like I did, that you know have some edge that makes you particularly great. You don't.)

Hot tip: don’t summer or post-clerk at this guy’s firm. Opportunities for juniors seem few and far between. And to be clear, I am in no way, attempting to detract from his/her wisdom or experience or prowess of the firm. I’m just saying that, this opinion (which is well-founded I’m sure), evidently stems from an experience from a firm at which a former would not find their stride as quickly as a lit group from a satellite office of a large firm.

[Citizen Genet]

Hot tip: don’t summer or post-clerk at this guy’s firm. Opportunities for juniors seem few and far between. And to be clear, I am in no way, attempting to detract from his/her wisdom or experience or prowess of the firm. I’m just saying that, this opinion (which is well-founded I’m sure), evidently stems from an experience from a firm at which a former would not find their stride as quickly as a lit group from a satellite office of a large firm.

Eh, disagree. The majority of our junior associates (four years or less) have attended trial as a billing attorney. Most have also done depos. About half of our mid-levels have taken witnesses at trial. A junior and a mid-level each argued paid cases before different appellate courts. So we're all getting solid experience. But whose getting these experiences is based on the work they do when they get here, not whether they had a clerkship.

EDIT: Oh! And my experience is consistent with my discussions with friends and co-clerks who work at top firms in D.C. and New York. Clerking generally doesn't prepare you to be a better junior associate except for the instances I mentioned above.

DOUBLE EDIT: Initially said two juniors argued before appellate courts. Realized one of them was a mid-level, not a junior.

[Lacepiece23]

I'll quickly offer a different view. I'm a double clerk who has been at a firm (one of the top litigation shops in my market) for about three years.

Clerking offers little practical value as a young associate. I'll start with what I think is the most likely benefit of clerking: improved research and writing. You will undoubtedly, out of sheer necessity, become a better researcher as a clerk. That can be helpful in showing off how quickly you can find support for arguments more senior attorneys want to make and even identifying new arguments to make. But the opportunities for that quality to shine are few and far between for junior associates.

You will have opportunities to showcase your writing. The better the writer you are, the more credible you will be with other attorneys. Even if you're not drafting briefs, your memos will be easier to read and that builds your reputation. But clerking isn't a guarantee of better writing. Not all judges - I'd say most judges, based on my conversations with other clerks - actively develop their clerks' writing. Many will emphasize their idiosyncrasies with their clerks, but that is different from improving writing. And, truth be told, a fair number of judges are mediocre to bad writers. On average they're better. But there's a significant chunk of federal judges who you should not use as writing role models. So just because you clerk doesn't mean you'll be a better writer. Worse, it will set expectations that you're a better writer, and if your writing is sub-par, it will really stand out.

Now to debunk. A lot of people here are lauding clerks' ability to "see the big picture." I thought this too when I first began working at my firm. The older I got, the more I realized that's mostly just clerking hubris. Clerks do see more of the litigation process than others, but rarely do they understand how that translates in practice. And any good non-clerk junior figures out how everything they're doing connect to the bigger picture. It's not tough to understand that discovery leads to dispositive motions leads to trial issues. The real value juniors add in "seeing the big picture" is understanding the big picture of the particular facts of a case, and no amount of clerking teaches you how to sort through the mess of discovery to connect those facts.

It is true you will do less straight doc review than non-clerks, generally. But that's more just a numbers game about what rates a partner can bill. If you never learn how to deal with the administrative nightmare that is discovery - where BigLaw litigators earn the bulk of their fees - you will not become a successful senior associate. And if clerking so much makes you skip that whole process, you will lose out on a valuable skill set. So my recommendation to new clerks is to quickly find a senior associate who will actively teach you the discovery process. (If you're in appellate, ignore this advice.)

A final related point: lots of BigLaw "litigators" do the vast majority of their work in internal investigations, arbitration, or regulatory agencies that have very different rules from federal court. Clerkships are even less practically helpful for those fields.

Now, setting aside practical value, clerking has great signaling value. Partners can sell a client on, "Oh we've got someone whose brilliant who just finished clerking." It will be on your firm bio from now until you don't have one. So it makes you more marketable because people mistakenly believe it means you've got some special skill set that you don't. I hope they keep on believing that because it's helped me a ton so far. I just happen to think it's way overrated.

(None of this is to say people shouldn't clerk. Clerking is a ridiculous amount of fun for anyone who enjoys the law. And you will get an opportunity to see lots of different fields of law, so it can help you narrow down a field you might be interested in. Just please don't finish clerking and think, like I did, that you know have some edge that makes you particularly great. You don't.)

I really disagree with this. I clerked after working for two years in biglaw. I was getting great experiences there, but you only get to see a couple of life cycles of cases in two years. When you clerk at the district court level you see everything. You get the big picture. And you know how your judge thinks through issues and decides disputes. In many cases, you are the one actually deciding the issue.

I didn't become a better sentence-to-sentence writer, but I am now much more cognizant of brief organization and presenting arguments. Also, I got to see a trial and discuss that trial with my judge and staff who had seen hundreds of them collectively. That was cool. I think on average you definitely learn more over a busy clerkship than in a year at a biglaw firm.

[Citizen Genet]

I want to make sure I'm absolutely clear. My point is not that clerking isn't valuable; it is. My point is that it's generally not that valuable for the work you will do as a young associate. Its dividends pay off later in your career, when you're a senior associate or partner or are considering moving to job where you have more responsibility for overall strategy.

[Lacepiece23]

I want to make sure I'm absolutely clear. My point is not that clerking isn't valuable; it is. My point is that it's generally not that valuable for the work you will do as a young associate. Its dividends pay off later in your career, when you're a senior associate or partner or are considering moving to job where you have more responsibility for overall strategy.

I take your point. I guess agree to disagree? I was the most anti-clerking person out there. But I've found the experience invaluably helpful. Have the time I'm writing the motion I know in the back of my head how it's going to turn out. Just knowing answers to stuff without having to research and being able to confidently recommend strategy has been really helpful for my career thus far. I am a midlevel, so still fairly junior, depending on how you define things.

[Citizen Genet]

I want to make sure I'm absolutely clear. My point is not that clerking isn't valuable; it is. My point is that it's generally not that valuable for the work you will do as a young associate. Its dividends pay off later in your career, when you're a senior associate or partner or are considering moving to job where you have more responsibility for overall strategy.

I take your point. I guess agree to disagree? I was the most anti-clerking person out there. But I've found the experience invaluably helpful. Have the time I'm writing the motion I know in the back of my head how it's going to turn out. Just knowing answers to stuff without having to research and being able to confidently recommend strategy has been really helpful for my career thus far. I am a midlevel, so still fairly junior, depending on how you define things.

That's fair. I'm probably being too reactionary and have overstated my points against the usual opinion on clerking's value for young lawyers. I'm just used to seeing too many clerks come into a firm with this idea that they're ready to run a case from Day 1. The reality is that they're missing critical skill sets and experience, and they'd benefit from a better sense of professional humility. But again - I've probably gone overkill at this point.

[Lacepiece23]

I want to make sure I'm absolutely clear. My point is not that clerking isn't valuable; it is. My point is that it's generally not that valuable for the work you will do as a young associate. Its dividends pay off later in your career, when you're a senior associate or partner or are considering moving to job where you have more responsibility for overall strategy.

I take your point. I guess agree to disagree? I was the most anti-clerking person out there. But I've found the experience invaluably helpful. Have the time I'm writing the motion I know in the back of my head how it's going to turn out. Just knowing answers to stuff without having to research and being able to confidently recommend strategy has been really helpful for my career thus far. I am a midlevel, so still fairly junior, depending on how you define things.

That's fair. I'm probably being too reactionary and have overstated my points against the usual opinion on clerking's value for young lawyers. I'm just used to seeing too many clerks come into a firm with this idea that they're ready to run a case from Day 1. The reality is that they're missing critical skill sets and experience, and they'd benefit from a better sense of professional humility. But again - I've probably gone overkill at this point.

Very good point. I actually think that having a bit of biglaw experience made my clerkship even more valuable skills wise. By that point, I knew a ton of basic stuff, was at the point where I was started to take real ownership of cases, and felt like I had a basic grasp on what I was doing. Then, I clerked and seeing so much volume sort of filled in a lot of gaps in my knowledge. I saw stuff that I just don't think I would have seen doing this for five years straight.

I think that the things I didn't know really stuck out because there was a lot that I did know. I could imagine that if you don't know anything about practicing law and everything is new, it may be more difficult to pick up these subtly important things because you wouldn't know they were important or you might not until a couple years later. This is not to say that I think that people should wait to clerk. Just my perspective.

[Anonymous User]

Bit of a tangent here but think this thread might be good for this question. I clerked straight out of law school in a federal COA and am now a 2nd year associate. I'm considering clerking again in a specific city that would have D Ct, state supreme court, and federal COA clerkship opportunities. Are there diminishing returns here? The idea would be to use the clerkship to switch to that market and then use my year in the job to find the next job in that same city, but I understand that even if I get a clerkship to start 13 months from now (probably about the soonest I realistically could) I would be coming out as a "4th year" but with two years of clerking. The market I have in mind is tertiary at best and partner tracks are much shorter there so I am worried about kneecapping myself.

[objctnyrhnr]

Bit of a tangent here but think this thread might be good for this question. I clerked straight out of law school in a federal COA and am now a 2nd year associate. I'm considering clerking again in a specific city that would have D Ct, state supreme court, and federal COA clerkship opportunities. Are there diminishing returns here? The idea would be to use the clerkship to switch to that market and then use my year in the job to find the next job in that same city, but I understand that even if I get a clerkship to start 13 months from now (probably about the soonest I realistically could) I would be coming out as a "4th year" but with two years of clerking. The market I have in mind is tertiary at best and partner tracks are much shorter there so I am worried about kneecapping myself.

I think this is probably fine with a couple caveats: unless you’re moving to a top feeder judge, I probably wouldn’t do coa again. I also probably wouldn’t do ssc because (with the exception of mayyybe one state), it’d be looked at as a step down from coa while doing similar work. I also wouldn’t do a two year clerkship under any circumstances. I also would not do this more than one more time. Anyway, with these parameters in mind, I think doing a d court clerkship to switch markets as you described isn’t a horrible plan...just don’t do it again after that and don’t spend multiple years doing it.

[nixy]

I think that if you want to switch markets, a SSC clerkship in that market could actually still be useful - I saw a number of people do something like that in my former (insular) legal market. The point wouldn't really be the kind of work you're doing so much as it would be the time to network and get to know people and make connections, and in a tertiary market the SSC can be very connected.

That said, federal district court would probably be better, I just wouldn't rule out SSC entirely depending on what options you end up having.

[Auxilio]

Hey guys, related question. I am finishing my first clerkship (mag judge) and starting my second (bankruptcy judge) next month. Do you know if most firms start someone in my position as a 3rd year (like OP) or a second year? Is it common for firms not to "count" an Article I clerkship---or count mag but not bankruptcy (or vice versa)? I've never gotten clear answers on this

I would probably only expect one year's credit for mag + bankruptcy. Maybe two year's bonus though (75k vs. 50k).

[wwwcol]

Hey guys, related question. I am finishing my first clerkship (mag judge) and starting my second (bankruptcy judge) next month. Do you know if most firms start someone in my position as a 3rd year (like OP) or a second year? Is it common for firms not to "count" an Article I clerkship---or count mag but not bankruptcy (or vice versa)? I've never gotten clear answers on this

I would probably only expect one year's credit for mag + bankruptcy. Maybe two year's bonus though (75k vs. 50k).

Most firms don’t count AI clerkships, so anything more than a nominal bonus would Probably be a good deal

[Auxilio]

Hey guys, related question. I am finishing my first clerkship (mag judge) and starting my second (bankruptcy judge) next month. Do you know if most firms start someone in my position as a 3rd year (like OP) or a second year? Is it common for firms not to "count" an Article I clerkship---or count mag but not bankruptcy (or vice versa)? I've never gotten clear answers on this

I would probably only expect one year's credit for mag + bankruptcy. Maybe two year's bonus though (75k vs. 50k).

Most firms don’t count AI clerkships, so anything more than a nominal bonus would Probably be a good deal

That's true, sorry I'm in DE and a lot of clerks here can get a bonus but they're all going into like Kirkland bankruptcy.

Forget that's not normal.