Will it significantly harm my career if I don't clerk? Forum

[haldren2198]

I have the grades to clerk and already have three letters of recommendation from professors. I'm interested in litigation and have accepted an SA position in a major market for next summer.

Everyone tells me I should clerk — virtually every professor, career counselors, actual lawyers, etc. But I really just want to work at a firm and make money. I don't care that much about the perceived prestige of it and I'm already going to my dream firm. Also, one of my favorite things about my firm is that it allows remote work and doing a clerkship for a year would make me give that up.

My career plan is biglaw for 3-5 years then go to a state or federal agency — not that interested in DOJ but maybe FTC or SEC. I want to eventually just get a good work/life balance and salary.

Would deciding not to clerk have a materially negative impact on me? I know this isn't a decision I have to make right now because people clerk a few years after graduation too, but a lot of applications are already for the 26-27 term so I can't think about it for too long.

[Anonymous User]

If you don't want to clerk, then don't clerk. If you are someone who has succeeded in law school enough such that you are competitive for clerkships, then you probably have what it takes to succeed in a litigation career without clerking. Lots of people (including biglaw litigation partners) never clerked. Here are three:

https://www.paulweiss.com/professionals ... -d-korberg

https://www.cravath.com/people/damaris- ... l#overview

https://www.skadden.com/professionals/b ... -gregory-s

[jotarokujo]

I have the grades to clerk and already have three letters of recommendation from professors. I'm interested in litigation and have accepted an SA position in a major market for next summer.

Everyone tells me I should clerk — virtually every professor, career counselors, actual lawyers, etc. But I really just want to work at a firm and make money. I don't care that much about the perceived prestige of it and I'm already going to my dream firm. Also, one of my favorite things about my firm is that it allows remote work and doing a clerkship for a year would make me give that up.

My career plan is biglaw for 3-5 years then go to a state or federal agency — not that interested in DOJ but maybe FTC or SEC. I want to eventually just get a good work/life balance and salary.

Would deciding not to clerk have a materially negative impact on me? I know this isn't a decision I have to make right now because people clerk a few years after graduation too, but a lot of applications are already for the 26-27 term so I can't think about it for too long.

you can go to FTC or state gov without clerking. One more factor would be if you would enjoy clerking more than biglaw, but if you love your firm and didn't like law school much (law school is similar to clerking), you probably wouldn't enjoy clerking enough to make it worth it. so seems like no reason to clerk

[Anonymous User]

If you really don't want to clerk, don't. I do think clerking can be very helpful for getting federal litigation jobs, but it's by no means required. Get good experience at your firm before you try to lateral and you should be fine.

I do think clerking is useful for pretty much all litigators, but that's not the same as not clerking materially hurting you in the future.

[jdoeman1234567]

I have the grades to clerk and already have three letters of recommendation from professors. I'm interested in litigation and have accepted an SA position in a major market for next summer.

Everyone tells me I should clerk — virtually every professor, career counselors, actual lawyers, etc. But I really just want to work at a firm and make money. I don't care that much about the perceived prestige of it and I'm already going to my dream firm. Also, one of my favorite things about my firm is that it allows remote work and doing a clerkship for a year would make me give that up.

My career plan is biglaw for 3-5 years then go to a state or federal agency — not that interested in DOJ but maybe FTC or SEC. I want to eventually just get a good work/life balance and salary.

Would deciding not to clerk have a materially negative impact on me? I know this isn't a decision I have to make right now because people clerk a few years after graduation too, but a lot of applications are already for the 26-27 term so I can't think about it for too long.

You obviously don’t need a clerkship to have a great legal career, but the reality is that doing a clerkship materially bolsters your resume and network. And they are particularly beneficial if you know you want to work in government long term. I think you should at least apply for fed clerkships in the city of your preference and if you get one just do it. A year is nothing in the course of a career. Plus the work as a junior in biglaw is objectively worse than the work you will do as a clerk in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

I’d only pass on the clerkship if you have legitimate personal reasons, like you need the biglaw money to support your family right now or something similar.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah you don't have to clerk. Also this is not like a clerk now or never thing. If a year or two into practice you suddenly want to clerk, that option is open to you.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah you don't have to clerk. Also this is not like a clerk now or never thing. If a year or two into practice you suddenly want to clerk, that option is open to you.

While this is true in a vacuum, there are some realities you should think about if you clerk a few years after graduation. If you’re in a HCOL area, your quality of life will drastically decrease. If you’re in big law, paying $3500 for an apartment, then suddenly clerk, even assuming you make GS-13 (equivalent to $105k+ in many HCOL areas) it’s going to be really hard to continue to pay your rent.

Based on your current goals, I understand why you don’t want to clerk and don’t think it would be an obstacle for FTC or a state government agency. However, if you ever want DOJ, many big law lawyers from years 3-5 are applying for the same few positions, so anything that gives you a resume boost could materially alter your chances. I work at a major USAO (think SDNY, EDNY, DC, ED CA) and most of my coworkers clerked.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

Does it tank your chances? No -- there are people who didn't clerk at the agencies you reference. But will it make it harder for you? Yes. It will be a ding on your otherwise (presumably) shiny application. Beyond the general it's a gold star distinguishing you from many of your classmates with equally good or better grades, I have mostly seen a clerkship used as a quick way to ensure that a candidate is an experienced and sophisticated writer, which is something you can't guarantee merely by having spent 4-5 years at a firm. Some bigfed jobs will value writing ability more than others, but overall, not having one will limit the number of jobs for which you are competitive.

[Anonymous User]

It definitely helps for bigfed hiring, but you don't NEED it, strictly speaking. Just think of how many applications agencies get. You should do everything you can to set yourself apart.

It's better to think of clerkships as exceptional opportunities, in that you are literally acting as a judge straight out of law school, drafting opinions to resolve complex disputes. The work is substantive, challenging, and interesting, the pay is solid, and the prestige and pride is lifelong.

It's absolutely a worthwhile long-term investment.

It is hard as hell to get a job out of a clerkship unless you clerked for SDNY or a leading circuit court. You should be absolutely sure your SA firm will welcome you back after any clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

It is hard as hell to get a job out of a clerkship unless you clerked for SDNY or a leading circuit court.

Incredibly wrong, classic TLS.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a mid/senior level DOJ trial lawyer. I can pretty much work where I want to and get interesting offers to move now and then, which I don't take because I have a fun job. I did not clerk, although I did extern for a federal judge in law school, which judge did help me in the early stages of my career. I basically just worked myself up the ladder bit by bit, by being a good and ethical lawyer and nice human being. I think you have stronger credentials than I did when I started out, so you can easily replicate this kind of career trajectory with an even better head start.

I'd view a clerkship as basically a bit of a booster shot in getting your reputation off the ground. It's hard to argue that it would hurt you in any way. But do you literally need it to survive? Nah.

[haldren2198]

I'm a mid/senior level DOJ trial lawyer. I can pretty much work where I want to and get interesting offers to move now and then, which I don't take because I have a fun job. I did not clerk, although I did extern for a federal judge in law school, which judge did help me in the early stages of my career. I basically just worked myself up the ladder bit by bit, by being a good and ethical lawyer and nice human being. I think you have stronger credentials than I did when I started out, so you can easily replicate this kind of career trajectory with an even better head start.

I'd view a clerkship as basically a bit of a booster shot in getting your reputation off the ground. It's hard to argue that it would hurt you in any way. But do you literally need it to survive? Nah.

Thanks for the input. Do you have a sense of how competitive smaller agencies are relative to DOJ? I interned for a very very small agency last summer (small enough that even naming it would out me) and it was honestly my dream job. I felt good about the work and the people were incredible. I'd love to end up somewhere like that down the line.

[Anonymous User]

Does it tank your chances? No -- there are people who didn't clerk at the agencies you reference. But will it make it harder for you? Yes. It will be a ding on your otherwise (presumably) shiny application. Beyond the general it's a gold star distinguishing you from many of your classmates with equally good or better grades, I have mostly seen a clerkship used as a quick way to ensure that a candidate is an experienced and sophisticated writer, which is something you can't guarantee merely by having spent 4-5 years at a firm. Some bigfed jobs will value writing ability more than others, but overall, not having one will limit the number of jobs for which you are competitive.

TCR.

[Anonymous User]

I think it comes down to 1) how old you are (if KJD, you are practically still in the womb and it makes most sense to clerk), 2) if you have family to provide for, and 3) who's actually willing to hire you. Not all judges are worth the sacrifice.

It also depends on your school and the firm youre going to. If you are Yale --> WLRK you benefit less from each marginal gold star than say, Vanderbilt --> Polsinelli.

[Anonymous User]

At minimum, if you're highly qualified, you can apply for clerkships very selectively (places you really want to live, judges you really want to work for). But you're going to hear a lot of survivorship bias here. Of course not every successful lawyer clerked, but it's certainly a leg up, and it's usually easier to do at the beginning of your career. Unless you think you'll hate the work, it's a slightly safer bet to just take your fancy clerkship and wait a year to begin practice.

[Anonymous User]

At a T25. What's funny is that it seems like the students at my school who had the best shot at clerkships and ended up getting one already/are getting interviews were the ones like you: generally good students and/or with good personalities and CV, and who came in with NO interest at all in clerking and just wanted to start their big law or big fed job. For some reason these students were hounded by either a certain professor or judge telling them that they had to clerk, or were somehow discovered by the clerkship committee and in a way pressured to apply. I don't know if these professors enjoyed the chase/challenge of making these students interested in clerking, but it was insane the lengths they would go to. I know it made the Fed Soc/ACS students who were gunning for clerkships from day 1 furious.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a mid/senior level DOJ trial lawyer. I can pretty much work where I want to and get interesting offers to move now and then, which I don't take because I have a fun job. I did not clerk, although I did extern for a federal judge in law school, which judge did help me in the early stages of my career. I basically just worked myself up the ladder bit by bit, by being a good and ethical lawyer and nice human being. I think you have stronger credentials than I did when I started out, so you can easily replicate this kind of career trajectory with an even better head start.

I'd view a clerkship as basically a bit of a booster shot in getting your reputation off the ground. It's hard to argue that it would hurt you in any way. But do you literally need it to survive? Nah.

Thanks for the input. Do you have a sense of how competitive smaller agencies are relative to DOJ? I interned for a very very small agency last summer (small enough that even naming it would out me) and it was honestly my dream job. I felt good about the work and the people were incredible. I'd love to end up somewhere like that down the line.

The feds are just so damn massive. DOJ has about 10,000 lawyers, so I'm guessing virtually all federal agencies other than DOJ are smaller in terms of their legal departments. But to cut to the chase of what I think you want to know: federal agencies are indeed difficult to break into. It's hard enough getting into DOJ, and a lot of agencies poach lawyers from DOJ with even higher salaries and promises of a lot less litigation. (If you love litigation that's not an enticement, but many lawyers do start to get sick of it after a decade or two.) Still, with good enough credentials and persistence I think you could break in to a targeted federal agency at a very young age.

I wouldn't exclude state agencies, which are fantastic feeders to get into federal agencies as well. Again, poaching happens a lot.

[Anonymous User]

At a T25. What's funny is that it seems like the students at my school who had the best shot at clerkships and ended up getting one already/are getting interviews were the ones like you: generally good students and/or with good personalities and CV, and who came in with NO interest at all in clerking and just wanted to start their big law or big fed job. For some reason these students were hounded by either a certain professor or judge telling them that they had to clerk, or were somehow discovered by the clerkship committee and in a way pressured to apply. I don't know if these professors enjoyed the chase/challenge of making these students interested in clerking, but it was insane the lengths they would go to. I know it made the Fed Soc/ACS students who were gunning for clerkships from day 1 furious.

I think this is one of the limited instances in which professors are right. Though clerkships don't guarantee success (nothing does), they are very highly correlated with success, and, given the $100k or so difference between the first-year BL salary and a clerk's salary/bonus upon returning to the firm, it's almost always worth the investment.

Think of it like law school itself. Why do most people pay to go to a T14 when they could attend a lower-ranked school for free? It's because T14 schools are more correlated with high-earning/otherwise successful legal careers. Do they guarantee such a career? No. Are there people who go to lower-ranked schools who achieve similar or higher levels of success than T14 grads? Of course.

But that doesn't change the fact that, for the vast majority of applicants, paying the extra $100k to go to the T14 is worth it in the long run. The same goes for clerkships, except clerkships, in my opinion, actually help you to become a more high-functioning attorney earlier in your career, especially given the dregs of work most first-year associates spend their time doing.

Full disclosure: I clerked COA->D. Ct., so I have a dog in the race. But, from my personal experience working in BL and talking to friends who didn't clerk also working in BL, I have MANY times been given responsibility/work opportunities that I likely would not have been given if I had not clerked. And partners will often ask me for my opinion on how the Court works (and related questions) that they would never ask similar vintage associates who had not clerked. It's anecdotal, but I feel like I have a significant leg up on my peers who didn't clerk.And, regardless of whether any of this is actually true (it may not be), clerks are often perceived as more competent on average, which is more important anyway.

We see throughout the entire law school process that meaningless prestige and distinctions (school/grades/law review/externships) are accorded enormous undue weight. Don't delude yourself into thinking that this trend stops when you graduate. It's a feature of the entire profession. Just look at the ridiculous amount of attention people give the Vault List on this board. Like it or not, lawyers are prestige-obsessed. Clerking is just another part of that. Another gold star to set you apart from the rest. But I feel like clerking, at least, offers *some* real practical benefit where other gold stars do not.

Absolutely clerk if you can, and do so as early in your career as possible to minimize career disruption and earnings loss.

[Anonymous User]

At a T25. What's funny is that it seems like the students at my school who had the best shot at clerkships and ended up getting one already/are getting interviews were the ones like you: generally good students and/or with good personalities and CV, and who came in with NO interest at all in clerking and just wanted to start their big law or big fed job. For some reason these students were hounded by either a certain professor or judge telling them that they had to clerk, or were somehow discovered by the clerkship committee and in a way pressured to apply. I don't know if these professors enjoyed the chase/challenge of making these students interested in clerking, but it was insane the lengths they would go to. I know it made the Fed Soc/ACS students who were gunning for clerkships from day 1 furious.

Yeah the profs are right. At a T25, the marginal value of a clerkship for your career as a litigator are very large. It’s one of the few resume signals that can make up for not going to a T14 (and then some), and elite litigation is v resume-conscious.

[Anonymous User]

At a T25. What's funny is that it seems like the students at my school who had the best shot at clerkships and ended up getting one already/are getting interviews were the ones like you: generally good students and/or with good personalities and CV, and who came in with NO interest at all in clerking and just wanted to start their big law or big fed job. For some reason these students were hounded by either a certain professor or judge telling them that they had to clerk, or were somehow discovered by the clerkship committee and in a way pressured to apply. I don't know if these professors enjoyed the chase/challenge of making these students interested in clerking, but it was insane the lengths they would go to. I know it made the Fed Soc/ACS students who were gunning for clerkships from day 1 furious.

Sounds like Notre Dame.

[Anonymous User]

But that doesn't change the fact that, for the vast majority of applicants, paying the extra $100k to go to the T14 is worth it in the long run. The same goes for clerkships, except clerkships, in my opinion, actually help you to become a more high-functioning attorney earlier in your career, especially given the dregs of work most first-year associates spend their time doing.

Senior lawyer here and the bolded portion here is a pretty darn good argument.

Those first ten years in biglaw are next to useless in terms of actual training, in litigation anyway. It's hard enough to get a good handle on what real world lawyering is like as a young lawyer. A clerkship, whether it's federal district court or state/federal appellate, is a pretty intense and hard core insider look at what the "final product" looks like for case after case, or motion after motion, for at least a year. You see some terrible lawyering. You see some fantastic lawyering. Read up a bit on cross examination so you can tell the difference, and you'll actually enjoy it more when you recognize which is which. (There are some pretty thick books out there on the subject. I don't mean ABA articles. Pick one or two of the books.)

[Anonymous User]

At a T25. What's funny is that it seems like the students at my school who had the best shot at clerkships and ended up getting one already/are getting interviews were the ones like you: generally good students and/or with good personalities and CV, and who came in with NO interest at all in clerking and just wanted to start their big law or big fed job. For some reason these students were hounded by either a certain professor or judge telling them that they had to clerk, or were somehow discovered by the clerkship committee and in a way pressured to apply. I don't know if these professors enjoyed the chase/challenge of making these students interested in clerking, but it was insane the lengths they would go to. I know it made the Fed Soc/ACS students who were gunning for clerkships from day 1 furious.

Sounds like Notre Dame.

Is ND that gung ho about clerkships? I know they put a focus on it, but not to the extent of aggressively flipping students who IMO are already on successful paths.

[Anonymous User]

At a T25. What's funny is that it seems like the students at my school who had the best shot at clerkships and ended up getting one already/are getting interviews were the ones like you: generally good students and/or with good personalities and CV, and who came in with NO interest at all in clerking and just wanted to start their big law or big fed job. For some reason these students were hounded by either a certain professor or judge telling them that they had to clerk, or were somehow discovered by the clerkship committee and in a way pressured to apply. I don't know if these professors enjoyed the chase/challenge of making these students interested in clerking, but it was insane the lengths they would go to. I know it made the Fed Soc/ACS students who were gunning for clerkships from day 1 furious.

Sounds like Notre Dame.

how so

[Anonymous User]

I have the grades to clerk and already have three letters of recommendation from professors. I'm interested in litigation and have accepted an SA position in a major market for next summer.

Everyone tells me I should clerk — virtually every professor, career counselors, actual lawyers, etc. But I really just want to work at a firm and make money. I don't care that much about the perceived prestige of it and I'm already going to my dream firm. Also, one of my favorite things about my firm is that it allows remote work and doing a clerkship for a year would make me give that up.

My career plan is biglaw for 3-5 years then go to a state or federal agency — not that interested in DOJ but maybe FTC or SEC. I want to eventually just get a good work/life balance and salary.

Would deciding not to clerk have a materially negative impact on me? I know this isn't a decision I have to make right now because people clerk a few years after graduation too, but a lot of applications are already for the 26-27 term so I can't think about it for too long.

I'm not going to read all these words in this thread, so I'm not sure whether someone has brought this up or not, but you don't need to make this decision now. You can go work in biglaw for a year or two and then decide to clerk. That way you can get collect some cash, get some experience and then take a year "break" to clerk.

This will also allow you to do a victory lap in biglaw where you can pick up that sweet clerkship bonus, put in one last year fully refreshed off your clerkship and then go to fed after.