Top Law Schools

I'm wondering if anyone can provide insight into what the culture is around working at a firm for a couple years, going to clerk for a year, and then coming back. I'm currently set to join a firm as a first year next year but I'm also planning to apply for clerkships for the 2022 term. I did indicate to my firm I was interested in pursuing a clerkship a couple years down the road, and others seem to have done it with the firm welcoming them back afterward. But I was wondering if firms typically do let you come back after clerking or if they get annoyed that you're there for only a couple years before running off to clerk. FWIW, I'm planning on targeting district/appellate clerkships within the jurisdiction my firm has a lot of cases in (plus some of the more prestigious circuits). How should I approach this with my firm?

I can't think of a firm that would really hold this against you. Firms usually expect and encourage you to come back after clerking. In some very narrow set of circumstances they might refuse to give seniority for clerking (e.g., in a pure corporate group), or I think some firms have a policy against giving clerkship bonuses... But I haven't heard of firms icing you out entirely. Just tell your firm what you are doing.

Well - I will be the counterpoint to that, I guess. Keeping personal details to a minimum: I was at a firm for several years, left to clerk, and was told shortly before my last day that I should plan not to return. There were several reasons why this was surprising, mostly that my reviews had all been positive, but the primary reason offered was that I would be too senior for my experience level on returning (think: 4th- to 6th-year). Litigation associate. So it does happen.

Things are fine now. Was pretty pissed when it happened; felt blindsided as I thought the same as the poster above. Most of the partners I worked with regularly seem to have no idea it happened, as several of them later reached out asking if I was coming back.

Anonymous User wrote:Well - I will be the counterpoint to that, I guess. Keeping personal details to a minimum: I was at a firm for several years, left to clerk, and was told shortly before my last day that I should plan not to return. There were several reasons why this was surprising, mostly that my reviews had all been positive, but the primary reason offered was that I would be too senior for my experience level on returning (think: 4th- to 6th-year). Litigation associate. So it does happen.

Things are fine now. Was pretty pissed when it happened; felt blindsided as I thought the same as the poster above. Most of the partners I worked with regularly seem to have no idea it happened, as several of them later reached out asking if I was coming back.

Wow - that's surprising to hear. If you're comfortable sharing, did it seem like you may have been able to return had you been willing to forego seniority credit for your clerkship (e.g., leave at end of 4th year, rejoin post-clerkship as a 5th year instead of as a 6th year)?

QContinuum wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Well - I will be the counterpoint to that, I guess. Keeping personal details to a minimum: I was at a firm for several years, left to clerk, and was told shortly before my last day that I should plan not to return. There were several reasons why this was surprising, mostly that my reviews had all been positive, but the primary reason offered was that I would be too senior for my experience level on returning (think: 4th- to 6th-year). Litigation associate. So it does happen.

Things are fine now. Was pretty pissed when it happened; felt blindsided as I thought the same as the poster above. Most of the partners I worked with regularly seem to have no idea it happened, as several of them later reached out asking if I was coming back.

Wow - that's surprising to hear. If you're comfortable sharing, did it seem like you may have been able to return had you been willing to forego seniority credit for your clerkship (e.g., leave at end of 4th year, rejoin post-clerkship as a 5th year instead of as a 6th year)?

It's possible, and I did/still do take them at their word that the seniority aspect was the driving factor. But I did not have much desire to come back after that, and so didn't ask -- the message about where I stood in the firm's priorities was pretty clear.

Anonymous User wrote:

QContinuum wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Well - I will be the counterpoint to that, I guess. Keeping personal details to a minimum: I was at a firm for several years, left to clerk, and was told shortly before my last day that I should plan not to return. There were several reasons why this was surprising, mostly that my reviews had all been positive, but the primary reason offered was that I would be too senior for my experience level on returning (think: 4th- to 6th-year). Litigation associate. So it does happen.

Things are fine now. Was pretty pissed when it happened; felt blindsided as I thought the same as the poster above. Most of the partners I worked with regularly seem to have no idea it happened, as several of them later reached out asking if I was coming back.

Wow - that's surprising to hear. If you're comfortable sharing, did it seem like you may have been able to return had you been willing to forego seniority credit for your clerkship (e.g., leave at end of 4th year, rejoin post-clerkship as a 5th year instead of as a 6th year)?

It's possible, and I did/still do take them at their word that the seniority aspect was the driving factor. But I did not have much desire to come back after that, and so didn't ask -- the message about where I stood in the firm's priorities was pretty clear.

Obviously I don't have insight into your situation, and perhaps you're right to take them at their word...but it sounds fishy. For a lit associate to be told they'd be too senior AFTER already being at the firm for a couple of years and then going to clerk -- which will give you great experience and be an asset for a lit firm/practice -- just sounds really short-sighted of this firm. I wonder if there was something else driving it, like costs, oversubscribed seniors, or something else. It just seems really odd to forego someone at that level of seniority if it's a matter of year clerking.

For what it's worth, at my firm, if you leave for a clerkship, it is not guaranteed that you can come back.

Splurgles23 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

QContinuum wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Well - I will be the counterpoint to that, I guess. Keeping personal details to a minimum: I was at a firm for several years, left to clerk, and was told shortly before my last day that I should plan not to return. There were several reasons why this was surprising, mostly that my reviews had all been positive, but the primary reason offered was that I would be too senior for my experience level on returning (think: 4th- to 6th-year). Litigation associate. So it does happen.

Things are fine now. Was pretty pissed when it happened; felt blindsided as I thought the same as the poster above. Most of the partners I worked with regularly seem to have no idea it happened, as several of them later reached out asking if I was coming back.

Wow - that's surprising to hear. If you're comfortable sharing, did it seem like you may have been able to return had you been willing to forego seniority credit for your clerkship (e.g., leave at end of 4th year, rejoin post-clerkship as a 5th year instead of as a 6th year)?

It's possible, and I did/still do take them at their word that the seniority aspect was the driving factor. But I did not have much desire to come back after that, and so didn't ask -- the message about where I stood in the firm's priorities was pretty clear.

Obviously I don't have insight into your situation, and perhaps you're right to take them at their word...but it sounds fishy. For a lit associate to be told they'd be too senior AFTER already being at the firm for a couple of years and then going to clerk -- which will give you great experience and be an asset for a lit firm/practice -- just sounds really short-sighted of this firm. I wonder if there was something else driving it, like costs, oversubscribed seniors, or something else. It just seems really odd to forego someone at that level of seniority if it's a matter of year clerking.

Definitely possible that there is more going on I wasn't privy to, but I also have a hard time believing it would've been the same answer if I'd left after first year instead. Attrition in my class had been pretty low -- way less than 50% out by the end of year three, maybe even less than 10% -- so oversubscription + practice area considerations + diversity numbers + (stated reasons) may just be the answer. I have heard it also happened to another associate a year more junior than me who left to clerk around the same time, but haven't asked him/her for obvious reasons. FWIW, I have no illusions that I was a rockstar or anything -- obviously the outcome would've been different if I was -- but I had the same reaction as you are having now given how much we had been hurting for laterals during most of my time there, albeit mostly in other groups.

All that is a long way to say what hdivschool is saying -- it's probably more common than people think that later-career (2+ years out of law school) clerkships are frowned upon.

hdivschool wrote:For what it's worth, at my firm, if you leave for a clerkship, it is not guaranteed that you can come back.

I've been told Simpson Thacher has done this to multiple people recently. There weren't any performance/personality issues I'm aware of and at least one of the people worked at one of the more prestigious district courts.

Via friend, true at Cleary too, for a top appellate clerkship. If your firm's lit department is struggling (and some/many in the V10 are), they're not necessarily holding a spot for you.

Further anecdotal evidence: I accepted an offer to work at a V10 NY-based firm (my office was in DC). Then I got a federal district court clerkship starting the year after I graduated ('17 grad, '18 clerkship). I told my firm (before I started at the firm). They told me that they support clerking, but wouldn't hold a spot for me. I don't know if this is just due to the office I was in, or if it is a firmwide policy. The office I was in was smaller, ~60 attorneys and each attorney was assigned to specific practice groups, and the office only hired when there was specific need for an attorney, so it made sense that they "wouldn't hold a spot" for me. However, when I actually left the firm to start my clerkship the partner/head of my group emailed and wished me luck in my clerkship and said he looked forward to my returning to the firm. In the end I didn't actually go back to the firm and joined another firm after my clerkship. A friend of mine who did the same thing (at the same firm) returned to the firm after her clerkship, but she was in IP, so maybe that was different. I didn't inquire about going back because I wanted to stay in the city that I clerked in and didn't want to go back to DC.

Another story: a friend of a friend worked at an IP big law firm for a few years then went to clerk at the federal district court level. He expected to return to his firm, but when he reached out to see if he could return the firm told him he couldn't return. He ended up scrambling and found another job at a different law firm in a different city.

I've also had friends who either summered or worked at a law firm, then went to clerk and returned to their law firm without any problems. It's something you should look into before accepting offers if you're concerned.