Biggest signing bonus for senior judicial clerk? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm trying to figure out how big of a signing bonus a senior law clerk can get when going back to biglaw. Can any of you guys share your bonuses?

Sorry but I must keep this vague. I am a senior associate who just finished a judicial clerkship that is very important in the field of law that I practice.

[Anonymous User]

I'm trying to figure out how big of a signing bonus a senior law clerk can get when going back to biglaw. Can any of you guys share your bonuses?

Sorry but I must keep this vague. I am a senior associate who just finished a judicial clerkship that is very important in the field of law that I practice.

Kind of a strange post - what makes your clerkship "very important"? The going rate for federal clerkships at big firms is $50,000 for one, $70,000 for two. Some big firms (Munger, Quinn, Boies) and boutiques (Kellogg, Susman, Selendy) pay more. Federal Circuit clerks sometimes get more. SCOTUS clerks get $450,000. Delaware Chancery / Delaware Supreme Court clerks can get $50,000, but are better off going to Wachtell and trading that signing bonus for a (much) larger EOY bonus. I've never heard of senior litigation associates getting more than the bonuses described above. Maybe a business-minded firm like Kirkland would negotiate a guaranteed comp arrangment.

[Anonymous User]

No first hand knowledge but I thought clerkship bonus was reserved for people coming off clerkship as a junior. If you're a senior with firm experience who left to clerk and now want to return to biglaw, you're just a lateral.

[Anonymous User]

I know of someone that got least $200K coming off of a COA clerkship through intense negotiations with multiple firms. But that's not remotely the norm or to be expected.

[Anonymous User]

SCOTUS clerks get $450,000.

Dang really?

[Anonymous User]

SCOTUS clerks get $450,000.

Dang really?

This rumor is basically untrue. There are a couple of firms — really notably just Jones Day — that pay a bonus approaching that. Most other firms either (1) aren’t bidding on most scotus clerks these days or (2) are offering significantly lower bonuses absent special circumstances. I’m at one of the top appellate shops and we pay maybe half that, and only for returning clerks at this point. The firm feels like it’s been burned a lot on scotus clerks and they’re huge money losers.

[Anonymous User]

I understand from a close friend who literally just wrapped up her SCOTUS clerkship that Jones Day’s bonus this year for SCOTUS clerks is $500k.

[Anonymous User]

SCOTUS clerks get $450,000.

Dang really?

This rumor is basically untrue. There are a couple of firms — really notably just Jones Day — that pay a bonus approaching that. Most other firms either (1) aren’t bidding on most scotus clerks these days or (2) are offering significantly lower bonuses absent special circumstances. I’m at one of the top appellate shops and we pay maybe half that, and only for returning clerks at this point. The firm feels like it’s been burned a lot on scotus clerks and they’re huge money losers.

Totally false. $450,000 is the going rate everywhere that regularly recruits SCOTUS clerks - Jones Day, Munger Tolles, Kirkland & Ellis, Gibson Dunn, Jenner & Block, Paul Weiss, Latham & Watkins, Sullivan & Cromwell, Sidley Austin, Williams & Connolly, etc. That's not even a rumor, it's a matter of public record. A quick google search pulls up Law.com/ATL articles quoting hiring partners. Obviously, not every firm is interested in playing the SCOTUS clerk sweepstakes, but no one is successfully recruiting SCOTUS clerks for less than that price except political boutiques like Gupta Wessler and Consovoy McCarthy.

[Anonymous User]

SCOTUS clerks get $450,000.

Dang really?

This rumor is basically untrue. There are a couple of firms — really notably just Jones Day — that pay a bonus approaching that. Most other firms either (1) aren’t bidding on most scotus clerks these days or (2) are offering significantly lower bonuses absent special circumstances. I’m at one of the top appellate shops and we pay maybe half that, and only for returning clerks at this point. The firm feels like it’s been burned a lot on scotus clerks and they’re huge money losers.

Totally false. $450,000 is the going rate everywhere that regularly recruits SCOTUS clerks - Jones Day, Munger Tolles, Kirkland & Ellis, Gibson Dunn, Jenner & Block, Paul Weiss, Latham & Watkins, Sullivan & Cromwell, Sidley Austin, Williams & Connolly, etc. That's not even a rumor, it's a matter of public record. A quick google search pulls up Law.com/ATL articles quoting hiring partners. Obviously, not every firm is interested in playing the SCOTUS clerk sweepstakes, but no one is successfully recruiting SCOTUS clerks for less than that price except political boutiques like Gupta Wessler and Consovoy McCarthy.

I literally work at one of the firms there and know what was paid to a recent clerk. It wasn’t 450k. And if you look at those articles (not always reliable to begin with) you’ll note the comments of partners that suggest that they aren’t paying that. The power dynamic is just shifting and the media / rumor mill is slow to adjust.

[Anonymous User]

SCOTUS clerks get $450,000.

Dang really?

This rumor is basically untrue. There are a couple of firms — really notably just Jones Day — that pay a bonus approaching that. Most other firms either (1) aren’t bidding on most scotus clerks these days or (2) are offering significantly lower bonuses absent special circumstances. I’m at one of the top appellate shops and we pay maybe half that, and only for returning clerks at this point. The firm feels like it’s been burned a lot on scotus clerks and they’re huge money losers.

Totally false. $450,000 is the going rate everywhere that regularly recruits SCOTUS clerks - Jones Day, Munger Tolles, Kirkland & Ellis, Gibson Dunn, Jenner & Block, Paul Weiss, Latham & Watkins, Sullivan & Cromwell, Sidley Austin, Williams & Connolly, etc. That's not even a rumor, it's a matter of public record. A quick google search pulls up Law.com/ATL articles quoting hiring partners. Obviously, not every firm is interested in playing the SCOTUS clerk sweepstakes, but no one is successfully recruiting SCOTUS clerks for less than that price except political boutiques like Gupta Wessler and Consovoy McCarthy.

I literally work at one of the firms there and know what was paid to a recent clerk. It wasn’t 450k. And if you look at those articles (not always reliable to begin with) you’ll note the comments of partners that suggest that they aren’t paying that. The power dynamic is just shifting and the media / rumor mill is slow to adjust.

To be clear, $450,000 only started being paid this year (as in, the hiring going on right now). I have several friends going through the process and they all confirmed this figure. I don't know what sort of "deal" this person struck with your firm, but if it's for less than that amount he/she is getting hosed. Did you actually see the offer letter, or are you getting this secondhand?

As for the power dynamic shifting, the pressure on bonuses has been going up, not down. Per the National Law Journal in 2021:

“Bonuses have been $400,000 for the last couple of years, but I suspect it will be more this year,” said the head of one appellate practice in D.C., who, like other practice leaders for this report, declined to be named in order to speak more candidly. “This year, we’re probably looking at $450,000,” said the chair of another appellate practice in D.C. Half a million is a “psychological barrier for most firms,” said the chair, but some firms may even go that high “just for the perceived value,” especially a boutique firm.

[Anonymous User]

SCOTUS clerks get $450,000.

Dang really?

This rumor is basically untrue. There are a couple of firms — really notably just Jones Day — that pay a bonus approaching that. Most other firms either (1) aren’t bidding on most scotus clerks these days or (2) are offering significantly lower bonuses absent special circumstances. I’m at one of the top appellate shops and we pay maybe half that, and only for returning clerks at this point. The firm feels like it’s been burned a lot on scotus clerks and they’re huge money losers.

Totally false. $450,000 is the going rate everywhere that regularly recruits SCOTUS clerks - Jones Day, Munger Tolles, Kirkland & Ellis, Gibson Dunn, Jenner & Block, Paul Weiss, Latham & Watkins, Sullivan & Cromwell, Sidley Austin, Williams & Connolly, etc. That's not even a rumor, it's a matter of public record. A quick google search pulls up Law.com/ATL articles quoting hiring partners. Obviously, not every firm is interested in playing the SCOTUS clerk sweepstakes, but no one is successfully recruiting SCOTUS clerks for less than that price except political boutiques like Gupta Wessler and Consovoy McCarthy.

I literally work at one of the firms there and know what was paid to a recent clerk. It wasn’t 450k. And if you look at those articles (not always reliable to begin with) you’ll note the comments of partners that suggest that they aren’t paying that. The power dynamic is just shifting and the media / rumor mill is slow to adjust.

To be clear, $450,000 only started being paid this year (as in, the hiring going on right now). I have several friends going through the process and they all confirmed this figure. I don't know what sort of "deal" this person struck with your firm, but if it's for less than that amount he/she is getting hosed. Did you actually see the offer letter, or are you getting this secondhand?

As for the power dynamic shifting, the pressure on bonuses has been going up, not down. Per the National Law Journal in 2021:

“Bonuses have been $400,000 for the last couple of years, but I suspect it will be more this year,” said the head of one appellate practice in D.C., who, like other practice leaders for this report, declined to be named in order to speak more candidly. “This year, we’re probably looking at $450,000,” said the chair of another appellate practice in D.C. Half a million is a “psychological barrier for most firms,” said the chair, but some firms may even go that high “just for the perceived value,” especially a boutique firm.

SCOTUS clerks just can’t be worth it to firms when they all leave after their bonuses vest. For JD it’s obviously a marketing thing, but I don’t see the value proposition for like S&C.

[Anonymous User]

I'm skeptical about the claim that's it's not worth it. SCOTUS clerks are what, 3d or 4th years? They bill at least 1000/hr if not more. At even 1500 billables that's 1.5M revenue. Are they more profitable than other associates? Maybe no. But they're less replaceable.

[Anonymous User]

I'm skeptical about the claim that's it's not worth it. SCOTUS clerks are what, 3d or 4th years? They bill at least 1000/hr if not more. At even 1500 billables that's 1.5M revenue. Are they more profitable than other associates? Maybe no. But they're less replaceable.

(1) Many leave after their bonus vests; (2) They can't work on stuff at the court for a couple years, which overlaps with that; (3) They don't bill at a higher rate, so the comp here is to another associate; (4) Many have a pretty long adjustment period and aren't actually great at a lot of the work many firms do or would want to give them; (5) these days, there's an ideological mismatch between many firms and some of the clerks, and many firms I think are worried about certain implications or tendencies wrt certain chambers.

[Anonymous User]

SCOTUS clerks get $450,000.

Dang really?

This rumor is basically untrue. There are a couple of firms — really notably just Jones Day — that pay a bonus approaching that. Most other firms either (1) aren’t bidding on most scotus clerks these days or (2) are offering significantly lower bonuses absent special circumstances. I’m at one of the top appellate shops and we pay maybe half that, and only for returning clerks at this point. The firm feels like it’s been burned a lot on scotus clerks and they’re huge money losers.

Totally false. $450,000 is the going rate everywhere that regularly recruits SCOTUS clerks - Jones Day, Munger Tolles, Kirkland & Ellis, Gibson Dunn, Jenner & Block, Paul Weiss, Latham & Watkins, Sullivan & Cromwell, Sidley Austin, Williams & Connolly, etc. That's not even a rumor, it's a matter of public record. A quick google search pulls up Law.com/ATL articles quoting hiring partners. Obviously, not every firm is interested in playing the SCOTUS clerk sweepstakes, but no one is successfully recruiting SCOTUS clerks for less than that price except political boutiques like Gupta Wessler and Consovoy McCarthy.

I literally work at one of the firms there and know what was paid to a recent clerk. It wasn’t 450k. And if you look at those articles (not always reliable to begin with) you’ll note the comments of partners that suggest that they aren’t paying that. The power dynamic is just shifting and the media / rumor mill is slow to adjust.

To be clear, $450,000 only started being paid this year (as in, the hiring going on right now). I have several friends going through the process and they all confirmed this figure. I don't know what sort of "deal" this person struck with your firm, but if it's for less than that amount he/she is getting hosed. Did you actually see the offer letter, or are you getting this secondhand?

As for the power dynamic shifting, the pressure on bonuses has been going up, not down. Per the National Law Journal in 2021:

“Bonuses have been $400,000 for the last couple of years, but I suspect it will be more this year,” said the head of one appellate practice in D.C., who, like other practice leaders for this report, declined to be named in order to speak more candidly. “This year, we’re probably looking at $450,000,” said the chair of another appellate practice in D.C. Half a million is a “psychological barrier for most firms,” said the chair, but some firms may even go that high “just for the perceived value,” especially a boutique firm.

SCOTUS clerks just can’t be worth it to firms when they all leave after their bonuses vest. For JD it’s obviously a marketing thing, but I don’t see the value proposition for like S&C.

They lose S&C a lot of money, but they're trying to build an appellate practice so, as you say, it's marketing. The more established practices doing less marketing and more focused on PnL are doing less scotus hiring (think Gibson, Wilmer, Sidley) whereas the newer practices or those who rely on it more as a form of marketing and business generation are doing more. But scotus clerks are increasingly becoming a losing value prop for firms, I think that's pretty obvious at this point.

[Anonymous User]

I'm skeptical about the claim that's it's not worth it. SCOTUS clerks are what, 3d or 4th years? They bill at least 1000/hr if not more. At even 1500 billables that's 1.5M revenue. Are they more profitable than other associates? Maybe no. But they're less replaceable.

(1) Many leave after their bonus vests; (2) They can't work on stuff at the court for a couple years, which overlaps with that; (3) They don't bill at a higher rate, so the comp here is to another associate; (4) Many have a pretty long adjustment period and aren't actually great at a lot of the work many firms do or would want to give them; (5) these days, there's an ideological mismatch between many firms and some of the clerks, and many firms I think are worried about certain implications or tendencies wrt certain chambers.

I suspect, if anything, they bill at a lower rate on average, no? When you represent some inmate challenging some aspect of the Armed Career Criminal Act at SCOTUS, you aren’t exactly paying the same rates as MegaCorp on its acquisition of PharaCo

[Anonymous User]

I'm skeptical about the claim that's it's not worth it. SCOTUS clerks are what, 3d or 4th years? They bill at least 1000/hr if not more. At even 1500 billables that's 1.5M revenue. Are they more profitable than other associates? Maybe no. But they're less replaceable.

(1) Many leave after their bonus vests; (2) They can't work on stuff at the court for a couple years, which overlaps with that; (3) They don't bill at a higher rate, so the comp here is to another associate; (4) Many have a pretty long adjustment period and aren't actually great at a lot of the work many firms do or would want to give them; (5) these days, there's an ideological mismatch between many firms and some of the clerks, and many firms I think are worried about certain implications or tendencies wrt certain chambers.

I suspect, if anything, they bill at a lower rate on average, no? When you represent some inmate challenging some aspect of the Armed Career Criminal Act at SCOTUS, you aren’t exactly paying the same rates as MegaCorp on its acquisition of PharaCo

I don't think you mean to suggest that firms generally bill SCOTUS clerks out at a lower rate than other associates. You're suggesting that the clients/matters they service are typically pro bono or reduced rate, so realization is lower than for other associates, correct? There's a pretty meaningful difference there.

[Anonymous User]

To the extent that appellate work is often pro bono, that means the entire appellate practice of many biglaw firms is a loss leader, for the prestige. But that includes partners and seniors etc. Doubt that the 500k investment in a SCOTUS clerk is a meaningful loss compared to the rest of the salaries.

Anyway, to the point: SCOTUS clerks are unique. Whether it's financial smart or not, they bring prestige that nothing else really can. A normal midlevel who goes out to clerk and then interviews as essentially a lateral may get a standard clerkship bonus, may get nothing, or may get a hiring bonus independent of clerking if there's a specific need. It depends on the firm.

[Anonymous User]

I'm skeptical about the claim that's it's not worth it. SCOTUS clerks are what, 3d or 4th years? They bill at least 1000/hr if not more. At even 1500 billables that's 1.5M revenue. Are they more profitable than other associates? Maybe no. But they're less replaceable.

(1) Many leave after their bonus vests; (2) They can't work on stuff at the court for a couple years, which overlaps with that; (3) They don't bill at a higher rate, so the comp here is to another associate; (4) Many have a pretty long adjustment period and aren't actually great at a lot of the work many firms do or would want to give them; (5) these days, there's an ideological mismatch between many firms and some of the clerks, and many firms I think are worried about certain implications or tendencies wrt certain chambers.

All of these are wrong. (1) Yes, many leave after 2 years. As another poster noted, they still bring in far more than they are paid. $500,000 is chump change compared to what midlevel associates generates. (2) Yes, they're barred from SCOTUS practice for 2 years. That's good for firms because SCOTUS work is a loss leader compared to other work. (3) Firms often do bill them out at a higher rate. Additionally, that isn't the comp because there's not a hard cap on the number of associates. Even if they make lower RPL, they're revenue-positive and bring prestige and press. (4) I have no idea where you're getting this from. SCOTUS clerks write motions and briefs, and many (though not all) are talented researchers and writers. (5) The idea of an ideological mismatch has nothing to do with profitability. Big firms service big institutional clients, usually on the defense, and conservative judges and justices vote for them more often. There are other reasons Thomas clerks prefer Gibson Dunn to WilmerHale.

[Anonymous User]

I'm skeptical about the claim that's it's not worth it. SCOTUS clerks are what, 3d or 4th years? They bill at least 1000/hr if not more. At even 1500 billables that's 1.5M revenue. Are they more profitable than other associates? Maybe no. But they're less replaceable.

(1) Many leave after their bonus vests; (2) They can't work on stuff at the court for a couple years, which overlaps with that; (3) They don't bill at a higher rate, so the comp here is to another associate; (4) Many have a pretty long adjustment period and aren't actually great at a lot of the work many firms do or would want to give them; (5) these days, there's an ideological mismatch between many firms and some of the clerks, and many firms I think are worried about certain implications or tendencies wrt certain chambers.

All of these are wrong. (1) Yes, many leave after 2 years. As another poster noted, they still bring in far more than they are paid. $500,000 is chump change compared to what midlevel associates generates. (2) Yes, they're barred from SCOTUS practice for 2 years. That's good for firms because SCOTUS work is a loss leader compared to other work. (3) Firms often do bill them out at a higher rate. Additionally, that isn't the comp because there's not a hard cap on the number of associates. Even if they make lower RPL, they're revenue-positive and bring prestige and press. (4) I have no idea where you're getting this from. SCOTUS clerks write motions and briefs, and many (though not all) are talented researchers and writers. (5) The idea of an ideological mismatch has nothing to do with profitability. Big firms service big institutional clients, usually on the defense, and conservative judges and justices vote for them more often. There are other reasons Thomas clerks prefer Gibson Dunn to WilmerHale.

The person writing this has no idea what the business side of biglaw looks like. Hedge funds do not care if someone clerked at SCOTUS or not, and they will get pissed if they get a $1500/hour 4th year on their matter who has been in actual practice for less than 3 months on their case.

[jimmythecatdied6]

I'm skeptical about the claim that's it's not worth it. SCOTUS clerks are what, 3d or 4th years? They bill at least 1000/hr if not more. At even 1500 billables that's 1.5M revenue. Are they more profitable than other associates? Maybe no. But they're less replaceable.

(1) Many leave after their bonus vests; (2) They can't work on stuff at the court for a couple years, which overlaps with that; (3) They don't bill at a higher rate, so the comp here is to another associate; (4) Many have a pretty long adjustment period and aren't actually great at a lot of the work many firms do or would want to give them; (5) these days, there's an ideological mismatch between many firms and some of the clerks, and many firms I think are worried about certain implications or tendencies wrt certain chambers.

All of these are wrong. (1) Yes, many leave after 2 years. As another poster noted, they still bring in far more than they are paid. $500,000 is chump change compared to what midlevel associates generates. (2) Yes, they're barred from SCOTUS practice for 2 years. That's good for firms because SCOTUS work is a loss leader compared to other work. (3) Firms often do bill them out at a higher rate. Additionally, that isn't the comp because there's not a hard cap on the number of associates. Even if they make lower RPL, they're revenue-positive and bring prestige and press. (4) I have no idea where you're getting this from. SCOTUS clerks write motions and briefs, and many (though not all) are talented researchers and writers. (5) The idea of an ideological mismatch has nothing to do with profitability. Big firms service big institutional clients, usually on the defense, and conservative judges and justices vote for them more often. There are other reasons Thomas clerks prefer Gibson Dunn to WilmerHale.

The person writing this has no idea what the business side of biglaw looks like. Hedge funds do not care if someone clerked at SCOTUS or not, and they will get pissed if they get a $1500/hour 4th year on their matter who has been in actual practice for less than 3 months on their case.

Lol. Why are you using a hedge fund as your hypothetical client? A hedge fund (????) may not care in a vacuum, but most any prospective client would care about SCOTUS experience if they are arguing an appeal, and they need talented brief writers. And even if the SCOTUS associate isn't a great writer, they still give the firm an aura of ability that would help them win the business of that prospective client.

Love that you are slamming someone for having "no idea what the business side of biglaw looks like", and then you offer a terrible take on the business aspects of hiring someone with SCOTUS experience.

[Anonymous User]

So. Someone who thinks a hedge fund is a) hiring for appellate work b) scrutinizing the bill, let alone c) checking up exactly when you joined the firm is saying that I don't know how law firm billings work. Ok then.

[LBJ's Hair]

I have no idea what hiring trends are for SCOTUS clerks are and if $450K or whatever is still the norm, but in no universe is it worth it for a firm to pay a half a million dollars - on top of salary, benefits, etc - to someone who leaves in 24 months

that's like 1/3 of the associate's revenue (assuming 2,000 hours, $1,000 an hour, 80% realization), before accounting for anything else (benefits, taxes, etc). and they won't bill 2,000 hours the first year b/c they're getting staffed up.

[Anonymous User]

So. Someone who thinks a hedge fund is a) hiring for appellate work b) scrutinizing the bill, let alone c) checking up exactly when you joined the firm is saying that I don't know how law firm billings work. Ok then.

many in-house legal depts require you to submit a SOW with rates per biller. no one cares if the partners are pricey but if a $1500/hr associate shows up they’re going to ask why.

[jimmythecatdied6]

I have no idea what hiring trends are for SCOTUS clerks are and if $450K or whatever is still the norm, but in no universe is it worth it for a firm to pay a half a million dollars - on top of salary, benefits, etc - to someone who leaves in 24 months

this is just not debatable.

well if it's not debatable, ok then!

[Anonymous User]

SCOTUS clerks get $450,000.

Dang really?

It seems like a lot, but if it takes you three years to do SCOTUS clerkship (district, appelate, SCOTUS), and you are making 150K+ less each year of a clerkship compared to biglaw, you still kind of come out below or just equal (financially at least. obviously you have another gold star that will help you get a blue check mark)...