Wachtell vs. DC Lit for Clerkships? Forum

[Anonymous User]

OP Here. The star appellate partners at some of these firms have guaranteed in no uncertain terms that I will work with them, and that they will make calls for clerkships. If I didn't have this guarantee, I think WLRK would be the right play. With this, I'm taking the DC firm I fit with the most. This seems to be consistent with the general advice in this thread, which is that without more information, I should go to WLRK since clerkship value is dubious regardless and WLRK is harder to get than generic DC Lit, but guaranteed appellate work and a known appellate partner reaching out would change the calculus.

Not like this matters anyways as going DC Lit is not a bad spot to be in I, respectfully, am getting off vibes from like your posts and this whole thread.

1) As the person above me said, the point of a clerkship is to get a firm, not the other way around, so I am highly confused on why you are picking firms with this in mind.

2) I'm sorry, but unless I am missing something and you have some sort of previous relationship with this appellate partner they are either a) not going to call for you and are just straight up lying or b) will call for you and give information of little or confusing value. Surely you have a Professor who knows you well—maybe even a well connected Professor—that you would much rather put in a good word with you to clerks.

3) "The star appellate partners at some of these firms have guaranteed in no uncertain terms that I will work with them, and that they will make calls for clerkships." I'm sorry but this is ridiculous—you are a 2L with likely great grades at a great school—am I to believe you have multiple star appellate partners stumbling over themselves to work with you.

I actually think OP is telling the truth. Star appellate partners absolutely get involved in the summer associate recruiting process for top candidates, and they absolutely promise professional mentorship and help with clerkships. Phone calls are not unheard of. Sometimes these promises don't pan out, however. Based on this info and the Wachtell offer, I'd guess OP is top 5% at HYS or similar.

OP here. This is correct. Star appellate partners and other managing partners play major roles in recruiting at many firms. I am indeed top 5% at HYS or similar, but am not particularly special in any way outside of that (no deep personal/familial connections in the legal world). My experience of being courted by big names is not at all unheard of, and I am not the only one of my friends who has received such calls and guarantees, though presumably it is not terribly common.

[Anonymous User]

OP Here. The star appellate partners at some of these firms have guaranteed in no uncertain terms that I will work with them, and that they will make calls for clerkships. If I didn't have this guarantee, I think WLRK would be the right play. With this, I'm taking the DC firm I fit with the most. This seems to be consistent with the general advice in this thread, which is that without more information, I should go to WLRK since clerkship value is dubious regardless and WLRK is harder to get than generic DC Lit, but guaranteed appellate work and a known appellate partner reaching out would change the calculus.

Not like this matters anyways as going DC Lit is not a bad spot to be in I, respectfully, am getting off vibes from like your posts and this whole thread.

1) As the person above me said, the point of a clerkship is to get a firm, not the other way around, so I am highly confused on why you are picking firms with this in mind.

2) I'm sorry, but unless I am missing something and you have some sort of previous relationship with this appellate partner they are either a) not going to call for you and are just straight up lying or b) will call for you and give information of little or confusing value. Surely you have a Professor who knows you well—maybe even a well connected Professor—that you would much rather put in a good word with you to clerks.

3) "The star appellate partners at some of these firms have guaranteed in no uncertain terms that I will work with them, and that they will make calls for clerkships." I'm sorry but this is ridiculous—you are a 2L with likely great grades at a great school—am I to believe you have multiple star appellate partners stumbling over themselves to work with you.

I actually think OP is telling the truth. Star appellate partners absolutely get involved in the summer associate recruiting process for top candidates, and they absolutely promise professional mentorship and help with clerkships. Phone calls are not unheard of. Sometimes these promises don't pan out, however. Based on this info and the Wachtell offer, I'd guess OP is top 5% at HYS or similar.

I'll admit I am not well versed in DC lit star appellate partners sphere, but I'm somewhat skeptical to the value these type of calls have. If I'm a clerk I really don't know how I'm supposed to respond to an appellate partner who barely knows someone recommending them to chambers. I would much rather hear from a Professor/someone who knows the candidate well to give me a reason to push the candidate to the judge. I guess I see where this matters where the partner has the judge's number and can bypass the chambers line... idk

[Anonymous User]

Popping in here as someone in the top 5% at HYS who is going to D.C. next summer to say that yes – the appellate partners at the firms OP is mentioning appear to play a big role in the hiring process and made similar representations to me about (a) being able to work with them over the summer; and (b) making clerkship calls. It isn't unheard of for this to happen.

[Anonymous User]

Popping in here as someone in the top 5% at HYS who is going to D.C. next summer to say that yes – the appellate partners at the firms OP is mentioning appear to play a big role in the hiring process and made similar representations to me about (a) being able to work with them over the summer; and (b) making clerkship calls. It isn't unheard of for this to happen.

Is it even possible to discern the "Top 5%" of the YLS class after 1L? You only have had one semester of grades, approximately one third of folks gets an H in each class, and there's no Dean's Scholar or A+ equivalent.

[Anonymous User]

Don't partners at all law firms say this shit all the time during recruiting. I get the work with me part, because sure just have a summer shadow you or research some topic. I'm just struggling to think of a Partner actually going to bat for like a bunch of their summers for a judge two weeks into a summer associateship.

Besides that point, though, I am still struggling to think why a law student would want a Partner to call for them over a Professor they know well unless said Partner is very close with the judge.

[Anonymous User]

Popping in here as someone in the top 5% at HYS who is going to D.C. next summer to say that yes – the appellate partners at the firms OP is mentioning appear to play a big role in the hiring process and made similar representations to me about (a) being able to work with them over the summer; and (b) making clerkship calls. It isn't unheard of for this to happen.

I’m not surprised they would say this as part of recruiting. And I expect they are sincere when they say it. And it may pan out. But I would not take it as a guarantee.

[Anonymous User]

Popping in here as someone in the top 5% at HYS who is going to D.C. next summer to say that yes – the appellate partners at the firms OP is mentioning appear to play a big role in the hiring process and made similar representations to me about (a) being able to work with them over the summer; and (b) making clerkship calls. It isn't unheard of for this to happen.

Is it even possible to discern the "Top 5%" of the YLS class after 1L? You only have had one semester of grades, approximately one third of folks gets an H in each class, and there's no Dean's Scholar or A+ equivalent.

Yes, but it's not as scientific as at S/H. Signals include straight-Hs, TA/RA positions, clerkships (if conservative or willing to clerk for a conservative), pre-law school accomplishments, and word-of-mouth recommendations.

[Anonymous User]

OP Here. The star appellate partners at some of these firms have guaranteed in no uncertain terms that I will work with them, and that they will make calls for clerkships. If I didn't have this guarantee, I think WLRK would be the right play. With this, I'm taking the DC firm I fit with the most. This seems to be consistent with the general advice in this thread, which is that without more information, I should go to WLRK since clerkship value is dubious regardless and WLRK is harder to get than generic DC Lit, but guaranteed appellate work and a known appellate partner reaching out would change the calculus.

couple thoughts:

(1) if you want to be in DC and do appellate (WLRK does not have a separate appellate practice and is only in NYC) this makes sense.

(2) I'm skeptical of the value of a phone call from an appellate partner who has never worked with you. like what's s/he going to say, I interviewed this person, seemed great? my chambers would have been pretty nonplussed by that. are you planning to be interviewing for clerkships after you start as a first year? most people who are clerkship gunners have their clerkships locked up by then.

(3) the whole point of the clerkship is to help you get your preferred legal job? not the other way around, no? the clerkship is a one-year thing. I would definitely not trade my current (ideal) legal job for the 'ideal' clerkship' I had as a rising 2L

(4) if this is a SCOTUS chase ... I think maximizing SCOTUS chances = being in DC appellate litigation. (having never been a serious SCOTUS contender.) but obviously, most SCOTUS chases end disappointingly...query to what extent you want to build the next 5 years of your life around this, especially if you're liberal.

Regardless of the value of the calls, which will differ by chambers and the individual case, partners sometimes push for their summers, not just for their associates, and students competitive for elite clerkships won’t have any problems getting the long-term job they want regardless of where they summer (except maybe appellate BL, which OP is maxing their chances for anyway)

[Anonymous User]

OP Here. The star appellate partners at some of these firms have guaranteed in no uncertain terms that I will work with them, and that they will make calls for clerkships. If I didn't have this guarantee, I think WLRK would be the right play. With this, I'm taking the DC firm I fit with the most. This seems to be consistent with the general advice in this thread, which is that without more information, I should go to WLRK since clerkship value is dubious regardless and WLRK is harder to get than generic DC Lit, but guaranteed appellate work and a known appellate partner reaching out would change the calculus.

Not like this matters anyways as going DC Lit is not a bad spot to be in I, respectfully, am getting off vibes from like your posts and this whole thread.

1) As the person above me said, the point of a clerkship is to get a firm, not the other way around, so I am highly confused on why you are picking firms with this in mind.

2) I'm sorry, but unless I am missing something and you have some sort of previous relationship with this appellate partner they are either a) not going to call for you and are just straight up lying or b) will call for you and give information of little or confusing value. Surely you have a Professor who knows you well—maybe even a well connected Professor—that you would much rather put in a good word with you to clerks.

3) "The star appellate partners at some of these firms have guaranteed in no uncertain terms that I will work with them, and that they will make calls for clerkships." I'm sorry but this is ridiculous—you are a 2L with likely great grades at a great school—am I to believe you have multiple star appellate partners stumbling over themselves to work with you.

As others have confirmed firms do specifically recruit for appellate summers, there just aren’t many of them, and those summers often work with star partners (as appellate teams are naturally very small). I did it myself and know people who have done it at most of the Band 1-2 national appellate practices. And some partners do push them for clerkships (e.g. I am positive KS does).

[Pneumonia]

Some of the responses in this thread are very clearly from people who have no familiarity with appellate practice at large firms. It is not the same as generic Biglaw. Recruiting is not the same. Prospects are not the same. For people with credentials like those that I assume OP has, the point of a firm is *absolutely* to get a good clerkship. The ultimate prospect of Biglaw is a foregone conclusion. Everything OP has said makes good sense to me and is well in accord with my experience on both sides of appellate hiring. For those who are assuming that DC Appellate is the same as generic lit, that assumption is not correct.

[Anonymous User]

Some of the responses in this thread are very clearly from people who have no familiarity with appellate practice at large firms. It is not the same as generic Biglaw. Recruiting is not the same. Prospects are not the same. For people with credentials like those that I assume OP has, the point of a firm is *absolutely* to get a good clerkship. The ultimate prospect of Biglaw is a foregone conclusion. Everything OP has said makes good sense to me and is well in accord with my experience on both sides of appellate hiring. For those who are assuming that DC Appellate is the same as generic lit, that assumption is not correct.

the point wasn't that someone in OP's position is going to strike out at BigLaw or something

it's that you should decide between WLRK and DC appellate based on whether you want to make a ton of money in NYC doing litigation like Twitter-Musk, or make less money with better hours in DC talking about stuff on SCOTUSblog professionally

getting that decision right is way more important than the marginal value of a promised clerkship phone call from someone who has known you for 25 min, I do'nt care if it's Kannon promising it. he'll prob make it, he's an awesome guy. so what? do you want to work at WLRK or PW DC -- that's the relevant question.

fetishizing the clerkship is, I'm sorry, law school brain disease. and I say this as someone who clerked for a 'good' COA judge.

[Anonymous User]

Some of the responses in this thread are very clearly from people who have no familiarity with appellate practice at large firms. It is not the same as generic Biglaw. Recruiting is not the same. Prospects are not the same. For people with credentials like those that I assume OP has, the point of a firm is *absolutely* to get a good clerkship. The ultimate prospect of Biglaw is a foregone conclusion. Everything OP has said makes good sense to me and is well in accord with my experience on both sides of appellate hiring. For those who are assuming that DC Appellate is the same as generic lit, that assumption is not correct.

the point wasn't that someone in OP's position is going to strike out at BigLaw or something

it's that you should decide between WLRK and DC appellate based on whether you want to make a ton of money in NYC doing litigation like Twitter-Musk, or make less money with better hours in DC talking about stuff on SCOTUSblog professionally

getting that decision right is way more important than the marginal value of a promised clerkship phone call from someone who has known you for 25 min, I do'nt care if it's Kannon promising it. he'll prob make it, he's an awesome guy. so what? do you want to work at WLRK or PW DC -- that's the relevant question.

fetishizing the clerkship is, I'm sorry, law school brain disease. and I say this as someone who clerked for a 'good' COA judge.

OP here. The reason I asked my question the way I asked it was to pinpoint the short-term clerkship benefits of going to one firm over the other without derailing the thread into the usual "well, what do you want to do?" I'm aware that the firms are very different in terms of lifestyle and work and that certainly played a role in my overall decision making, but I didn't want that to be the focus of the conversation. I strongly agree with you that law school encourages an excessive fetishization of clerkships that is unhealthy. That being said, clerkships are absolutely relevant in the legal profession, and I wanted a better perspective. Thanks to everyone who contributed.

[Anonymous User]

Some of the responses in this thread are very clearly from people who have no familiarity with appellate practice at large firms. It is not the same as generic Biglaw. Recruiting is not the same. Prospects are not the same. For people with credentials like those that I assume OP has, the point of a firm is *absolutely* to get a good clerkship. The ultimate prospect of Biglaw is a foregone conclusion. Everything OP has said makes good sense to me and is well in accord with my experience on both sides of appellate hiring. For those who are assuming that DC Appellate is the same as generic lit, that assumption is not correct.

the point wasn't that someone in OP's position is going to strike out at BigLaw or something

it's that you should decide between WLRK and DC appellate based on whether you want to make a ton of money in NYC doing litigation like Twitter-Musk, or make less money with better hours in DC talking about stuff on SCOTUSblog professionally

getting that decision right is way more important than the marginal value of a promised clerkship phone call from someone who has known you for 25 min, I do'nt care if it's Kannon promising it. he'll prob make it, he's an awesome guy. so what? do you want to work at WLRK or PW DC -- that's the relevant question.

fetishizing the clerkship is, I'm sorry, law school brain disease. and I say this as someone who clerked for a 'good' COA judge.

Agreed entirely. The reason I suggest going to Wachtell first is because OP is going to get a clerkship if they've got the stats to get these offers. Wachtell does not hire that many people post clerkships and cares much more about fit and the ability to work 3000 hours without spontaneously combusting. DC Lit (even appellate) is incredibly easy to get in comparison if you've got the stats, clerkship, and connections. You could easily try out Wachtell, collect your massive salary, go clerk, and decide from there whether money makes you happy or if arguing about Younger abstention at the water cooler floats your boat more.

[Pneumonia]

OP asked:

...Do any of these firms, either as a resume signal going into OSCAR or as a network of connections after 2L summer for 3L off-plan hiring, give a leg up for clerkships? ... I like NYC and DC equally and I'm not trying to plan out the next 5 years of my life at this time, so non-clerkship long-term considerations (including pay -- I know WLRK pays a lot more) don't factor in here. ...

This question is not "fetishizing" the clerkship (although I wholeheartedly agree in that phenomenon's unfortuntate existence). I am not an expert on WLRK. You are right to point out the opportunity cost to declining WLRK, if there is one. If OP says "no" for 2L summer, is he forever foreclosed from being hired there? I don't know. But I don't think OP said he was going to decide between firms based solely on the answers that appeared in this thread (although that is how some people choose firms). Weighing relative value for clerkships in the overall calculus of where to summer is fine.

do you want to work at WLRK or PW DC -- that's the relevant question.

While I again agree with the sentiment that clerkships are just a job, I think one point of this thread is that 2L summer is often treated as a freebie for candidates targeting appellate practice areas. If you have great grades, and you know you're going to clerk at least once, then the *real* OCI is the post-clerkship hiring market.

As gap years and multiple clerkships have become more common, the length of time between OCI and starting as an associate has stretched from 2-3 years to 4-5 years. It's a real possibility that the firm or practice group will be substantially different by the time your clerkships are over. The star appellate partner(s) might be gone, to another firm, or their own firm, or gov, or an AIII seat. Because primary hiring takes place post-clerkship, a leading factor for choosing an employer for 2L summer becomes maximizing your competitiveness post-clerkship--i.e., getting the "best" clerkship you can. I'm not saying that any of this is good, but it is happening.

If OP is certain that he wants to work at WLRK, then he should go to WLRK. If he is certain that he wants to do DC Appellate, then he should go there. If he is uncertain, but knows he wants to clerk, then deciding based on clerkship potential is reasonable, and OP wouldn't be the first to do it.

Finally, a lot of answers in this thread are being way too cavalier in dismissing the weight that calls from certain appellate partners can have in the clerkship process. More likely, the call is a text. Or repeated recommendations in person at any number of events where fancy judges and fancy appellate partners both appear. Or all of the above. A solid rec from practitioners with the caliber of those named in this thread is much closer to a rec from from a leading professor than it is to a rec from a random biglaw partner. I don't want to overemphasize it, but I do want to counterweight the multiple posters who have indicated that calls from the appellate bar are essentially worthless.

[Anonymous User]

I do want to counterweight the multiple posters who have indicated that calls from the appellate bar are essentially worthless.

Yup. It's always amusing when TLS posters who aren't in a similar position to an OP -- at the top of their class at H/Y/S, for example -- purport to offer "real-world" advice to supposedly "naive" students, just because those posters have been practicing law for a few years and take themselves to be world-wise vets. You don't really appreciate the access and options top students at elite places have, looking in from the outside, trying to convince yourself that it's all roughly similar.

[Anonymous User]

I want to add that this dynamic may have changed in recent years. I was in the top 5-or-so students at HS a few years ago (less than 10 years), and had a feeder clerkship before OCI and targeted DC Appellate. I interviewed with the top appellate partners, and they called me to try to get me to take the offer, but I did not get assurances I *would* work with them (and certainly not that they would make calls for clerkships). But, that a was a few years ago at GDC, LW, Sidley, WH, KH, etc.

It's possible that KS at PW and JW at S&C are making a play by doing something a bit more ... intense than the typical appellate recruiting process. They're younger, and maybe trying to fashion their appellate practice group more personally, whereas people like Seth Waxman, David Frederick, Ted Olson, or Greg Garre already have their group. This may have been a recent thing (and, who knows, it may also cause the other firms to up the ante as well).

[Anonymous User]

Chiming in to say that I was in a similar position to OP a couple years ago and the appellate partner made a call persuasive enough, even just two or three weeks into the summer, to help close the deal with a feeder judge.

[lavarman84]

FWIW, OP, I think you made the right call.

[Anonymous User]

Chiming in to say that I was in a similar position to OP a couple years ago and the appellate partner made a call persuasive enough, even just two or three weeks into the summer, to help close the deal with a feeder judge.

This. Another point that hasn't been discussed much is the signaling value of summer associate positions. Elite clerkship hiring has a lot to do with friendship networks, and choosing to be "with" Waxman/Katyal/Kannon allows rising 2Ls to signal, in broad strokes, what circles they hope to get an in with.

[Anonymous User]

Chiming in to say that I was in a similar position to OP a couple years ago and the appellate partner made a call persuasive enough, even just two or three weeks into the summer, to help close the deal with a feeder judge.

This. Another point that hasn't been discussed much is the signaling value of summer associate positions. Elite clerkship hiring has a lot to do with friendship networks, and choosing to be "with" Waxman/Katyal/Kannon allows rising 2Ls to signal, in broad strokes, what circles they hope to get an in with.

To what extent does an appellate summer need to work closely with a Waxman/Katyal/Shanmugam in order to have a call made to a feeder? And what exactly would "working closely with" said person look like?

Do you have to actually get substantive brief writing and/or oral argument experience during the summer (not sure the latter is even possible)? Do you flip drafts directly to Waxman/Katyal/Shanmugam for their review and impress them with your writing? Do you answer their discrete legal research questions via email? Wouldn't there be an associate mediating between the summer and the partner?

Or do you just have to have really impressive credentials and go out to lunch with Waxman/Katyal/Shanmugam a couple times and have lively conversation and make them like you on a personal level?

[Anonymous User]

Chiming in to say that I was in a similar position to OP a couple years ago and the appellate partner made a call persuasive enough, even just two or three weeks into the summer, to help close the deal with a feeder judge.

This. Another point that hasn't been discussed much is the signaling value of summer associate positions. Elite clerkship hiring has a lot to do with friendship networks, and choosing to be "with" Waxman/Katyal/Kannon allows rising 2Ls to signal, in broad strokes, what circles they hope to get an in with.

To what extent does an appellate summer need to work closely with a Waxman/Katyal/Shanmugam in order to have a call made to a feeder? And what exactly would "working closely with" said person look like?

Do you have to actually get substantive brief writing and/or oral argument experience during the summer (not sure the latter is even possible)? Do you flip drafts directly to Waxman/Katyal/Shanmugam for their review and impress them with your writing? Do you answer their discrete legal research questions via email? Wouldn't there be an associate mediating between the summer and the partner?

Or do you just have to have really impressive credentials and go out to lunch with Waxman/Katyal/Shanmugam a couple times and have lively conversation and make them like you on a personal level?

You will not do enough meaningful work as a summer to get a recommendation that a judge will take seriously. I also think people fail to appreciate that a judge's network in terms of who they will take a recommendation call from (and take it seriously) is way more personal and idiosyncratic than the names you see in the paper. As a result, it is not really possible to game the system unless you are laser focused on one particular judge and have good intel on their network. Anyone still in law school is seriously misunderstanding the clerkship game if they are thinking that this is a helpful strategy.

[Anonymous User]

Chiming in to say that I was in a similar position to OP a couple years ago and the appellate partner made a call persuasive enough, even just two or three weeks into the summer, to help close the deal with a feeder judge.

This. Another point that hasn't been discussed much is the signaling value of summer associate positions. Elite clerkship hiring has a lot to do with friendship networks, and choosing to be "with" Waxman/Katyal/Kannon allows rising 2Ls to signal, in broad strokes, what circles they hope to get an in with.

To what extent does an appellate summer need to work closely with a Waxman/Katyal/Shanmugam in order to have a call made to a feeder? And what exactly would "working closely with" said person look like?

Do you have to actually get substantive brief writing and/or oral argument experience during the summer (not sure the latter is even possible)? Do you flip drafts directly to Waxman/Katyal/Shanmugam for their review and impress them with your writing? Do you answer their discrete legal research questions via email? Wouldn't there be an associate mediating between the summer and the partner?

Or do you just have to have really impressive credentials and go out to lunch with Waxman/Katyal/Shanmugam a couple times and have lively conversation and make them like you on a personal level?

You will not do enough meaningful work as a summer to get a recommendation that a judge will take seriously. I also think people fail to appreciate that a judge's network in terms of who they will take a recommendation call from (and take it seriously) is way more personal and idiosyncratic than the names you see in the paper. As a result, it is not really possible to game the system unless you are laser focused on one particular judge and have good intel on their network. Anyone still in law school is seriously misunderstanding the clerkship game if they are thinking that this is a helpful strategy.

Original quoted anon here. I actually don't disagree with most of this, and what you say is logical looking at it from the outside. I wasn't promised clerkship help as part of the recruiting process, and there were clear limits to what the appellate partner would do.

That said, I've seen firsthand this partner go to bat hard, for myself and another summer (with another judge), based on what objectively was certainly "not enough meaningful work as a summer to get a recommendation a judge will take seriously." Yet the judges did take it seriously because this partner knew what to say and had relationships with the judges.

So while I agree this is probably not something most law students can game out in advance, I want to say that this does happen, if you're in the right place at the right time.

[Anonymous User]

Chiming in to say that I was in a similar position to OP a couple years ago and the appellate partner made a call persuasive enough, even just two or three weeks into the summer, to help close the deal with a feeder judge.

This. Another point that hasn't been discussed much is the signaling value of summer associate positions. Elite clerkship hiring has a lot to do with friendship networks, and choosing to be "with" Waxman/Katyal/Kannon allows rising 2Ls to signal, in broad strokes, what circles they hope to get an in with.

To what extent does an appellate summer need to work closely with a Waxman/Katyal/Shanmugam in order to have a call made to a feeder? And what exactly would "working closely with" said person look like?

Do you have to actually get substantive brief writing and/or oral argument experience during the summer (not sure the latter is even possible)? Do you flip drafts directly to Waxman/Katyal/Shanmugam for their review and impress them with your writing? Do you answer their discrete legal research questions via email? Wouldn't there be an associate mediating between the summer and the partner?

Or do you just have to have really impressive credentials and go out to lunch with Waxman/Katyal/Shanmugam a couple times and have lively conversation and make them like you on a personal level?

You will not do enough meaningful work as a summer to get a recommendation that a judge will take seriously. I also think people fail to appreciate that a judge's network in terms of who they will take a recommendation call from (and take it seriously) is way more personal and idiosyncratic than the names you see in the paper. As a result, it is not really possible to game the system unless you are laser focused on one particular judge and have good intel on their network. Anyone still in law school is seriously misunderstanding the clerkship game if they are thinking that this is a helpful strategy.

Original quoted anon here. I actually don't disagree with most of this, and what you say is logical looking at it from the outside. I wasn't promised clerkship help as part of the recruiting process, and there were clear limits to what the appellate partner would do.

That said, I've seen firsthand this partner go to bat hard, for myself and another summer (with another judge), based on what objectively was certainly "not enough meaningful work as a summer to get a recommendation a judge will take seriously." Yet the judges did take it seriously because this partner knew what to say and had relationships with the judges.

So while I agree this is probably not something most law students can game out in advance, I want to say that this does happen, if you're in the right place at the right time.

Also, partners don't need to advocate for their summers to make a difference. For many judges, they're an initial screening mechanism. (If Kannon hires you after talking for 30 minutes, how weird can you be?) They're also easy conversation fodder. (Judge: "Oh, I see you're at Paul Weiss, have you worked with Kannon?" You: "Yes! In fact, [insert amusing anecdote about working with Kannon]." Judge: "Well that's Kannon for you, he and I go way back. In fact, [anecdote]. It's been a while, I should send him a quick email.") If this all sounds stupid, it is - but I've seen it tip the clerkship balance before.

[Anonymous User]

Chiming in to say that I was in a similar position to OP a couple years ago and the appellate partner made a call persuasive enough, even just two or three weeks into the summer, to help close the deal with a feeder judge.

This. Another point that hasn't been discussed much is the signaling value of summer associate positions. Elite clerkship hiring has a lot to do with friendship networks, and choosing to be "with" Waxman/Katyal/Kannon allows rising 2Ls to signal, in broad strokes, what circles they hope to get an in with.

To what extent does an appellate summer need to work closely with a Waxman/Katyal/Shanmugam in order to have a call made to a feeder? And what exactly would "working closely with" said person look like?

Do you have to actually get substantive brief writing and/or oral argument experience during the summer (not sure the latter is even possible)? Do you flip drafts directly to Waxman/Katyal/Shanmugam for their review and impress them with your writing? Do you answer their discrete legal research questions via email? Wouldn't there be an associate mediating between the summer and the partner?

Or do you just have to have really impressive credentials and go out to lunch with Waxman/Katyal/Shanmugam a couple times and have lively conversation and make them like you on a personal level?

You will not do enough meaningful work as a summer to get a recommendation that a judge will take seriously. I also think people fail to appreciate that a judge's network in terms of who they will take a recommendation call from (and take it seriously) is way more personal and idiosyncratic than the names you see in the paper. As a result, it is not really possible to game the system unless you are laser focused on one particular judge and have good intel on their network. Anyone still in law school is seriously misunderstanding the clerkship game if they are thinking that this is a helpful strategy.

Original quoted anon here. I actually don't disagree with most of this, and what you say is logical looking at it from the outside. I wasn't promised clerkship help as part of the recruiting process, and there were clear limits to what the appellate partner would do.

That said, I've seen firsthand this partner go to bat hard, for myself and another summer (with another judge), based on what objectively was certainly "not enough meaningful work as a summer to get a recommendation a judge will take seriously." Yet the judges did take it seriously because this partner knew what to say and had relationships with the judges.

So while I agree this is probably not something most law students can game out in advance, I want to say that this does happen, if you're in the right place at the right time.

Also, partners don't need to advocate for their summers to make a difference. For many judges, they're an initial screening mechanism. (If Kannon hires you after talking for 30 minutes, how weird can you be?) They're also easy conversation fodder. (Judge: "Oh, I see you're at Paul Weiss, have you worked with Kannon?" You: "Yes! In fact, [insert amusing anecdote about working with Kannon]." Judge: "Well that's Kannon for you, he and I go way back. In fact, [anecdote]. It's been a while, I should send him a quick email.") If this all sounds stupid, it is - but I've seen it tip the clerkship balance before.

This whole attitude toward hiring is gross and I hate it.

[Anonymous User]

Chiming in to say that I was in a similar position to OP a couple years ago and the appellate partner made a call persuasive enough, even just two or three weeks into the summer, to help close the deal with a feeder judge.

This. Another point that hasn't been discussed much is the signaling value of summer associate positions. Elite clerkship hiring has a lot to do with friendship networks, and choosing to be "with" Waxman/Katyal/Kannon allows rising 2Ls to signal, in broad strokes, what circles they hope to get an in with.

To what extent does an appellate summer need to work closely with a Waxman/Katyal/Shanmugam in order to have a call made to a feeder? And what exactly would "working closely with" said person look like?

Do you have to actually get substantive brief writing and/or oral argument experience during the summer (not sure the latter is even possible)? Do you flip drafts directly to Waxman/Katyal/Shanmugam for their review and impress them with your writing? Do you answer their discrete legal research questions via email? Wouldn't there be an associate mediating between the summer and the partner?

Or do you just have to have really impressive credentials and go out to lunch with Waxman/Katyal/Shanmugam a couple times and have lively conversation and make them like you on a personal level?

You will not do enough meaningful work as a summer to get a recommendation that a judge will take seriously. I also think people fail to appreciate that a judge's network in terms of who they will take a recommendation call from (and take it seriously) is way more personal and idiosyncratic than the names you see in the paper. As a result, it is not really possible to game the system unless you are laser focused on one particular judge and have good intel on their network. Anyone still in law school is seriously misunderstanding the clerkship game if they are thinking that this is a helpful strategy.

Original quoted anon here. I actually don't disagree with most of this, and what you say is logical looking at it from the outside. I wasn't promised clerkship help as part of the recruiting process, and there were clear limits to what the appellate partner would do.

That said, I've seen firsthand this partner go to bat hard, for myself and another summer (with another judge), based on what objectively was certainly "not enough meaningful work as a summer to get a recommendation a judge will take seriously." Yet the judges did take it seriously because this partner knew what to say and had relationships with the judges.

So while I agree this is probably not something most law students can game out in advance, I want to say that this does happen, if you're in the right place at the right time.

Also, partners don't need to advocate for their summers to make a difference. For many judges, they're an initial screening mechanism. (If Kannon hires you after talking for 30 minutes, how weird can you be?) They're also easy conversation fodder. (Judge: "Oh, I see you're at Paul Weiss, have you worked with Kannon?" You: "Yes! In fact, [insert amusing anecdote about working with Kannon]." Judge: "Well that's Kannon for you, he and I go way back. In fact, [anecdote]. It's been a while, I should send him a quick email.") If this all sounds stupid, it is - but I've seen it tip the clerkship balance before.

This whole attitude toward hiring is gross and I hate it.

I do too. Unfortunately, it comes with the territory working in the most status-obsessed niche in the most status-obsessed city in the most status-obsessed profession.