. Forum

[Anonymous User]

.

[Tangerine Gleam]

So your options are (1) Fed. Cir. gig plus district court, or (2) circuit court gig in another circuit?

If you don't want to do patent work, I see little reason for you to pick #1. If you still want to do a district court year, you should at least have decent chances of landing a district court gig in the circuit where you spend your COA year.

[Anonymous User]

.

[rpupkin]

OP: When you write that you "want to work for a litigation boutique doing non patent work," do you mean a litigation boutique in DC?

[Anonymous User]

.

[rpupkin]

OP: When you write that you "want to work for a litigation boutique doing non patent work," do you mean a litigation boutique in DC?

Ideally yes.

Alright. If you want to work at a lit boutique in DC, a CAFC clerkship is a valuable credential. It's arguably more valuable than a CADC clerkship. But it's valuable because DC lit boutiques make a lot of money off of patent litigation and appeals. If you clerked at the CAFC, your DC lit boutique is going to want you to do patent work. Some places will let you work on non-patent matters, but I don't see how you avoid getting tracked as a patent attorney.

Now, a flyover COA clerkship with a non-feeder won't necessarily get you where you want to go either. Kellogg Huber won't fall all over themselves to hire an Eighth Circuit clerk. But if your goal is a "non-patent career," I'd think twice before clerking at the Federal Circuit.

[Nelson]

Why don't you want to do patent work? What do you want to do? Why not go to a firm that will let you have a mixed practice? CAFC is a pretty great credential that I would think long and hard before passing up. It's much more valuable than a generic COA.

[ClerkAdvisor]

How valuable and well regarded is a federal circuit clerkship if I do not want to do patent work as a career? I'm in a slightly complicated position of being offered a fed circuit clerkship in what may be a package deal with a district court judge vs a non-feeder, non DC/2/9 COA judge in a flyover location.

Edit: to clarify, if I want to work for a litigation boutique doing non patent work, would the fed circuit be at all helpful for me?

.

[ResIpsa21]

Tough (but good) situation, OP. Personally, I would take the flyover COA in your situation and then apply to DDC and EDVA in 2016. I don't think there's any reason to believe you can't get DDC or EDVA after going somewhere else. A COA clerkship elsewhere would boost your applications to both courts since DDC/EDVA judges tend to prefer applicants who have clerked before. Plus, the DDC/EDVA judges routinely hire clerks from out of town (that's the nature of both courts being nationally well-regarded). It sounds like you have DC-area ties already, so even if you spend one year out of town, you've still got a leg up on the competition. Perhaps that way you could get a judge in the DC area that doesn't come with the Fed. Cir. string attached.

Most importantly, I'd be very concerned that Fed. Cir. will pigeonhole you into patent work. I have never seen an associate profile at any of the DC lit boutiques that clerked on Fed. Cir. and doesn't do patent litigation (and trust me, I have looked at a LOT of them, since I am also in the DC market). You're running the risk of a red flag on your resume that will follow you forever. DC lit boutiques aren't going to ask "why did he go to the 8th Circuit if he wants to live in DC?" They will definitely ask "why the hell did he clerk at Fed. Cir. if he doesn't want to do patent?"

Perhaps it's true that Kellogg, Zuckerman, Robbins, etc. aren't going crazy for 8th Cir. clerks, but they're DEFINITELY not going crazy for Fed. Cir. clerks who don't want to do patent work. Regardless, the truth is that the only type of clerk these firms are going crazy for is the SCOTUS kind. Aside from that, I'd opt for the flyover COA and a decent shot at DDC/EDVA the following year over guaranteed EDVA and Fed. Cir.

[Anonymous User]

.

[rpupkin]

OP here. Nothing in my resume says anything about patent and indeed I'm not really into it. I can see myself working on patent cases, but probably not as a 100% type thing.

What kind of cases do you want to work on?

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Nothing in my resume says anything about patent and indeed I'm not really into it. I can see myself working on patent cases, but probably not as a 100% type thing.

What kind of cases do you want to work on?

Op here, see above

[rpupkin]

Why don't you want to do patent work? What do you want to do? Why not go to a firm that will let you have a mixed practice? CAFC is a pretty great credential that I would think long and hard before passing up. It's much more valuable than a generic COA.

OP here. Never into the technical stuff. I'm actually more interested in security type stuff (communications, technology, surveillance, etc). I guess that kinda touches on CAFC stuff.

Glance around the profiles of attorneys at litigation boutiques in DC. Note how many specialize in "security type stuff."

Think more about what you find off-putting about working on patent cases. Yes, those cases can involve more "technology" than the typical civil case, but it's not like you're going to be doing patent prosecution. Frankly, a lot of what you do in patent litigation isn't that different than what you do in other forms of commercial lit. And if you snag an associate position at one of those DC litigation boutiques, you're very likely going to be doing commercial litigation of some sort.

I'm not sure what the right answer is for you, but I think you need to more realistically assess your options before you go turning down clerkships. Your goals sound a little naive at the moment.

[dixon02]

Tricky question. Like an above poster mentioned, it's rare to see a profile of a DC litigator who clerked for CAFC but wasn't a patent lawyer. But a lot of that is obviously a selection bias. I doubt there have been a ton of CAFC clerks who wanted DC non-patent lit.

My suggestion would be to either reach out on your own or through your law school's career services office to some alumni who currently work at some of the boutiques and ask them what they would think of a CAFC clerk who just wanted to do lit and/or whether you'd likely be pigeonholed into patent.

[Anonymous User]

Tricky question. Like an above poster mentioned, it's rare to see a profile of a DC litigator who clerked for CAFC but wasn't a patent lawyer. But a lot of that is obviously a selection bias. I doubt there have been a ton of CAFC clerks who wanted DC non-patent lit.

My suggestion would be to either reach out on your own or through your law school's career services office to some alumni who currently work at some of the boutiques and ask them what they would think of a CAFC clerk who just wanted to do lit and/or whether you'd likely be pigeonholed into patent.

OP here. So I guess my question again is, to prevent this pigeon hole effect, do you think another COA clerkship after the fed circuit would help keep my options open?

[rpupkin]

Tricky question. Like an above poster mentioned, it's rare to see a profile of a DC litigator who clerked for CAFC but wasn't a patent lawyer. But a lot of that is obviously a selection bias. I doubt there have been a ton of CAFC clerks who wanted DC non-patent lit.

My suggestion would be to either reach out on your own or through your law school's career services office to some alumni who currently work at some of the boutiques and ask them what they would think of a CAFC clerk who just wanted to do lit and/or whether you'd likely be pigeonholed into patent.

OP here. So I guess my question again is, to prevent this pigeon hole effect, do you think another COA clerkship after the fed circuit would help keep my options open?

There might be a little danger in triple clerking (if you're third clerkship isn't with SCOTUS, there's some risk of looking like you'd rather be a career clerk), but it probably wouldn't hurt. I work with a couple of folks who clerked at both the federal circuit and a regional circuit. They both focus on patent lit, by the way.

If you've got the credentials to clerk at the CADC, you should just do that. I'd stay away from the CAFC if you have as little interest in patent law as your posts here suggest.

[Nelson]

Still not clear what you want to do as a lawyer. If you want to be a litigator, IP is pretty much the hottest field. There's nothing particularly technical about patent work as opposed to other big commercial lit areas like toxic tort or CERCLA or antitrust or most securities stuff which is all highly "technical." So assuming you want to do commercial lit, passing up CAFC would be dumb.

[ResIpsa21]

OP here. So I guess my question again is, to prevent this pigeon hole effect, do you think another COA clerkship after the fed circuit would help keep my options open?

Not a good idea to do three clerkships if you want to work for biglaw / national lit boutique. The inference, fair or not, is that you aren't ready to "get to work." Firms also don't like taking on a fourth-year associate with no actual litigation experience.

Good point by an above poster that the phenomenon of Fed. Cir. clerks doing patent litigation is partly due to selection bias. But there's a reason for this bias -- people who want to do patent lit go to Fed. Cir., while people who don't go to other COAs. I disagree fully with the poster who said Fed. Cir. is more valuable than other COAs. Check out the clerkship experiences of the associates at Kellogg -- almost every circuit is represented.

As for the pigeonhole issue, I would be very concerned about EDVA --> Fed. Cir. If you spend one year preparing for Markman hearings and a second year drafting opinions about the scope of patent infringement liability, your experience will scream patent litigation. It's not that you couldn't do EDVA, Fed. Cir., and then commercial litigation. It's that boutiques who want commercial litigators aren't going to want you because your experience is not directly relevant to their practice. In this day and age where every boutique job is highly competitive, you can't afford to add mismatching credentials to your resume. If you do, you'll lose out to the 8th Circuit clerk who fits the bill.

[Jchance]

how about accept your CoA gig and negotiate with the district judge to do it after your CoA gig (16-17)?

[rpupkin]

I disagree fully with the poster who said Fed. Cir. is more valuable than other COAs. Check out the clerkship experiences of the associates at Kellogg -- almost every circuit is represented.

Actually, I think Kellogg is a good example of a firm that values CAFC clerkships over non-feeder clerkships outside of CADC and CA2. I mean, you're right insofar as it's possible to get hired there after clerking for a non-feeder in one of the fly-over circuits, but I think it's easier coming out of CAFC. (With the caveat, of course, that you're going to be doing patent lit. )