Art. I clerkship to transition away from state criminal work? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Does it at all make sense to go from state prosecutor to a federal magistrate clerkship if my ultimate goal is either AUSA or at least a midsize civil lit shop? If so, would your analysis change if the clerkship was in a different state (albeit one where I have ties)? Been a state prosecutor for about 4 years and stressing about pigeonholing myself here so considering several options to move away from this job. FWIW, interview with magistrate judge is scheduled. Have also had an interview at one of my target USAOs, no word past the first round. If it matters, neither market is major and one may be considered secondary, both on the East Coast, was born in one, went to college/law school in other. Any advice or anecdotes appreciated even if distinct from my (probably too specific) scenario. Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

Former DJ clerk here. My sense is that an MJ clerkship will not help much with the USAO because DJs handle almost everything significant in crim cases. I know that the USAO at the district where I clerked hired exclusively DJ clerks (when hiring clerks if at all).

I think any federal clerkship will help with getting hired at a firm. Every firm likes to advertise than an associate clerked at federal court. The question is how much it will help, and whether it will lead to a bonus.

This may not be important, but I think it's important to keep in mind: IMO, MJ clerkships are criminally underrated in terms of how useful they are for civil litigation. They often handle all of the discovery disputes, which (sadly) will be really useful in civil litigation. MJs also do the bulk, if not all, of settlement conferences and, depending on the district, all of the scheduling conferences, status conferences, etc. Those may not be that exciting, but attending them and understanding how they work also will be useful for a civil litigation career.

One last thing to keep in mind is trying to learn what MJs in the districts handle. This can vary wildly. There are some MJs who handle exclusively SSDI, prisoner, and pro se cases. In other districts, like where I clerked, the MJs routinely did R&Rs on dispositive motions for the DJs. So I always thought that MJ clerks where I clerked got more overall experience in civil litigation matters. I would be sure to find out about what the MJ handles during your interview. Personally, I would not want to do a clerkship focusing mostly on SSDI etc. (even though prisoner litigation can be fascinating...sometimes).

[Anonymous User]

Current MJ clerk here. There are a lot of variables to this, but depending on the circumstances, a magistrate clerkship can be an excellent stepping stone to becoming an AUSA.

IMO, the variables are:

1. Which district the MJ is in. Obviously, you should shoot for a magistrate in the district in which you'd like to practice. But even further than that, MJs can have significantly different roles depending on the district. For instance, MJs in the NDCA are almost interchangeable with DJs, but that is not the case in some other districts. It would be worth your while to see what types of things MJs work on in your district. Some MJs may also have heavier criminal calendars (I know there are some MJs in SDCA whose calendars are almost entirely criminal).

2. Who the actual judge is. A lot of magistrates are former AUSAs (and some former defense attorneys). If you clerk for a magistrate that came from USAO, they likely still have many contacts there and their recommendation would have substantial weight.

Hope this helps!

[Anonymous User]

Agree with all the above. It depends on what the magistrate does, but where I went to law school, the local magistrates did all the discovery etc described above, and I was told that their clerks met ton of practicing lawyers and it was a good way to get known in the legal community. And yes, I've also seen a lot of magistrates who were AUSAs, who absolutely will have a lot of pull in the local office.

[hangtime813]

Definitely want to echo the sentiments above. If the district is big/prestigious (think SDNY/NDCA), the magistrates have a lot of pull and are very well respected by the community. They are essentially treated as full fledged Art III judges, and some of these mag judges choose to stay Art I because they have a smaller caseload and know they will get another appointment after their 8 years. I personally know of several former clerks (and externs) go to biglaw, DA's office, big civil lit shops, etc. due in part because of having this on their resume.

Best of luck, OP!

[Anonymous User]

Definitely want to echo the sentiments above. If the district is big/prestigious (think SDNY/NDCA), the magistrates have a lot of pull and are very well respected by the community. They are essentially treated as full fledged Art III judges, and some of these mag judges choose to stay Art I because they have a smaller caseload and know they will get another appointment after their 8 years. I personally know of several former clerks (and externs) go to biglaw, DA's office, big civil lit shops, etc. due in part because of having this on their resume.

Best of luck, OP!

Agree with this entirely. Some MJs are really highly regarded and parties may actually prefer the assigned MJ over the assigned DJ. I can think of some MJ/DJ combos where I clerked where I'd prefer the MJ if I had a case before them.

OP, that's another thing I'd ask about--how often parties consent to MJ jurisdiction. In my district, the DJs really pushed parties to consent because all of the MJs are excellent judges and the DJs' criminal caseloads were really heavy so civil cases (by law) have to come second to crim cases. But I know of another jurisdiction where some of the DJs don't encourage consenting and in some cases will even refuse to enforce a MJ consent. A friend of mine clerked for a DJ who "doesn't believe" in MJ consents and simply didn't think highly of certain MJs in their district.