Clerking for possible SCOTUS nominee -- what happens to me? Forum

[rpupkin]

Clerking is easily one of the stupidest parts of the legal profession.

Which parts of the legal profession are less stupid? Please advise.

[FSK]

Clerking is easily one of the stupidest parts of the legal profession.

Which parts of the legal profession are less stupid? Please advise.

Well its all pretty barf-inducing. But having to commit to something two years in advance is just a terrible fit for many students. what if you have a major life event that makes you want to shift geographies, or career trajectories? It also unduly rewards the tip top law schools (in a profession that already does that far too much) by way of selection --> brass ring.

And it forces good candidates to choose between a fair salary and prestige. One of my buds is having to not clerk b/c he has a kid & can't justify the salary hit (patent litigator w/a PHD, so age is a factor to), and this will definitely hurt is career prospects down the road. Similarly, probably affects women more than men due to the child bearing &c.

I mean this seriously, and not flame. Its a nice old tradition that should probably self-imolate.

[FSK]

The OP of this thread is basically QED for my point

[xael]

The OP of this thread is basically QED for my point

That he happens to have a feeder clerkship?

I feel like that's a stretch FSK. You don't know anything about OP.

[FSK]

The OP of this thread is basically QED for my point

That he happens to have a feeder clerkship?

I feel like that's a stretch FSK. You don't know anything about OP.

I have a job for 2 years from now (that will pay me 1/3 of what I could earn elsewhere, e.g., market + bonus or Williams level base, or even more at a WLKR which I'm assuming were all plasuible for someone with a feeder clerkship) that might just evaporate then I'll be high and dry (from many opportunities I would have liked) and I'm going to stick with it b/c brass ring/prestige/etc? It might be a stretch but its not a huge stretch.

I have to DISCLOSE that I am not prestige and could never clerk.

[xael]

The OP of this thread is basically QED for my point

That he happens to have a feeder clerkship?

I feel like that's a stretch FSK. You don't know anything about OP.

I have a job for 2 years from now (that will pay me 1/3 of what I could earn elsewhere, e.g., market + bonus or Williams level base, or even more at a WLKR which I'm assuming were all plasuible for someone with a feeder clerkship) that might just evaporate then I'll be high and dry (from many opportunities I would have liked) and I'm going to stick with it b/c brass ring/prestige/etc? It might be a stretch but its not a huge stretch.

I have to DISCLOSE that I am not prestige and could never clerk.

OP isn't going to be left "high and dry" though, they have at least one SA for this summer. Why not stick with it and find out?

And I don't think people stick with it just because of the brass ring.

[FSK]

I'm out of my depth, but I've also made my point to the extent I wish.

[seespotrun]

Yeah, sucks for you, OP. Enjoy your outside chance at landing a SCOTUS clerkship or, worst case scenario, having a SCOTUS justice who feels indebted to you.

[Anonymous User]

On the off chance that someone's actually confirmed before '16-'17 clerkships begin, what do people think will happen to the lucky judge's '16-'17 clerks? It's hard to feel very sorry for them. But still, they wouldn't be serious SCOTUS candidates without having completed a COA gig first, and virtually no '16-'17 COA positions (and very few '17-'18 slots) would still be available when they started looking.

[xael]

On the off chance that someone's actually confirmed before '16-'17 clerkships begin, what do people think will happen to the lucky judge's '16-'17 clerks? It's hard to feel very sorry for them. But still, they wouldn't be serious SCOTUS candidates without having completed a COA gig first, and virtually no '16-'17 COA positions (and very few '17-'18 slots) would still be available when they started looking.

I mean, the now-justice would probably be stuck with them tbh. As much as all the judge positions are filled up, all the scotus-worthy (or even close) people are taken up, too.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Well its all pretty barf-inducing. But having to commit to something two years in advance is just a terrible fit for many students. what if you have a major life event that makes you want to shift geographies, or career trajectories? It also unduly rewards the tip top law schools (in a profession that already does that far too much) by way of selection --> brass ring.

And it forces good candidates to choose between a fair salary and prestige. One of my buds is having to not clerk b/c he has a kid & can't justify the salary hit (patent litigator w/a PHD, so age is a factor to), and this will definitely hurt is career prospects down the road. Similarly, probably affects women more than men due to the child bearing &c.

I mean this seriously, and not flame. Its a nice old tradition that should probably self-imolate.

If the person had the qualifications to get a feeder, they're not going to be left high and dry - they're going to get something else just fine. And honestly, as great as I think clerking is, and as helpful it was for my career right now, I don't think not clerking really shuts doors that there aren't any other ways to open. To the extent it does - well, that's kind of how the legal world works. If you don't get a certain LSAT, certain schools are closed to you. If you don't get grades above a certain level, certain jobs are closed to you.

Frankly the salary argument leaves me cold. I made more as a clerk than I made in any job before law school (even at the state level). I understand why people who are looking at a $160k job may decide it's not worth doing the one-year gig, especially depending on their family circumstances, but that's all contingent on individual choices - federal clerks are not living in poverty (I clerked as an older candidate, too).

And the irony is that clerking is actually usually super compatible with parenting, and career clerks are overwhelmingly women. It's much more compatible with parenting than biglaw is. (Unless you work for someone like Kozinski, but that's incompatible with normal life for everyone.)

The hiring process does get more and more insane, but most judges aren't hiring earlier than biglaw does at 2L OCI, which determines your life two years in advance etc etc.

(signed, someone entirely unprestigious)

[newlawgrad]

Kind of shocking to me that the consensus seems your clerkship gets cancelled, and such is life. But when someone talks about reneging on a clerkship, it draws the ire of the world.

Hyperbole aside (ire of the world?), why is this shocking to you?

Hyperbole intended (thought was obvious). Because it's not how you treat people, regardless of who they are or who you are. Especially unpalatable is the thought that they "would be able to get better candidates"

[FSK]

Actually, a few follow ups since nony gave a thoughtful response:

1: My parenting point is based on my good friend who had to decline to clerk for financial, not time reasons. But his offspring has alot of expensive health issues, so may not be representative. I'm also sympathetically frustrated for his career dilemma, and because watching his offspring be sick wasn't great either.
2: I think biglaw hiring is also a nice old tradition that should self-immolate. But, see below point re alternatives.
3: The heart of my ire is that the legal world shouldn't be this obsessed with prestige when prestige derives from contests (LSAT, 1L grades, etc.) that unfairly punish certain types of people (who may well be tremendous lawyers or whatever else). I don't know a better system, especially becuase quality of work product is subjective and too hard to judge for that many candidates. But the lack of an alternative does not make the status quo tenable.

[rpupkin]

Kind of shocking to me that the consensus seems your clerkship gets cancelled, and such is life. But when someone talks about reneging on a clerkship, it draws the ire of the world.

Hyperbole aside (ire of the world?), why is this shocking to you?

Hyperbole intended (thought was obvious). Because it's not how you treat people, regardless of who they are or who you are. Especially unpalatable is the thought that they "would be able to get better candidates"

But they no longer hold the job they hired you for. I guess I just don't see this as a "how you treat people" scenario.

[Emma.]

On the off chance that someone's actually confirmed before '16-'17 clerkships begin, what do people think will happen to the lucky judge's '16-'17 clerks? It's hard to feel very sorry for them. But still, they wouldn't be serious SCOTUS candidates without having completed a COA gig first, and virtually no '16-'17 COA positions (and very few '17-'18 slots) would still be available when they started looking.

I mean, the now-justice would probably be stuck with them tbh. As much as all the judge positions are filled up, all the scotus-worthy (or even close) people are taken up, too.

Hahaha. No.

[juzam_djinn]

Clerking is easily one of the stupidest parts of the legal profession.

Which parts of the legal profession are less stupid? Please advise.

Well its all pretty barf-inducing. But having to commit to something two years in advance is just a terrible fit for many students. what if you have a major life event that makes you want to shift geographies, or career trajectories? It also unduly rewards the tip top law schools (in a profession that already does that far too much) by way of selection --> brass ring.

And it forces good candidates to choose between a fair salary and prestige. One of my buds is having to not clerk b/c he has a kid & can't justify the salary hit (patent litigator w/a PHD, so age is a factor to), and this will definitely hurt is career prospects down the road. Similarly, probably affects women more than men due to the child bearing &c.

I mean this seriously, and not flame. Its a nice old tradition that should probably self-imolate.

do you think this is actually true? From what I've seen tons of litigation partners, esp. IP litigators, never clerked

[lavarman84]

Actually, a few follow ups since nony gave a thoughtful response:

1: My parenting point is based on my good friend who had to decline to clerk for financial, not time reasons. But his offspring has alot of expensive health issues, so may not be representative. I'm also sympathetically frustrated for his career dilemma, and because watching his offspring be sick wasn't great either.
2: I think biglaw hiring is also a nice old tradition that should self-immolate. But, see below point re alternatives.
3: The heart of my ire is that the legal world shouldn't be this obsessed with prestige when prestige derives from contests (LSAT, 1L grades, etc.) that unfairly punish certain types of people (who may well be tremendous lawyers or whatever else). I don't know a better system, especially becuase quality of work product is subjective and too hard to judge for that many candidates. But the lack of an alternative does not make the status quo tenable.

If they're a tremendous lawyer, it's not going to matter whether they clerked or not. People act like biglaw is the only option out there. Even if you're a tremendous lawyer that can't break into the biglaw world for whatever reason, there are still a ton of options in law that can allow you to have either a satisfying career or make quite a bit of money.

[xael]

On the off chance that someone's actually confirmed before '16-'17 clerkships begin, what do people think will happen to the lucky judge's '16-'17 clerks? It's hard to feel very sorry for them. But still, they wouldn't be serious SCOTUS candidates without having completed a COA gig first, and virtually no '16-'17 COA positions (and very few '17-'18 slots) would still be available when they started looking.

I mean, the now-justice would probably be stuck with them tbh. As much as all the judge positions are filled up, all the scotus-worthy (or even close) people are taken up, too.

Hahaha. No.

Yeah I actually thought about this later and realized how wrong I was

[jbagelboy]

On the off chance that someone's actually confirmed before '16-'17 clerkships begin, what do people think will happen to the lucky judge's '16-'17 clerks? It's hard to feel very sorry for them. But still, they wouldn't be serious SCOTUS candidates without having completed a COA gig first, and virtually no '16-'17 COA positions (and very few '17-'18 slots) would still be available when they started looking.

I mean, the now-justice would probably be stuck with them tbh. As much as all the judge positions are filled up, all the scotus-worthy (or even close) people are taken up, too.

Hahaha. No.

Yea.. xael, what do you mean the scotus worthy people are taken up? That doesn't make any sense. There are many practicing attorneys in government and the private sector who had recent COA clerkships and are qualified to clerk on the Supreme Court, in addition to current COA clerks who were planning on returning to their firms or DOJ and would gladly push those back for SCOTUS. I'm not sure what your comment means.

[jbagelboy]

Clerking is easily one of the stupidest parts of the legal profession.

Which parts of the legal profession are less stupid? Please advise.

Well its all pretty barf-inducing. But having to commit to something two years in advance is just a terrible fit for many students. what if you have a major life event that makes you want to shift geographies, or career trajectories? It also unduly rewards the tip top law schools (in a profession that already does that far too much) by way of selection --> brass ring.

And it forces good candidates to choose between a fair salary and prestige. One of my buds is having to not clerk b/c he has a kid & can't justify the salary hit (patent litigator w/a PHD, so age is a factor to), and this will definitely hurt is career prospects down the road. Similarly, probably affects women more than men due to the child bearing &c.

I mean this seriously, and not flame. Its a nice old tradition that should probably self-imolate.

I guess I'm having trouble in a few ways here.

(1) people work hard in law school. why should they not be rewarded with the more interesting jobs? I completely agree with you that the profession is too staggered toward self-perpetuating elite outcomes, but to the extent we recognize that's endemic to the entire ballgame, why should this rule antagonize you more than others.

(2) People essentially commit to firms two years in advance as well (2L OCI is two years before your start date). There's a little more flexibility here, but sometimes not really, since 3L OCI is no guarantee and many firms don't allow you to switch offices. I'm particularly sympathetic to the irritation of switching between cities to accommodate the insane hiring schedules these days--I don't know if my SO will ever forgive me for moving us three times in four years--so I do think clerkship hiring should return to a reasonable plan-like configuration. But again, there are those willing to make certain life sacrifices, and those that aren't; I wouldn't work at certain firms because I could never put myself through those hours, and maybe that would stunt my career too, but it's a choice I'm making wrt my personal life.

(3) federal clerks make a "fair salary." It's insulting to the majority of americans to say that forgoing $160-200k for one year involves a tradeoff between a "fair salary" and signaling. Lots of families have multiple children and live on the equivalent of a clerk's salary and benefits. As for the gender gap, there are specific programs meant to correct this, although I will concede that this entire profession erects barriers in front of women that men don't have to face with the same ferocity.

[xael]

On the off chance that someone's actually confirmed before '16-'17 clerkships begin, what do people think will happen to the lucky judge's '16-'17 clerks? It's hard to feel very sorry for them. But still, they wouldn't be serious SCOTUS candidates without having completed a COA gig first, and virtually no '16-'17 COA positions (and very few '17-'18 slots) would still be available when they started looking.

I mean, the now-justice would probably be stuck with them tbh. As much as all the judge positions are filled up, all the scotus-worthy (or even close) people are taken up, too.

Hahaha. No.

Yea.. xael, what do you mean the scotus worthy people are taken up? That doesn't make any sense. There are many practicing attorneys in government and the private sector who had recent COA clerkships and are qualified to clerk on the Supreme Court, in addition to current COA clerks who were planning on returning to their firms or DOJ and would gladly push those back for SCOTUS. I'm not sure what your comment means.

It means I forgot about all off those people and assumed everyone who wanted to clerk at that level had clerkships

[Anonymous User]

.