CoA clerk taking questions Forum

[Anonymous User]

Suppose someone has been out of law school of a substantial amount of time but wants to clerk with a COA judge. Would most judges be open to that?

[Anonymous User]

Suppose someone has been out of law school of a substantial amount of time but wants to clerk with a COA judge. Would most judges be open to that?

Not OP, but my judge regularly hires people who fit this mold. Try to ask around to get a sense of which judges do, but if they never specify otherwise, throw your hat in the ring.

[Anonymous User]

Suppose someone has been out of law school of a substantial amount of time but wants to clerk with a COA judge. Would most judges be open to that?

Yes. Some judges more so than others. The 5th Circuit has two extreme examples: Judge Graves hires exclusively clerks with experience, whereas Judge Smith only hires fresh out of law school. Most judges fall somewhere in between.

[Anonymous User]

Suppose someone has been out of law school of a substantial amount of time but wants to clerk with a COA judge. Would most judges be open to that?

Yes. Some judges more so than others. The 5th Circuit has two extreme examples: Judge Graves hires exclusively clerks with experience, whereas Judge Smith only hires fresh out of law school. Most judges fall somewhere in between.

Fun fact: Judge Smith only considers RISING 2L's, and he requires your LSAT score with your application.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. I would not say “most” judges are open to it, but a significant number definitely are. But once you start getting more than 2 years out of LPW school I suspect the number of judges interested in that kind of applicant start to plummet.

[chipperjones]

Suppose someone has been out of law school of a substantial amount of time but wants to clerk with a COA judge. Would most judges be open to that?

PM me.

[Anonymous User]

Let's say I have two-thirds Hs, am doing moot court, two class prizes (though one in clinic) and did a secondary journal at Stanford. Let's also say I'll have 1-2 years of experience at WLRK/W&C/Munger/KVN before starting the clerkship. Am I a competitive CoA applicant? If so, are there circuits I should rule out? Asking because I've had no luck so far.

[Anonymous User]

Let's say I have two-thirds Hs, am doing moot court, two class prizes (though one in clinic) and did a secondary journal at Stanford. Let's also say I'll have 1-2 years of experience at WLRK/W&C/Munger/KVN before starting the clerkship. Am I a competitive CoA applicant? If so, are there circuits I should rule out? Asking because I've had no luck so far.

With that resume you’d absolutely have been in the running for my CA9 judge if you had applied this past cycle.

[LBJ's Hair]

Let's say I have two-thirds Hs, am doing moot court, two class prizes (though one in clinic) and did a secondary journal at Stanford. Let's also say I'll have 1-2 years of experience at WLRK/W&C/Munger/KVN before starting the clerkship. Am I a competitive CoA applicant? If so, are there circuits I should rule out? Asking because I've had no luck so far.

competitive applicant almost everywhere, but you should also have profs call/reach out, if you haven't been already. there are way more people with your stats than there are spots for any given clerkship. that's almost always why people with good grades from top schools aren't having luck---they have a great resume/transcript, but their application is sitting in a pile with 300 other applications

put another way, grades are necessary, but frequently not sufficient, to get an interview with judges in popular/competitive districts and circuits

[Anonymous User]

I know it isn't advisable, but how bad is doing two COA's for your career? Do you become toxic to firms who think you aren't interested in biglaw?

[texanslimjim]

I know it isn't advisable, but how bad is doing two COA's for your career? Do you become toxic to firms who think you aren't interested in biglaw?

I don't think it's toxic so much as it just doesn't add anything. Why spend a second year earning less money and falling another year behind your class in terms of firm-specific skills when you've already got the Circuit Clerk box checked? You might have a good answer, but a lot of people probably don't.

The most common sentiment I've heard is that it's the 3rd year of clerking that starts to put firms off.

[lavarman84]

I know it isn't advisable, but how bad is doing two COA's for your career? Do you become toxic to firms who think you aren't interested in biglaw?

Is the second COA clerkship with a feeder? Just speaking frankly, I'm not sure what you'd get out of the extra year if it's not a judge who will open some major doors (SCOTUS, Bristow, etc.).

[Anonymous User]

I strongly recommend against doing this. Not only is it redundant, but you will end up rubbing many of your professors and classmates the wrong way, likely canceling out any marginal benefit that the second one might otherwise have given you (including for SCOTUS chances). And the point about signaling disinterest to firms is also correct, although lawyers reviewing your resume will also inevitably question your judgment. It is much riskier than most people think.

[nixy]

Are you suggesting that this will rub profs/classmates the wrong way bc this person will be “taking” a position away from someone else who could have got it? That seems implausible to me.

[FascinatedWanderer]

I strongly recommend against doing this. Not only is it redundant, but you will end up rubbing many of your professors and classmates the wrong way, likely canceling out any marginal benefit that the second one might otherwise have given you (including for SCOTUS chances). And the point about signaling disinterest to firms is also correct, although lawyers reviewing your resume will also inevitably question your judgment. It is much riskier than most people think.

There’s some merit to these points but it way way overstates to the point of being unhelpful/incorrect.

[BlackAndOrange84]

I strongly recommend against doing this. Not only is it redundant, but you will end up rubbing many of your professors and classmates the wrong way, likely canceling out any marginal benefit that the second one might otherwise have given you (including for SCOTUS chances). And the point about signaling disinterest to firms is also correct, although lawyers reviewing your resume will also inevitably question your judgment. It is much riskier than most people think.

There’s some merit to these points but it way way overstates to the point of being unhelpful/incorrect.

Yeah, this is so exaggerated as to be just plain wrong and misleading, except for the early point about a second COA being redundant—you're not really going to learn a whole lot the second year. Once you know how to write bench memos and opinions, you know how to do it, and that's it, that's the job. You may well be bored with the sameness of the work your second year. That, the lack of learning, and not making a ton of money for not much more benefit the second year is the best argument against doing it. On the other hand, some clerkships really are the dream jobs people swoon talking about decades later and you won't get another chance to do it once you're a few years out. Giving up some money to have that kind of experience is not irrational, just a debatable choice that some would make and some wouldn't.

Nobody is going to think twice about a second COA if one of the two is a feeder/semi-feeder or otherwise a significant step up. And even if that's not the case, all it's going to take is some of kind semi-plausible explanation (I got and accepted an offer with X but already had an interview scheduled with Y who I *just* loved and who offered me a different term). Two COAs does not signal disinterest to firms—three years of clerking definitely starts to raise questions though, even if you take the third year to do a D.Ct. The only signaling issue you may run across is if you try to apply to trial boutiques who will wonder whether you really want do their brand of work after choosing to do two years of COA and no D.Ct.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, you're right that it was too harsh. It's not like someone who's already in a position to do two COA clerkships will never find work afterward, least of all at a firm. Of course they will. But in the long arc of your career, it is likely to keep raising questions that might undermine your professional brand. And in the short-term, it can backfire by rubbing people (including people who are in a position to help you out with other opportunities down the line) the wrong way. These might be worthwhile risks if it had any other advantage in terms of skill-building or door-opening, but it rarely does as the positions are themselves redundant.

[nixy]

And in the short-term, it can backfire by rubbing people (including people who are in a position to help you out with other opportunities down the line) the wrong way.

I still don't get why doing a second COA would rub anyone (profs/classmates) the wrong way.

I do agree that it's not going to add a great deal. The only benefit I can think of that hasn't been mentioned is if the OP wants to change markets - I think clerking for a year in the physical location where you want to be is a great way to get into a new market because it gives you the chance to network and meet people, and I think changing markets is another thing that can justify doing a second year of the same kind of clerkship. (That said, COA clerks probably have the kind of credentials that they don't need much help changing markets, but it's still a possible consideration.)

[BlackAndOrange84]

Sorry, you're right that it was too harsh. It's not like someone who's already in a position to do two COA clerkships will never find work afterward, least of all at a firm. Of course they will. But in the long arc of your career, it is likely to keep raising questions that might undermine your professional brand. And in the short-term, it can backfire by rubbing people (including people who are in a position to help you out with other opportunities down the line) the wrong way. These might be worthwhile risks if it had any other advantage in terms of skill-building or door-opening, but it rarely does as the positions are themselves redundant.

I really don't understand this opinion. What's the basis for it? I've never, ever seen it or heard it put so strongly.

"in the long arc of your career, it is likely to keep raising questions"—No, no one will care once you're a few years out, except to say, oh that's impressive if a little unusual. Your actual lawyering experience will matter far more. Bottom line, it's just a box that's ticked. It's unusual to tick it twice, but it just isn't a very big deal anymore (yes, in the past few people did more than one, and two COA or D.Ct. is still relatively uncommon, but I just don't see in hiring at my firm, or have heard of from folks I know who have done this, that there are "real risks" as long as you don't clerk three times). And in the short term, I'm with Nixy (and so far everyone else to speak up on this thread), it won't rub many the wrong way. I've heard it before that some small number of professors is down on this approach, but from everything I know, it's just that, a very small number (and if anyone in that category didn't get you that sweet feeder clerkship right out of the gate, they were never going to push you for SCOTUS anyway!).

And if OP is taking the second COA for a shot at SCOTUS, and OP wants a shot, OP should take their shot. Not everyone gets theirs by being one of the lucky few who get a feeder clerkship right out of the gate. And clerking for a feeder after a "run-of-the-mill" COA absolutely can open doors that weren't previously available (I've seen this happen before) in terms of tippy-top jobs like boutiques and fellowships. Particularly if that's the case, very few are likely to blame OP for taking his shot. If the second isn't a feeder, it's more unusual, and there are certainly very few extrinsic benefits in terms of learning, marketability, etc. (maybe just learning about the practice and personalities on another circuit, assuming the judges aren't on the same). But again, all OP will need is a semi-plausible explanation and no one will think twice about it.

[FascinatedWanderer]

Kavanaugh clerked for Stapleton CA3 and then Kozinski CA9. Probably why his confirmation battle was so bitter. Real no no to do two COA clerkships.

[Anonymous User]

I had a LOR writer delay their letter for a few months due to health reasons, and my career services office suggests removing their name from my cover letter and roll with just two letters. However, they also suggest that I still apply to judges who ask for three letter even though I only have two letters. Would my application even be considered if I applied with two, or should I wait a few months and get my third letter.

Applying to COA and D.Cts.

[Anonymous User]

OP of the original question here:

I have already accepted two COA's, now I'm just worried about fallout. I got one, and then a semi-feeder judge reached out, so I accepted that one too.

[BlackAndOrange84]

OP of the original question here:

I have already accepted two COA's, now I'm just worried about fallout. I got one, and then a semi-feeder judge reached out, so I accepted that one too.

You're good. Rest easy.

[Anonymous User]

OP of the original question here:

I have already accepted two COA's, now I'm just worried about fallout. I got one, and then a semi-feeder judge reached out, so I accepted that one too.

You're good. Rest easy.

OK. The comments above have gotten me really worried.

[mjb447]

OP of the original question here:

I have already accepted two COA's, now I'm just worried about fallout. I got one, and then a semi-feeder judge reached out, so I accepted that one too.

You're good. Rest easy.

OK. The comments above have gotten me really worried.

I'll be a fourth or fifth voice saying that you shouldn't worry. Once it's all over, you might or might not think that the second clerkship was a good use of a year, but the affirmative "fallout" from the second clerkship was vastly overstated upthread.