If you just want biglaw, it's not worth it to clerk. Forum

[lolwat]

IMO, probably not worth leaving biglaw to clerk if you're NOT at a firm that expects you to clerk or doing it to change careers/firms, but more than likely worth clerking right out of law school as long as you have an offer from 2L SA that the firm is willing to hold for you, or you don't have an offer from anywhere at all.

[Anonymous User]

And if you're in certain litigation groups at certain firms, you're going to be looked down upon if you didn't clerk.

Not just by people in your group/firm. Opposing counsel or co-counsel as well. I have a good bit (5+ years) or practice experience, mostly doing high profile litigation. I've been in the room when opposing lawyers have been discussed. Two questions always come up. Where'd she go to school? Where'd he clerk? The worst were people who went to a good school but didn't clerk. It was just assumed that they were idiots with crappy grades. (It was understandable why people from mediocre schools didn't clerk -- they probably didn't have the opportunity.)

I worked at a very high end litigation boutique before law school (only took top schools top 15%) and this makes me LOL. the named parter at our firm who has been first chair at many F100 trials, didnt clerk. Most the partners, didnt clerk. There was one dude who clerked for the 5 Cir., he didnt make partner, and this is a firm where they hire everyone with the expectation of making partner. I think, with litigation, it can help, but I dont think it gives you as much of a leg up as people are making it out to be. I could be wrong since this was only 1 shop and I was just staff for a couple years, but it didnt seem that way there. Also firms I am going to for 1L SA positions (big lit firms) most the partners I interviewed with had never clerked.

[bruinfan10]

And if you're in certain litigation groups at certain firms, you're going to be looked down upon if you didn't clerk.

Not just by people in your group/firm. Opposing counsel or co-counsel as well. I have a good bit (5+ years) or practice experience, mostly doing high profile litigation. I've been in the room when opposing lawyers have been discussed. Two questions always come up. Where'd she go to school? Where'd he clerk? The worst were people who went to a good school but didn't clerk. It was just assumed that they were idiots with crappy grades. (It was understandable why people from mediocre schools didn't clerk -- they probably didn't have the opportunity.)

I worked at a very high end litigation boutique before law school (only took top schools top 15%) and this makes me LOL. the named parter at our firm who has been first chair at many F100 trials, didnt clerk. Most the partners, didnt clerk. There was one dude who clerked for the 5 Cir., he didnt make partner, and this is a firm where they hire everyone with the expectation of making partner. I think, with litigation, it can help, but I dont think it gives you as much of a leg up as people are making it out to be. I could be wrong since this was only 1 shop and I was just staff for a couple years, but it didnt seem that way there. Also firms I am going to for 1L SA positions (big lit firms) most the partners I interviewed with had never clerked.

Dear god, are you a 1L? Take a look at the clerkship experience of Keker & Van Nest's attorneys, Susman Godfrey's, Wachtell's, and then refrain from posting here again.

[Anonymous User]

So I had the credentials to do big law (top grades, law review etc), didn't go that route (didn't even summer 2L year). I will be starting district court clerkship this Fall. Reading this thread makes me wonder where does that put me since, as if right now, I plan on pursing big law after clerkship?

[A. Nony Mouse]

So I had the credentials to do big law (top grades, law review etc), didn't go that route (didn't even summer 2L year). I will be starting district court clerkship this Fall. Reading this thread makes me wonder where does that put me since, as if right now, I plan on pursing big law after clerkship?

Well, if you have the credentials (apart from clerking) I would think you'd be an attractive candidate. You'd probably have to have a convincing explanation for why you didn't do biglaw previously, though.

[Anonymous User]

You'd probably have to have a convincing explanation for why you didn't do biglaw previously, though.

That is what I am thinking but with this economy, I am unsure about my explanation since the truth was that I simply did not care for it at that time. It is not big law or die for me so it is not a big scare for me, but it is something I am interested in pursuing now for several reasons (not just money).

[KidStuddi]

You'd probably have to have a convincing explanation for why you didn't do biglaw previously, though.

That is what I am thinking but with this economy, I am unsure about my explanation since the truth was that I simply did not care for it at that time. It is not big law or die for me so it is not a big scare for me, but it is something I am interested in pursuing now for several reasons (not just money).

Well, if you can communicate those reasons and they're believable, you'll be fine. It's not like they're only looking for BigLaw lifers. Their business model relies on attrition.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Honestly, I think clerking can be a helpful thing for explaining a change in direction - e.g. "I thought I wanted to do [whatever], but after my experience clerking, where we [did things related to what I want to do now], I realized that I wanted to go in a different direction." At least, clerking really helped me figure out what kind of law I really wanted to practice (because being interested in a subject area in an academic sense is not the same as enjoying practicing in that area).

[Anonymous User]

That is true. I am sure I will come up with a narrative at some point. I just wanted to hear other people's point of view. Thank you for the suggestions, I will incorporate it into my narrative. Okay I am done hijacking this thread!

OP-As I mentioned I have not done big law, but this is the first time I have heard anyone speak out against the value of clerking (even if "you just want big law").

[84651846190]

And if you're in certain litigation groups at certain firms, you're going to be looked down upon if you didn't clerk.

Not just by people in your group/firm. Opposing counsel or co-counsel as well. I have a good bit (5+ years) or practice experience, mostly doing high profile litigation. I've been in the room when opposing lawyers have been discussed. Two questions always come up. Where'd she go to school? Where'd he clerk? The worst were people who went to a good school but didn't clerk. It was just assumed that they were idiots with crappy grades. (It was understandable why people from mediocre schools didn't clerk -- they probably didn't have the opportunity.)

That doesn't make any sense at all. People from mediocre schools with grades good enough to get biglaw have a much easier time getting clerkships than people from better schools with good but not great grades. Also, getting top grades at a T10 is much more of a crapshoot than at a mediocre school where some students are markedly smarter than others and there is more variation as to work ethic among the students. Almost everyone at T10s is a complete gunner.

[mephistopheles]

Almost everyone at T10s is a complete gunner.

nope. a bunch of morons is more correct

[84651846190]

Almost everyone at T10s is a complete gunner.

nope. a bunch of morons is more correct

Compared to the shitheads who thought going to USF Law was a good idea, they are Nobel laureates.

[mephistopheles]

Almost everyone at T10s is a complete gunner.

nope. a bunch of morons is more correct

Compared to the shitheads who thought going to USF Law was a good idea, they are Nobel laureates.

touche

[sundance95]

And if you're in certain litigation groups at certain firms, you're going to be looked down upon if you didn't clerk.

Not just by people in your group/firm. Opposing counsel or co-counsel as well. I have a good bit (5+ years) or practice experience, mostly doing high profile litigation. I've been in the room when opposing lawyers have been discussed. Two questions always come up. Where'd she go to school? Where'd he clerk? The worst were people who went to a good school but didn't clerk. It was just assumed that they were idiots with crappy grades. (It was understandable why people from mediocre schools didn't clerk -- they probably didn't have the opportunity.)

I worked at a very high end litigation boutique before law school (only took top schools top 15%) and this makes me LOL. the named parter at our firm who has been first chair at many F100 trials, didnt clerk. Most the partners, didnt clerk. There was one dude who clerked for the 5 Cir., he didnt make partner, and this is a firm where they hire everyone with the expectation of making partner. I think, with litigation, it can help, but I dont think it gives you as much of a leg up as people are making it out to be. I could be wrong since this was only 1 shop and I was just staff for a couple years, but it didnt seem that way there. Also firms I am going to for 1L SA positions (big lit firms) most the partners I interviewed with had never clerked.

Dear god, are you a 1L? Take a look at the clerkship experience of Keker & Van Nest's attorneys, Susman Godfrey's, Wachtell's, and then refrain from posting here again.

Tbf, op said big law, not preftigious top-end lit. The firms you mention are elite.

[bruinfan10]

Tbf, op said big law, not preftigious top-end lit. The firms you mention are elite.

The 1L poster you're defending said that s/he worked "at a very high end litigation boutique" and that those of us suggesting biglaw valued clerkship experience made him "LOL." I appreciate a white knight as much as the next guy, but you may want to find a better cause to champion.

[romothesavior]

Tone it down and play nice, everyone.

[sundance95]

Even if you think he's an idiot, it doesn't follow that he is wrong.

I personally think there is some merit to waiting to clerk if one wants partner. It gives you a chance to change firms and get a second bite at the apple if things aren't happening for you.

[84651846190]

Even if you think he's an idiot, it doesn't follow that he is wrong.

I personally think there is some merit to waiting to clerk if one wants partner. It gives you a chance to change firms and get a second bite at the apple if things aren't happening for you.

You change firms easily without clerking if you have the grades/school/LR to get a clerkship.

[bruinfan10]

Even if you think he's an idiot, it doesn't follow that he is wrong.

I personally think there is some merit to waiting to clerk if one wants partner. It gives you a chance to change firms and get a second bite at the apple if things aren't happening for you.

I don't disagree with you at all. I'm certainly planning to try for a second clerkship to transition if I want to switch careers. But your point doesn't have much in common with the one "top litigation boutique" bro was making; I just hate 1Ls/0Ls spreading misinformation, particularly in this forum.

[sundance95]

Even if you think he's an idiot, it doesn't follow that he is wrong.

I personally think there is some merit to waiting to clerk if one wants partner. It gives you a chance to change firms and get a second bite at the apple if things aren't happening for you.

I don't disagree with you at all. I'm certainly planning to try for a second clerkship to transition if I want to switch careers. But your point is a little different than the one "top litigation boutique" bro was making; I just hate 1Ls/0Ls spreading misinformation, particularly in this forum.

Fair, very fair

[IAFG]

You should clerk if you want the experience of clerking. And everyone ITT should go away and refrain from posting ever again.

[sundance95]

You change firms easily without clerking if you have the grades/school/LR to get a clerkship.

No one said you couldn't. Just changing firms is not necessarily equal to switching firms with a legitimate shot at partner.

[84651846190]

You should clerk if you want the experience of clerking. And everyone ITT should go away and refrain from posting ever again.

TITCR. I regret making the OP. I just wanted to share an experience of a 9th Circuit clerk at my firm that validated my decision not to clerk. How self-centered.

[bruinfan10]

I personally think there is some merit to waiting to clerk if one wants partner. It gives you a chance to change firms and get a second bite at the apple if things aren't happening for you.

You change firms easily without clerking if you have the grades/school/LR to get a clerkship.

Clerkships provide added marketability in the event you need to lateral, which is inestimably valuable in a work environment as unstable as biglaw. Two people with similar resumes looking to lateral, one has an AIII clerkship and one doesn't, which would you rather be?

[84651846190]

I personally think there is some merit to waiting to clerk if one wants partner. It gives you a chance to change firms and get a second bite at the apple if things aren't happening for you.

You change firms easily without clerking if you have the grades/school/LR to get a clerkship.

Clerkships provide added marketability in the event you need to lateral, which is inestimably valuable in a work environment as unstable as biglaw. Two people with similar resumes looking to lateral, one has an AIII clerkship and one doesn't, which would you rather be?

I'd hardly call it "inestimably valuable." I'd take Coif over no Coif + clerkship any day.