Top Law Schools

Are there any scenarios in which a second COA clerkship would be worthwhile? I'd like to work in an Issues/Appeals group in DC/Chicago/San Francisco/(insert Tier 1 city). Although the COA judge I'm now clerking for is a wonderful boss, the clerkship isn't in a particularly geographically desirable area. I also clerked for a federal district court judge immediately after graduation; that clerkship was in flyover country too. My question is whether a second COA clerkship on either coast might better position me for a shot at an appellate group.

All input is welcome. Thank you.

Best thing for you to do is to look at the firms that do that kind of thing and where their appellate group attorneys clerked. Pretty sure 2/9/DC will always give you a better shot in their respective markets. but Chicago might be okay with 7th Cir. --don't know.

Anonymous User wrote:Are there any scenarios in which a second COA clerkship would be worthwhile? I'd like to work in an Issues/Appeals group in DC/Chicago/San Francisco/(insert Tier 1 city). Although the COA judge I'm now clerking for is a wonderful boss, the clerkship isn't in a particularly geographically desirable area. I also clerked for a federal district court judge immediately after graduation; that clerkship was in flyover country too. My question is whether a second COA clerkship on either coast might better position me for a shot at an appellate group.

All input is welcome. Thank you.

Honestly, a second COA will not be helpful for several reasons.

- To the extent that your COA clerkship matters for firms, what matters is the judge, not the circuit. In other words, a clerkship with Judge Gorsuch or Ebel on the 10th is going to be more attractive than a random 2d or 9th circuit clerkship.

- You'll be pretty hard pressed to find much appellate-only work in Chicago or SF. Almost all (if not all) major appellate practices are based in DC.

- Where you went to school and how you did in school will still matter for these groups.

- Plenty of people go from 'flyover' COA's to major DC/NYC/Coastal practices. You see lots of 2/9 people in those practices because they tend to choose to stay on the coast. Likewise, I'm sure plenty of 5th circuit clerks choose to stay in Texas because they prefer a low COL with NY/DC starting pay.

Plus a third clerkship will be a bad signal for firms that you're not totally interested in working hard. (Yes, many clerkships entail a lot of hard work, but for better or worse, there's a vibe in firms -- especially among those who haven't clerked -- that most clerkships are cush.)

That said, I can think of about two reasons why you'd want to do another clerkship. First, if it's a reaaaally impressive judge -- like Gorsuch or Sykes or the like. It would give you a shot a SCOTUS, and even if not, that sort of clerkship carries a good bit of cache, even among firms. Second, I could see doing a third clerkship in the market where you want to practice, especially if it's not NYC or DC.

I would only clerk for a second COA judge if he or she were a feeder judge. e.g., Kozinski, Kavanaugh, etc.

To hijack the thread a bit, would it ever make sense to go back for a CoA clerkship after a 2 year district clerkship --> firm, or would that be a bad signal?

Anonymous User wrote:To hijack the thread a bit, would it ever make sense to go back for a CoA clerkship after a 2 year district clerkship --> firm, or would that be a bad signal?

What's your goal? If you already have a 2 year district court clerkship and you're at a firm, then you should ask why you want the COA clerkship. What skills are you looking to gain? Or, what are you trying to transition to that requires a COA clerkship? Personal opinion, this would really only make sense if you needed/wanted to move to a new, insular market and the COA clerkship was a way of making the transition.

What's your goal? If you already have a 2 year district court clerkship and you're at a firm, then you should ask why you want the COA clerkship. What skills are you looking to gain? Or, what are you trying to transition to that requires a COA clerkship? Personal opinion, this would really only make sense if you needed/wanted to move to a new, insular market and the COA clerkship was a way of making the transition.

Disagree. This is going to be firm by firm, and even group by group. If you're in a group -- or want to move to a group -- where a healthy percentage of the lawyers did appellate clerkships (everyone knows the usual suspects), then they'll understand why you want to do a second COA clerkship. There are also post-firm options that it opens up, like some DOJ sections, academia, etc.

This isn't to say that some firms won't like it (though I think the vast majority of shops in the major markets would let a fourth-ish year associate do it, however begrudgingly). You should ask around, and if your firm/group is one of the places that will hold it against you, come up with a different post-clerkship game plan.

theaccidentalclerk wrote:Plus a third clerkship will be a bad signal for firms that you're not totally interested in working hard. (Yes, many clerkships entail a lot of hard work, but for better or worse, there's a vibe in firms -- especially among those who haven't clerked -- that most clerkships are cush.)

That said, I can think of about two reasons why you'd want to do another clerkship. First, if it's a reaaaally impressive judge -- like Gorsuch or Sykes or the like. It would give you a shot a SCOTUS, and even if not, that sort of clerkship carries a good bit of cache, even among firms. Second, I could see doing a third clerkship in the market where you want to practice, especially if it's not NYC or DC.

For god's sake it's cachet you unwashed plebes.