What do most SCOTUS clerks end up doing? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I wouldn't discount the difficulty the fellowship adds given the point in life at which that fellowship occurs. The median SCOTUS clerk now is ~30 with multiple clerkships and some time practicing. To keep the bonus, you often have to practice for at least two years, pushing you out to 33. The Climenko or Bigelow are two years, putting you at 35 by the time you have a TT job, with likely at least 3 moves between law school and TT. That's a pretty brutal timeline logistically, especially (but not only) for women. Of course, people who want nothing but academia will do it--people do Ph.D.s in the humanities still with many of the same downsides and far far worse job prospects. But it's less attractive than it used to be. I don't think "SCOTUS clerks don't want academia any more" is a plausible explanation for going from tons of SCOTUS clerks pursuing academia to a small handful of them doing so.

I’m confused. You just said it’s “less attractive” than it used to be, then said it’s not that “SCOTUS clerks don’t want academia any more.” But academia being less attractive means exactly that SCOTUS clerks don’t want academia *as it is.* They’re self-selecting out of academia, maybe because getting an academic job requires more than it used to, but it’s still a choice. (To be clear, I’m not faulting that choice! Just saying that it’s not really evidence that SCOTUS clerks are less competitive.)

I’d also speculate that changes in hiring practices have played a part. I suspect that the shift toward a more conservative court and the increasing role of Fed Soc have resulted in a higher proportion of conservative SCOTUS clerks, and conservatives have traditionally been more hostile to academia and vice versa.

[Anonymous User]

I'm the person who posted about decline in SCOTUS clerks resulting from academic hiring changes.

Perhaps we have more alignment than this implies, but to me the question is:
Does the decline in SCOTUS clerks going to academia result from academic hiring being less easy and favorable for SCOTUS clerks?

In my view, the answer is clearly yes. In the old days you could just clerk for a feeder for 1 year, then clerk for SCOTUS, then get a plum academic job. Now it is much less clerkship-based and much more publication based. Therefore ideas like "[t]hey’re self-selecting out of academia, maybe because getting an academic job requires more than it used to, but it’s still a choice" doesn't make much sense to me. They are self-selecting out precisely because institutions have changed hiring criteria to require fellowships/VAPs and emphasize publishing while significantly de-emphasizing a SCOTUS (or other) clerkship.

Similarly, another poster wrote: "No, you can't just land a TT job at a good/great law school anymore simply by being a SCOTUS clerk. You actually have to put a little effort in. If your friends don't want to put that effort in, that's fine. But it's a choice. It's not because law schools don't value SCOTUS clerkships." Again, this seems to concede the point. In the old days, you just had to be a SCOTUS clerk. Now you have 2+ more years added, and you don't get an amazing job just from an amazing set of clerkships--you have to publish. Someone with a PHD who published in say, the Duke and Michigan law reviews (with a real article, not a Note) and who never clerked gets preferred over a SCOTUS clerk who never published. That wasn't true in the 90s.

Yes, SCOTUS clerks "self-select" out--because hiring standards have changed against SCOTUS clerks and made it a far less easy option where their credentials are extremely valuable.

[Anonymous User]

I'm the person who posted about decline in SCOTUS clerks resulting from academic hiring changes.

Perhaps we have more alignment than this implies, but to me the question is:
Does the decline in SCOTUS clerks going to academia result from academic hiring being less easy and favorable for SCOTUS clerks?

In my view, the answer is clearly yes. In the old days you could just clerk for a feeder for 1 year, then clerk for SCOTUS, then get a plum academic job. Now it is much less clerkship-based and much more publication based. Therefore ideas like "[t]hey’re self-selecting out of academia, maybe because getting an academic job requires more than it used to, but it’s still a choice" doesn't make much sense to me. They are self-selecting out precisely because institutions have changed hiring criteria to require fellowships/VAPs and emphasize publishing while significantly de-emphasizing a SCOTUS (or other) clerkship.

Similarly, another poster wrote: "No, you can't just land a TT job at a good/great law school anymore simply by being a SCOTUS clerk. You actually have to put a little effort in. If your friends don't want to put that effort in, that's fine. But it's a choice. It's not because law schools don't value SCOTUS clerkships." Again, this seems to concede the point. In the old days, you just had to be a SCOTUS clerk. Now you have 2+ more years added, and you don't get an amazing job just from an amazing set of clerkships--you have to publish. Someone with a PHD who published in say, the Duke and Michigan law reviews (with a real article, not a Note) and who never clerked gets preferred over a SCOTUS clerk who never published. That wasn't true in the 90s.

Yes, SCOTUS clerks "self-select" out--because hiring standards have changed against SCOTUS clerks and made it a far less easy option where their credentials are extremely valuable.

I think this and the above comments are all onto it, and I'll also add one more point: The gap between biglaw partner salaries and professor salaries, which always existed, has widened. A choice between a good salary and a great salary is now more of a choice between a good salary and generational family wealth.

[Anonymous User]

I wouldn't discount the difficulty the fellowship adds given the point in life at which that fellowship occurs. The median SCOTUS clerk now is ~30 with multiple clerkships and some time practicing. To keep the bonus, you often have to practice for at least two years, pushing you out to 33. The Climenko or Bigelow are two years, putting you at 35 by the time you have a TT job, with likely at least 3 moves between law school and TT. That's a pretty brutal timeline logistically, especially (but not only) for women. Of course, people who want nothing but academia will do it--people do Ph.D.s in the humanities still with many of the same downsides and far far worse job prospects. But it's less attractive than it used to be. I don't think "SCOTUS clerks don't want academia any more" is a plausible explanation for going from tons of SCOTUS clerks pursuing academia to a small handful of them doing so.

I’m confused. You just said it’s “less attractive” than it used to be, then said it’s not that “SCOTUS clerks don’t want academia any more.” But academia being less attractive means exactly that SCOTUS clerks don’t want academia *as it is.* They’re self-selecting out of academia, maybe because getting an academic job requires more than it used to, but it’s still a choice. (To be clear, I’m not faulting that choice! Just saying that it’s not really evidence that SCOTUS clerks are less competitive.)

I’d also speculate that changes in hiring practices have played a part. I suspect that the shift toward a more conservative court and the increasing role of Fed Soc have resulted in a higher proportion of conservative SCOTUS clerks, and conservatives have traditionally been more hostile to academia and vice versa.

I don't think we disagree. Academia is still attractive in that being a TT professor is still a great job that all else being equal attracts a lot of very talented people. Academia is less attractive in that the route to that TT job has gotten harder/longer (though it's still much, much easier than in other fields).

On the conservatism angle, I'm surprised that there aren't more Fed Soc types who want to do academia. Only a small handful go on the market a year, and anecdotally I feel like a lot of people I knew in law school would like full-time originalist research, especially with the prospect of a very immediate/significant impact on the courts. And there are a lot of conservative-friendly schools nowadays--at the high end, Chicago, Harvard, and Virginia, but also at more entry-level A&M, ASU, BYU, Catholic,Chapman, GMU, Notre Dame, St. Thomas, Pepperdine...

[Anonymous User]

I wouldn't discount the difficulty the fellowship adds given the point in life at which that fellowship occurs. The median SCOTUS clerk now is ~30 with multiple clerkships and some time practicing. To keep the bonus, you often have to practice for at least two years, pushing you out to 33. The Climenko or Bigelow are two years, putting you at 35 by the time you have a TT job, with likely at least 3 moves between law school and TT. That's a pretty brutal timeline logistically, especially (but not only) for women. Of course, people who want nothing but academia will do it--people do Ph.D.s in the humanities still with many of the same downsides and far far worse job prospects. But it's less attractive than it used to be. I don't think "SCOTUS clerks don't want academia any more" is a plausible explanation for going from tons of SCOTUS clerks pursuing academia to a small handful of them doing so.

I’m confused. You just said it’s “less attractive” than it used to be, then said it’s not that “SCOTUS clerks don’t want academia any more.” But academia being less attractive means exactly that SCOTUS clerks don’t want academia *as it is.* They’re self-selecting out of academia, maybe because getting an academic job requires more than it used to, but it’s still a choice. (To be clear, I’m not faulting that choice! Just saying that it’s not really evidence that SCOTUS clerks are less competitive.)

I’d also speculate that changes in hiring practices have played a part. I suspect that the shift toward a more conservative court and the increasing role of Fed Soc have resulted in a higher proportion of conservative SCOTUS clerks, and conservatives have traditionally been more hostile to academia and vice versa.

I don't think we disagree. Academia is still attractive in that being a TT professor is still a great job that all else being equal attracts a lot of very talented people. Academia is less attractive in that the route to that TT job has gotten harder/longer (though it's still much, much easier than in other fields).

On the conservatism angle, I'm surprised that there aren't more Fed Soc types who want to do academia. Only a small handful go on the market a year, and anecdotally I feel like a lot of people I knew in law school would like full-time originalist research, especially with the prospect of a very immediate/significant impact on the courts. And there are a lot of conservative-friendly schools nowadays--at the high end, Chicago, Harvard, and Virginia, but also at more entry-level A&M, ASU, BYU, Catholic,Chapman, GMU, Notre Dame, St. Thomas, Pepperdine...

I think one thing that hasn’t quite come up (and doesn’t really refute anything you’re saying, just an observation) is that academia has gotten harder for everyone. So if you’re looking at the market from a more bird’s eye perspective, it’s not that the market has gotten harder for SCOTUS clerks specifically - it’s just gotten harder, period.

I think this, combined with the salary gap someone else referenced, has probably changed the calculus for a lot of SCOTUS clerks, who also have a lot of professional options that people pursuing PhDs don’t always have.

But this has also been a trend for quite some time now, and I’m not sure when it was last realistic for someone to waltz straight from SCOTUS into a job at Harvard.

As for the conservative angle, I’m not conservative so can’t say from that perspective. But in academia more broadly, there’s a lot of discussion about the extent to which conservatives don’t want to work in higher ed because they simply don’t value what it values, not so much in a partisan way but some of the basic principles.

[CanadianWolf]

Kellogg Hansen in DC is one option.

[Anonymous User]

Kellogg Hansen in DC is one option.

Kellogg currently has 4 associates that clerked scotus, which is proportionally on the higher end, but lower than I would have thought. Maybe they are hired as counsel/partners, but that seems unlikely given the Kellogg's smaller partnership

[Anonymous User]

Kellogg Hansen in DC is one option.

Kellogg currently has 4 associates that clerked scotus, which is proportionally on the higher end, but lower than I would have thought. Maybe they are hired as counsel/partners, but that seems unlikely given the Kellogg's smaller partnership

One of my most interesting discoveries looking at bios of the various boutiques is that the minimum currency (barring something extra special) is a non-feeder COA/top DC clerkship--but that also tends to be the most common credential. Like if you look at SG (who helpfully provides a count of clerkships in a drop-down tab on their website) they have 11 ex-SCOTUS clerks, two of whom are associates. Meanwhile, they have 26/37/21 from the 5th/9th/2nd circuits, respectively (what's interesting is that--and this may be a function of office location--is that they have almost as many clerks from the 9th circuit as they do from 1/3/4/6/7/8/10/11/Federal combined [40]). Maybe SCOTUS clerks just aren't attracted to SG?

There are way more COA clerks than SCOTUS clerks to go around, tbf, but I'm actually quite surprised that so few of them seem to go to the boutiques.

[Anonymous User]

Kellogg Hansen in DC is one option.

Kellogg currently has 4 associates that clerked scotus, which is proportionally on the higher end, but lower than I would have thought. Maybe they are hired as counsel/partners, but that seems unlikely given the Kellogg's smaller partnership

One of my most interesting discoveries looking at bios of the various boutiques is that the minimum currency (barring something extra special) is a non-feeder COA/top DC clerkship--but that also tends to be the most common credential. Like if you look at SG (who helpfully provides a count of clerkships in a drop-down tab on their website) they have 11 ex-SCOTUS clerks, two of whom are associates. Meanwhile, they have 26/37/21 from the 5th/9th/2nd circuits, respectively (what's interesting is that--and this may be a function of office location--is that they have almost as many clerks from the 9th circuit as they do from 1/3/4/6/7/8/10/11/Federal combined [40]). Maybe SCOTUS clerks just aren't attracted to SG?

There are way more COA clerks than SCOTUS clerks to go around, tbf, but I'm actually quite surprised that so few of them seem to go to the boutiques.

Kellogg annoyingly doesn't let you sort like that, but I tend to agree with this just based off people I know at the firm. If I had to guess, it's because SG and Kellogg are notoriously brutal places to work and you can get a better bonus, guaranteed partnership, similar case exposure and a less brutal experience in I&A at Jones Day, so SCOTUS clerks that are fine with private prax end up there instead of one of the major boutiques.

I think the better counterpoint is places like Gupta Wessler (5/6 associates have or will clerk SCOTUS) or Cooper & Kirk (6/7 associates clerked SCOTUS).

[Anonymous User]

Kellogg Hansen in DC is one option.

Kellogg currently has 4 associates that clerked scotus, which is proportionally on the higher end, but lower than I would have thought. Maybe they are hired as counsel/partners, but that seems unlikely given the Kellogg's smaller partnership

One of my most interesting discoveries looking at bios of the various boutiques is that the minimum currency (barring something extra special) is a non-feeder COA/top DC clerkship--but that also tends to be the most common credential. Like if you look at SG (who helpfully provides a count of clerkships in a drop-down tab on their website) they have 11 ex-SCOTUS clerks, two of whom are associates. Meanwhile, they have 26/37/21 from the 5th/9th/2nd circuits, respectively (what's interesting is that--and this may be a function of office location--is that they have almost as many clerks from the 9th circuit as they do from 1/3/4/6/7/8/10/11/Federal combined [40]). Maybe SCOTUS clerks just aren't attracted to SG?

There are way more COA clerks than SCOTUS clerks to go around, tbf, but I'm actually quite surprised that so few of them seem to go to the boutiques.

Kellogg annoyingly doesn't let you sort like that, but I tend to agree with this just based off people I know at the firm. If I had to guess, it's because SG and Kellogg are notoriously brutal places to work and you can get a better bonus, guaranteed partnership, similar case exposure and a less brutal experience in I&A at Jones Day, so SCOTUS clerks that are fine with private prax end up there instead of one of the major boutiques.

I think the better counterpoint is places like Gupta Wessler (5/6 associates have or will clerk SCOTUS) or Cooper & Kirk (6/7 associates clerked SCOTUS).

Also Susman is a trial boutique. If you are a SCOTUS clerk, you probably want to do appellate, and wouldn't want to go there. (Can't speak to Kellogg.)