Any reason to do a second federal judicial clerkship Forum

[Anonymous User]

Just want to confirm my instincts and what other lawyers have told me. If my goal is to just be in biglaw and be an attorney and/or maybe work in government there is no real reason I have to do two federal judicial clerkships right. Right now I'm just sitting a federal circuit clerkship but so many people, including three of my co-clerks (so everyone but me) did or is doing another clerkship (two federal district and one state supreme court). Is there any tangible employment benefit I get out of a second one that I won't get out of first. I talked to a few partners at the firm I summered at and they said no benefit at all (and aptly pointed out how little they pay in bonus for the second clerkship as further evidence). Is the reason so many clerks do a second one just personal fulfillment and/or misguided (or maybe correctly guided) prestige? I'm willing to do another clerkship if it helps my career somehow but truthfully I really just also want to start practicing.

I guess what I'm really asking is if just doing one clerkship is somehow rated as lesser as doing two.

[Anonymous User]

Just want to confirm my instincts and what other lawyers have told me. If my goal is to just be in biglaw and be an attorney and/or maybe work in government there is no real reason I have to do two federal judicial clerkships right. Right now I'm just sitting a federal circuit clerkship but so many people, including three of my co-clerks (so everyone but me) did or is doing another clerkship (two federal district and one state supreme court). Is there any tangible employment benefit I get out of a second one that I won't get out of first. I talked to a few partners at the firm I summered at and they said no benefit at all (and aptly pointed out how little they pay in bonus for the second clerkship as further evidence). Is the reason so many clerks do a second one just personal fulfillment and/or misguided (or maybe correctly guided) prestige? I'm willing to do another clerkship if it helps my career somehow but truthfully I really just also want to start practicing.

I guess what I'm really asking is if just doing one clerkship is somehow rated as lesser as doing two.

Is there any reason people do a second (other than prestige or fulfillment)? Yes: another mentor, another judge's perspective, experience with different elements of litigation (especially for circuit vs district).

Does that mean one is "rated as lesser" than doing two, or that you should feel obligated to do a second? No, of course not. If you want to start practicing you should do so.

[Anonymous User]

Is there any reason people do a second (other than prestige or fulfillment)? Yes: another mentor, another judge's perspective, experience with different elements of litigation (especially for circuit vs district).

Does that mean one is "rated as lesser" than doing two, or that you should feel obligated to do a second? No, of course not. If you want to start practicing you should do so.

This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

Also, you said some had already done a clerkship - a lot of people might do a first clerkship to get to the second one they really want. If someone wants to do appellate work and doesn't get a circuit clerkship right away, they might do a district court first and reapply. Someone might do a state clerkship first to get to a federal clerkship. If this is their first, some people get hired for a later term first, and take a second clerkship to fill in the gap year. And some people just like clerking.

I suspect a lot of people do find it hard to pass on a second brass ring, but that's a them thing more than a "only one is not worthy" thing.

I definitely found it valuable to get experience at both the appellate and trial levels. But you're not worse off if you don't, especially if the partners at your firm say there's no benefit.

[Anonymous User]

Is there any reason people do a second (other than prestige or fulfillment)? Yes: another mentor, another judge's perspective, experience with different elements of litigation (especially for circuit vs district).

Does that mean one is "rated as lesser" than doing two, or that you should feel obligated to do a second? No, of course not. If you want to start practicing you should do so.

This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

Also, you said some had already done a clerkship - a lot of people might do a first clerkship to get to the second one they really want. If someone wants to do appellate work and doesn't get a circuit clerkship right away, they might do a district court first and reapply. Someone might do a state clerkship first to get to a federal clerkship. If this is their first, some people get hired for a later term first, and take a second clerkship to fill in the gap year. And some people just like clerking.

I suspect a lot of people do find it hard to pass on a second brass ring, but that's a them thing more than a "only one is not worthy" thing.

I definitely found it valuable to get experience at both the appellate and trial levels. But you're not worse off if you don't, especially if the partners at your firm say there's no benefit.

But is two better than one hiring-wise? I always thought it was more of a check the box for the federal clerkship thing, but if you have two identical candidates does the one with the second clerkship get some sort of material boost. The two partners I talked to said no, but they're a limited sample.

[Anonymous User]

IMO, yes, it is a boost, but if your only goals are generic big law then it doesn’t really matter.

Circuits clerks are good writers usually, but they don’t really deal much with the nuts and bolts of actual litigation. District court clerks just see a ton more and touch more cases, including trial.

I really enjoyed doing both, but there’s nothing wrong with only doing circuit.

[Anonymous User]

Is there any reason people do a second (other than prestige or fulfillment)? Yes: another mentor, another judge's perspective, experience with different elements of litigation (especially for circuit vs district).

Does that mean one is "rated as lesser" than doing two, or that you should feel obligated to do a second? No, of course not. If you want to start practicing you should do so.

This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

Also, you said some had already done a clerkship - a lot of people might do a first clerkship to get to the second one they really want. If someone wants to do appellate work and doesn't get a circuit clerkship right away, they might do a district court first and reapply. Someone might do a state clerkship first to get to a federal clerkship. If this is their first, some people get hired for a later term first, and take a second clerkship to fill in the gap year. And some people just like clerking.

I suspect a lot of people do find it hard to pass on a second brass ring, but that's a them thing more than a "only one is not worthy" thing.

I definitely found it valuable to get experience at both the appellate and trial levels. But you're not worse off if you don't, especially if the partners at your firm say there's no benefit.

But is two better than one hiring-wise? I always thought it was more of a check the box for the federal clerkship thing, but if you have two identical candidates does the one with the second clerkship get some sort of material boost. The two partners I talked to said no, but they're a limited sample.

It's going to depend on the context. If you're talking about an elite litigation boutique full of double clerks, sure, they will probably prefer the double clerk. In other cases, maybe if all else is equal and that's the literal only difference between two candidates, some employers may use that as a way to pick between the two. But people are almost never that similar, and there are usually other factors that are going to matter - how you interview, what experience you have, how well people can vouch for you, your job materials (cover letter/writing sample, if required), etc.

I don't have a vast amount of hiring experience, but I've definitely seen people with more accomplishments, on paper, get passed over for people with technically fewer accomplishments but who wrote a better cover letter or had a better writing sample or stronger references.

(There are even employers who won't really care about federal clerkships at all. You're probably not interested in those jobs, but they exist.)

[Anonymous User]

Is there any reason people do a second (other than prestige or fulfillment)? Yes: another mentor, another judge's perspective, experience with different elements of litigation (especially for circuit vs district).

Does that mean one is "rated as lesser" than doing two, or that you should feel obligated to do a second? No, of course not. If you want to start practicing you should do so.

This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

Also, you said some had already done a clerkship - a lot of people might do a first clerkship to get to the second one they really want. If someone wants to do appellate work and doesn't get a circuit clerkship right away, they might do a district court first and reapply. Someone might do a state clerkship first to get to a federal clerkship. If this is their first, some people get hired for a later term first, and take a second clerkship to fill in the gap year. And some people just like clerking.

I suspect a lot of people do find it hard to pass on a second brass ring, but that's a them thing more than a "only one is not worthy" thing.

I definitely found it valuable to get experience at both the appellate and trial levels. But you're not worse off if you don't, especially if the partners at your firm say there's no benefit.

But is two better than one hiring-wise? I always thought it was more of a check the box for the federal clerkship thing, but if you have two identical candidates does the one with the second clerkship get some sort of material boost. The two partners I talked to said no, but they're a limited sample.

It's going to depend on the context. If you're talking about an elite litigation boutique full of double clerks, sure, they will probably prefer the double clerk. In other cases, maybe if all else is equal and that's the literal only difference between two candidates, some employers may use that as a way to pick between the two. But people are almost never that similar, and there are usually other factors that are going to matter - how you interview, what experience you have, how well people can vouch for you, your job materials (cover letter/writing sample, if required), etc.

I don't have a vast amount of hiring experience, but I've definitely seen people with more accomplishments, on paper, get passed over for people with technically fewer accomplishments but who wrote a better cover letter or had a better writing sample or stronger references.

(There are even employers who won't really care about federal clerkships at all. You're probably not interested in those jobs, but they exist.)

What about prospects for partner and not being pushed out early at Biglaw. i figure clerkship is basically immaterial to that once you're actually in?

[Anonymous User]

Is there any reason people do a second (other than prestige or fulfillment)? Yes: another mentor, another judge's perspective, experience with different elements of litigation (especially for circuit vs district).

Does that mean one is "rated as lesser" than doing two, or that you should feel obligated to do a second? No, of course not. If you want to start practicing you should do so.

This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

Also, you said some had already done a clerkship - a lot of people might do a first clerkship to get to the second one they really want. If someone wants to do appellate work and doesn't get a circuit clerkship right away, they might do a district court first and reapply. Someone might do a state clerkship first to get to a federal clerkship. If this is their first, some people get hired for a later term first, and take a second clerkship to fill in the gap year. And some people just like clerking.

I suspect a lot of people do find it hard to pass on a second brass ring, but that's a them thing more than a "only one is not worthy" thing.

I definitely found it valuable to get experience at both the appellate and trial levels. But you're not worse off if you don't, especially if the partners at your firm say there's no benefit.

But is two better than one hiring-wise? I always thought it was more of a check the box for the federal clerkship thing, but if you have two identical candidates does the one with the second clerkship get some sort of material boost. The two partners I talked to said no, but they're a limited sample.

It's going to depend on the context. If you're talking about an elite litigation boutique full of double clerks, sure, they will probably prefer the double clerk. In other cases, maybe if all else is equal and that's the literal only difference between two candidates, some employers may use that as a way to pick between the two. But people are almost never that similar, and there are usually other factors that are going to matter - how you interview, what experience you have, how well people can vouch for you, your job materials (cover letter/writing sample, if required), etc.

I don't have a vast amount of hiring experience, but I've definitely seen people with more accomplishments, on paper, get passed over for people with technically fewer accomplishments but who wrote a better cover letter or had a better writing sample or stronger references.

(There are even employers who won't really care about federal clerkships at all. You're probably not interested in those jobs, but they exist.)

What about prospects for partner and not being pushed out early at Biglaw. i figure clerkship is basically immaterial to that once you're actually in?

yes bro it is immaterial once you are in. can you imagine the partnership thinking "well hmm, Jane is great at her work and clients love her. but John has two clerkships to her one—better make him partner."? relax and take the job

[Anonymous User]

There is an advantage to the district court clerkship, both for the brass ring and because district court clerkships are much more educational. That’s why the top of the pile has moved towards doing two, as you’ve seen. But if your goals are “generic” biglaw (vs. a trial boutique etc.) and you just want to start practicing, just start practicing, you’ll be fine.

[Anonymous User]

It's the best job you'll ever have as an attorney. Enjoy it while you can.

[Anonymous User]

It's the best job you'll ever have as an attorney. Enjoy it while you can.

Maybe it's a bad sign if I don't really like it...

[Anonymous User]

Can anybody who's personally done both (district and appellate) chime in? Would you do two again? Was COA on top of district worth it?

[Anonymous User]

It's the best job you'll ever have as an attorney. Enjoy it while you can.

Maybe it's a bad sign if I don't really like it...

Nah, it's much more complicated than clerking being the "best job" you'll ever have. If you don't like the research and writing, no, that's not a great sign for enjoying biglaw litigation. If you don't like the pace/experience of sitting in an appellate chambers, though, and want to be dealing with the litigation yourself, I think a lot of litigators feel that way during an appellate clerkship. Plus, whether it's the "best job you'll ever have" depends a lot on the interpersonal relationships involved - someone may like the work but not like anyone they work with, which definitely takes it outside of the "best job you'll ever have" category.

Can anybody who's personally done both (district and appellate) chime in? Would you do two again? Was COA on top of district worth it?

I did state appellate and federal district, so not quite the same, and did state appellate first (it helped me get the federal district, so would definitely do it again, but obviously you're in a different situation).

From the POV of learning different elements of litigation, I think doing both is worth it. How much you will learn in each depends in part on the judge, though. I personally think that the more intensive writing experience of appellate is a better way to learn to write than a district court clerkship, but I had a really great mentor judge, so ymmv.

There may be some instrumental career reason to do both - for me, it was getting a federal clerkship, which opened the door to what I'm doing now. If you want to practice in appellate, you probably want a COA. (If you want to try for SCOTUS, yes, do a COA, though if you're not competitive for a feeder, this isn't relevant.) If you want an elite litigation boutique where everyone has done both kinds, it would probably help (I think this is a very small proportion of employers, but I can't say none).

Or it may be a personal preference thing - you like clerking and would enjoy another year, you don't have commitments/ties to a particular location, you like the idea living somewhere else for a year.

My take from doing two is that there's still a learning curve on the second but not as steep as on the first, and so you may be kind of tired of clerking before the term ends. But unless you hate clerking it's not going to be torture.

But if there isn't a concrete reason to do a COA and you don't really want to, you don't have to sign on for 2 years. Some people don't want to move around again, some people don't want to give up another year of biglaw money, some people just want to get started on their long-term job and not put it off any longer. Those are perfectly valid reasons to just do one.

[Anonymous User]

It's the best job you'll ever have as an attorney. Enjoy it while you can.

Maybe it's a bad sign if I don't really like it...

Nah, it's much more complicated than clerking being the "best job" you'll ever have. If you don't like the research and writing, no, that's not a great sign for enjoying biglaw litigation. If you don't like the pace/experience of sitting in an appellate chambers, though, and want to be dealing with the litigation yourself, I think a lot of litigators feel that way during an appellate clerkship. Plus, whether it's the "best job you'll ever have" depends a lot on the interpersonal relationships involved - someone may like the work but not like anyone they work with, which definitely takes it outside of the "best job you'll ever have" category.

Can anybody who's personally done both (district and appellate) chime in? Would you do two again? Was COA on top of district worth it?

I did state appellate and federal district, so not quite the same, and did state appellate first (it helped me get the federal district, so would definitely do it again, but obviously you're in a different situation).

From the POV of learning different elements of litigation, I think doing both is worth it. How much you will learn in each depends in part on the judge, though. I personally think that the more intensive writing experience of appellate is a better way to learn to write than a district court clerkship, but I had a really great mentor judge, so ymmv.

There may be some instrumental career reason to do both - for me, it was getting a federal clerkship, which opened the door to what I'm doing now. If you want to practice in appellate, you probably want a COA. (If you want to try for SCOTUS, yes, do a COA, though if you're not competitive for a feeder, this isn't relevant.) If you want an elite litigation boutique where everyone has done both kinds, it would probably help (I think this is a very small proportion of employers, but I can't say none).

Or it may be a personal preference thing - you like clerking and would enjoy another year, you don't have commitments/ties to a particular location, you like the idea living somewhere else for a year.

My take from doing two is that there's still a learning curve on the second but not as steep as on the first, and so you may be kind of tired of clerking before the term ends. But unless you hate clerking it's not going to be torture.

But if there isn't a concrete reason to do a COA and you don't really want to, you don't have to sign on for 2 years. Some people don't want to move around again, some people don't want to give up another year of biglaw money, some people just want to get started on their long-term job and not put it off any longer. Those are perfectly valid reasons to just do one.

Thank you for this! Any views on doing a state appellate like state supreme court if I already have a federal clerkship or don't need it for a fedearl one.

[Anonymous User]

Can anybody who's personally done both (district and appellate) chime in? Would you do two again? Was COA on top of district worth it?

I did both. Absolutely would do both again in a second, but I also had a relatively minimal debt obligation to repay (like $50k).

[Anonymous User]

Thank you for this! Any views on doing a state appellate like state supreme court if I already have a federal clerkship or don't need it for a fedearl one.

Again, it totally depends. I'll be honest, I practice in federal court exclusively and no employer has showed any interest in my state clerkship. But then, they haven't shown vast amounts of interest in my federal one, either (I did it, I have that experience, we all know what it entails and that I can't talk about the juicy stuff, moving on).

If you want the experience of an appellate clerkship and don't get a federal COA, SSC is a good option. The plus side, too, is that (to my knowledge) SSC workloads are somewhat less than federal COA, because the SSC can pick and choose. Further, by definition you're dealing with unresolved legal questions, which can be more fun if you're a legal nerd. At the intermediate level federally, a lot of cases involve the application of long-established law to different fact patterns, some of which are novel and interesting, and some of which can be much of the same thing over and over again.And if you plan to practice in the same state, a SSC justice is usually a good person to have in your corner.

The downside to SSC is that if you're not going to practice in the same state, the law you learn won't be that transferable and your judge's connections won't go as far. The elite lit boutiques that like multiple clerkships seem generally to want federal (but I have no personal experience with this). There are some snobs out there who will undervalue it b/c it's not federal. Personally, I would loathe clerking in a jdx where the judges are elected in partisan elections, but that may just be a me thing. And the pay for state clerkships is often very bad.

(If I misunderstood what you're asking, I don't think you need to do a SSC to get a COA after a federal district court. If the district court doesn't make you competitive, I don't think adding SSC will, although it might give you the opportunity to improve your application overall. But 3 years clerking is a lot.)

[Anonymous User]

Thank you for this! Any views on doing a state appellate like state supreme court if I already have a federal clerkship or don't need it for a fedearl one.

Again, it totally depends. I'll be honest, I practice in federal court exclusively and no employer has showed any interest in my state clerkship. But then, they haven't shown vast amounts of interest in my federal one, either (I did it, I have that experience, we all know what it entails and that I can't talk about the juicy stuff, moving on).

If you want the experience of an appellate clerkship and don't get a federal COA, SSC is a good option. The plus side, too, is that (to my knowledge) SSC workloads are somewhat less than federal COA, because the SSC can pick and choose. Further, by definition you're dealing with unresolved legal questions, which can be more fun if you're a legal nerd. At the intermediate level federally, a lot of cases involve the application of long-established law to different fact patterns, some of which are novel and interesting, and some of which can be much of the same thing over and over again.And if you plan to practice in the same state, a SSC justice is usually a good person to have in your corner.

The downside to SSC is that if you're not going to practice in the same state, the law you learn won't be that transferable and your judge's connections won't go as far. The elite lit boutiques that like multiple clerkships seem generally to want federal (but I have no personal experience with this). There are some snobs out there who will undervalue it b/c it's not federal. Personally, I would loathe clerking in a jdx where the judges are elected in partisan elections, but that may just be a me thing. And the pay for state clerkships is often very bad.

(If I misunderstood what you're asking, I don't think you need to do a SSC to get a COA after a federal district court. If the district court doesn't make you competitive, I don't think adding SSC will, although it might give you the opportunity to improve your application overall. But 3 years clerking is a lot.)

No this basically answers the question very well. Thanks!