having trouble getting excited for interview for 2nd clerksh Forum

[Anonymous User]

I love conducting trials on behalf of the prosecution. I have done this a few times as a law student, and they included some of my favorite moments of my life. It's undoubtedly what I want to do with my career, and I am extremely eager to get into my home DA's office or AG's office (pretty competitive state/district) ASAP. I also like legal research and writing...enough. I've been published a couple times and have demonstrated some success in the appellate realm, but it is not where my passion lies. I also want to practice in my home state (perhaps state level first then maybe home USAO; maybe not), and I have no desire to move.

I managed to get a fed d ct clerkship in my home (again, pretty competitive) district that will start in a few weeks. I applied to my home SSC a few weeks ago, and now I have an interview to do a subsequent SSC clerkship with them, scheduled for next week. The SSC is also considered one of the most influential/most competitive in the country.

My problem is that I don't know if I'll even LIKE clerking. Everybody tells me how awesome the second [SSC] clerkship would be for my resume, but I am just having trouble getting excited about it. Now it'll be two more years before I can get back into the courtroom as an advocate. I know that I want to practice in my home state, and here I have it-->an opportunity to clerk for the coveted SSC in my home state, so I should be psyched, right?

But I am just not. My professor have intimated to me that I would be silly/shortsighted to not go all out for this clerkship because of what it will do for my resume in the future. But on the other hand, I already have this uber competitive federal clerkship. I feel like I might just be over it after a year.

Does anybody have any similar experiences or thoughts?

FWIW both clerkships are 1 year.

[Anonymous User]

I can tell you from personal experience that if you are in a fairly active district, a year doing clerkship will go by within a blink of an eye. And in the big scheme of things, two years out of your 30plus year career (if you are fortunate) is nothing at all. With that being said, I think the two things you need to consider are: 1) how likely is it that you will be able to land working for DA and Feds within few months into your first clerkship? (i.e. are you sure you can land the job within the next few months as most agencies hire within the next few months for positions next fall, especially feds) and (2) Do you plan on doing any appellant work?

If you are certain you can land the gigs you desire within the next few months or at the end of your first clerkship and have little to no interest in appellate work, I would skip on the SSC. However, if you are iffy on your job prospects at the desired competitive positions and/or you have some interest in doing appellate work as well, I would definitely take the SSC -- especially if the SSC is as influential as you think it is. In other words, the fact that you may have to do another year of clerkship should have little to do with your decision. The relevant question is how likely you are to land a DA or AUSA position after you finish your clerkship (I don't know about DA hiring practices, but I can tell you that landing an AUSA position with 1 year of clerkship will be very difficult, you will increase your odds with another appellate level clerkship due to the skills you will develop, the resume value the clerkship will have, and the additional networking you will gain -- again assuming the SSC is as influential as you described) and if you have any interest advocating at the appellate level! IMO!

[ResIpsa21]

Thank you, sincerely, for sharing your existential crisis with us. Some may attack your post as a "flame" or call you a "humblebragging preftige whore" or the like. But I think this a pretty common feeling for highly successful entry-level attorneys -- cognitive dissonance between the desire to do an exciting thing and the pressure to do the right and proper thing.

Two schools of thought here.

The first is, you have been presented with an extraordinary opportunity that very few people will have. Hundreds of law students would gladly lose a finger to be in your position, and thousands more are so far from having your credentials that they've never even considered achieving such success. You owe it to yourself to work as hard as possible to make this happen. Successful people are the ones who do what they have to do, whether they like it or not. Successful people have also mastered the art of delayed gratification. If it helps, think of the regrets you will have in ten years if you don't pursue this with full gusto.

The second is, life is short and doing the "right and proper" thing will not make you happy. If you are already qualified for the job that will make you happy, doing anything else is a waste of your limited time on earth. Forget the objectively correct decision and go do what you want to do. It's not like you're opening a hot dog cart. You could start exactly the career you want and be judged on your skill and talent, which is ultimately the key to success, instead of on your resume credentials. In ten years, you won't care about whether you spent a year drafting boring opinions for some old codger. You'll be too busy actually being a lawyer instead of being the sum total of bullet points on a piece of paper.

Well, TCR is . . . if not flame, stop humblebragging you preftige whore, and gear up for the damn interview!

[Anonymous User]

haha not a humblebrag. a legitimate thing that I've been thinking about. I guess I really do need to do all I can for the interview and take a "if it happens, it was supposed to happen, and if it doesn't, it wasn't"-type attitude.

the crazy thing is, as absurd as my current position sounds, i was in the vail a few months ago, when I graduated.. it's ridiculous how quickly things can turn around.

One question I have is what kinds of jobs I'll be able to apply for, following the second clerkship. for example, if a job requires 3-5 years of experience and, after two clerkships, I still will not have practiced, would my resume get looked at for a job like that? or am I still really an entry level candidate?

[ResIpsa21]

One question I have is what kinds of jobs I'll be able to apply for, following the second clerkship. for example, if a job requires 3-5 years of experience and, after two clerkships, I still will not have practiced, would my resume get looked at for a job like that? or am I still really an entry level candidate?

I don't have experience being in your position so I defer to those with first-hand knowledge, but I would assume it depends on the job you want. If you're looking at biglaw (in which I do have experience), you would definitely be marketable as a third- or second-year associate (maybe only one year of class credit for the two clerkships) and you'd get a nice $50k to $70k bonus. But since it sounded like you want to be a state-level prosecutor, there's probably no universal advice for every local office. You'd need to talk to someone in the specific office about what credentials they're looking for. I don't know what state you're in, but the information I've gotten for my own local offices is that they want people with practical experience. They're not in the business of training entry-level attorneys and clerking might not be close enough to practical experience to qualify.

[timmyd]

I think it would be really cool to have experience at both the district level and appellette level. I would think it would be highly benificial to your career, especially considering the competitive nature of the SSC. You indicate that you may not like clerking. I guess thats possible, but I have never met anyone clerking at the federal level or SSC level that had many negative things to say about the experience, but lets assume for the sake of argument that its not your cup of tea. Two thoughts: 1) You are blessed to have diverse clerkships. Even if you don't like the first, the second is appellette and will probably be different. 2) You will be paid around the same as you would going into DA or PD. So, in effect, you will have bolstered your resume immeasurably without giving up income. Sounds good to me.

[mw115]

This thread addresses a lot of your same thoughts: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=232713

My quick & dirty advice is that if you don't want appellate advice and know you want to prosecute, I don't think the SSC would be valuable.