probono federal district court v. state appellate clerkship Forum

[jamesjameson]

hey guyz
I did pretty terribly in law school. I've been offered a probono fed district court clerkship (i could possibly get funding through my school) and a state intermediate appellate court clerkship... any advice on which to take
thanks

[rpupkin]

hey guyz
I did pretty terribly in law school. I've been offered a probono fed district court clerkship (i could possibly get funding through my school) and a state intermediate appellate court clerkship... any advice on which to take
thanks

What is a "probono fed district court clerkship"?

[jamesjameson]

hey guyz
I did pretty terribly in law school. I've been offered a probono fed district court clerkship (i could possibly get funding through my school) and a state intermediate appellate court clerkship... any advice on which to take
thanks

What is a "probono fed district court clerkship"?

um an unpaid federal district court clerkship

[rpupkin]

hey guyz
I did pretty terribly in law school. I've been offered a probono fed district court clerkship (i could possibly get funding through my school) and a state intermediate appellate court clerkship... any advice on which to take
thanks

What is a "probono fed district court clerkship"?

um an unpaid federal district court clerkship

Yikes. So it sounds like the beneficiary of your "pro bono" service is a federal judge, not an indigent client. I'm glad someone is helping needy federal judges. Do you know that they have to work for 15 years before they can retire at 65 and receive a lifetime salary with full benefits? It's inhumane.

Seriously, I've heard of a few federal judges doing this. I've also heard that some of them will require the volunteer clerk to note on their resume that they were unpaid. In other words, the judge forces you to indicate that you were really more of an intern than a clerk. If this is one of those judges, then it's not worth it, imo.

[Desert Fox]

hey guyz
I did pretty terribly in law school. I've been offered a probono fed district court clerkship (i could possibly get funding through my school) and a state intermediate appellate court clerkship... any advice on which to take
thanks

Assuming you didn't go t14, I think the clear choice is State Intermediate Appellate.

[Anonymous User]

hey guyz
I did pretty terribly in law school. I've been offered a probono fed district court clerkship (i could possibly get funding through my school) and a state intermediate appellate court clerkship... any advice on which to take
thanks

What is a "probono fed district court clerkship"?

um an unpaid federal district court clerkship

Yikes. So it sounds like the beneficiary of your "pro bono" service is a federal judge, not an indigent client. I'm glad someone is helping needy federal judges. Do you know that they have to work for 15 years before they can retire at 65 and receive a lifetime salary with full benefits? It's inhumane.

Seriously, I've heard of a few federal judges doing this. I've also heard that some of them will require the volunteer clerk to note on their resume that they were unpaid. In other words, the judge forces you to indicate that you were really more of an intern than a clerk. If this is one of those judges, then it's not worth it, imo.

D. ct. clerk here. I totally disagree with your final point.

Some judges I know take on volunteer clerks because plenty of people have nothing else going for them and the judges know that it is fantastic experience. Yes, some of these volunteer clerks are essentially interns, but to be fair, some clerks are also essentially paid interns because it's such a steep learning curve and some people just can't hack it. And some of these volunteer clerks are treated like any other clerk, so while they aren't getting paid, they are getting top-notch experience.

If someone is like the countless unemployed/underemployed/shittily employed JDs, volunteering for a federal judge is by no means an awful place to be if you can afford to do it.

If OP can find out how he or she will be treated, it might make sense. There is the possibility that OP would be stuck with all the routine, non-substantive shit we clerks have to deal with. That might make a paid state appellate clerkship the clear choice. But if OP would essentially be a clerk, only unpaid, it's a more difficult decision, IMO.

[rpupkin]

Seriously, I've heard of a few federal judges doing this. I've also heard that some of them will require the volunteer clerk to note on their resume that they were unpaid. In other words, the judge forces you to indicate that you were really more of an intern than a clerk. If this is one of those judges, then it's not worth it, imo.

D. ct. clerk here. I totally disagree with your final point.

Some judges I know take on volunteer clerks because plenty of people have nothing else going for them and the judges know that it is fantastic experience. Yes, some of these volunteer clerks are essentially interns, but to be fair, some clerks are also essentially paid interns because it's such a steep learning curve and some people just can't hack it. And some of these volunteer clerks are treated like any other clerk, so while they aren't getting paid, they are getting top-notch experience.

If someone is like the countless unemployed/underemployed/shittily employed JDs, volunteering for a federal judge is by no means an awful place to be if you can afford to do it.

If OP can find out how he or she will be treated, it might make sense. There is the possibility that OP would be stuck with all the routine, non-substantive shit we clerks have to deal with. That might make a paid state appellate clerkship the clear choice. But if OP would essentially be a clerk, only unpaid, it's a more difficult decision, IMO.

I think you may have misunderstood the final sentence of my post—which, I can now see, wasn't entirely clear. When I suggested it was "not worth it" to clerk for one of "those judges," I was specifically referring to those judges who would force a clerk to designate their unpaid status on a resume; I wasn't referring to all judges who hire volunteer clerks. To me, forcing the "clerk" to indicate that they were a volunteer suggest that the judge views the person as something other than a genuine clerk. This could affect the quality of work that the clerk gets assigned. Even more importantly, I think that prospective employers would be more likely to view the position as an internship instead of a genuine clerkship, and that could be a problem for the person when trying to get a job somewhere.

But that concern aside, I agree with your post.

[Anonymous User]

So you're considering whether to go to COSA or D.Md im guessing?

Fwiw I know someone who was a pro bono clerk in this district and did a second federal clerkship (paid) afterward.

How much would the school give you? (im a clerk on the COA if you have any questions)

[bk1]

If it's possible to hide the fact that it was unpaid when you apply for jobs, and you don't particular care about financials, then the USDC might be worth it.

That said, the state CoA has two major benefits: money and the fact that the state CoA judge likely has more ties to the local legal community. I think the latter fact is pretty huge considering you are in all likelihood going to try and find a job in the local legal community after your clerkship (with poor grades you probably aren't aiming for biglaw in a far away city where I think having USDC over state CoA would be advantageous). I'd lean towards the state CoA. If you need the money then it's no question state CoA.

[jamesjameson]

So you're considering whether to go to COSA or D.Md im guessing?

How did you know this?

Thank you everyone for the helpful responses.

[Anonymous User]

Seriously, I've heard of a few federal judges doing this. I've also heard that some of them will require the volunteer clerk to note on their resume that they were unpaid. In other words, the judge forces you to indicate that you were really more of an intern than a clerk. If this is one of those judges, then it's not worth it, imo.

D. ct. clerk here. I totally disagree with your final point.

Some judges I know take on volunteer clerks because plenty of people have nothing else going for them and the judges know that it is fantastic experience. Yes, some of these volunteer clerks are essentially interns, but to be fair, some clerks are also essentially paid interns because it's such a steep learning curve and some people just can't hack it. And some of these volunteer clerks are treated like any other clerk, so while they aren't getting paid, they are getting top-notch experience.

If someone is like the countless unemployed/underemployed/shittily employed JDs, volunteering for a federal judge is by no means an awful place to be if you can afford to do it.

If OP can find out how he or she will be treated, it might make sense. There is the possibility that OP would be stuck with all the routine, non-substantive shit we clerks have to deal with. That might make a paid state appellate clerkship the clear choice. But if OP would essentially be a clerk, only unpaid, it's a more difficult decision, IMO.

I think you may have misunderstood the final sentence of my post—which, I can now see, wasn't entirely clear. When I suggested it was "not worth it" to clerk for one of "those judges," I was specifically referring to those judges who would force a clerk to designate their unpaid status on a resume; I wasn't referring to all judges who hire volunteer clerks. To me, forcing the "clerk" to indicate that they were a volunteer suggest that the judge views the person as something other than a genuine clerk. This could affect the quality of work that the clerk gets assigned. Even more importantly, I think that prospective employers would be more likely to view the position as an internship instead of a genuine clerkship, and that could be a problem for the person when trying to get a job somewhere.

But that concern aside, I agree with your post.

Ah, that makes sense. I agree. If a judge forces someone to designate themselves as a "volunteer law clerk," it suggests that they are not equal. I know of a judge that does that and, well, those clerks definitely are not equal. Conversely, a judge in my court has had volunteer clerks for years and treats them equally (which his/her main clerks appreciate). One of said volunteer clerks recently got hired by another judge based solely on the judge's rec, so that's another reason why volunteering could be worth it.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I know of a situation where the volunteer clerk was getting paid by their school (one of those school-funded fellowship things), and the school required them to indicate they weren't getting paid in any description of the job. But I know they were also doing the same work as the normal term clerk. So I wouldn't assume anything about the lack of pay (obviously I can't control how other people see it but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion being unpaid looks bad).

That said, a federal clerkship is not such a big employment boost over a state COA clerkship to make doing the federal clerkship worth it for free over paid state COA, for all the reasons bk1 said.

[jamesjameson]

Seriously, I've heard of a few federal judges doing this. I've also heard that some of them will require the volunteer clerk to note on their resume that they were unpaid. In other words, the judge forces you to indicate that you were really more of an intern than a clerk. If this is one of those judges, then it's not worth it, imo.

D. ct. clerk here. I totally disagree with your final point.

Some judges I know take on volunteer clerks because plenty of people have nothing else going for them and the judges know that it is fantastic experience. Yes, some of these volunteer clerks are essentially interns, but to be fair, some clerks are also essentially paid interns because it's such a steep learning curve and some people just can't hack it. And some of these volunteer clerks are treated like any other clerk, so while they aren't getting paid, they are getting top-notch experience.

If someone is like the countless unemployed/underemployed/shittily employed JDs, volunteering for a federal judge is by no means an awful place to be if you can afford to do it.

If OP can find out how he or she will be treated, it might make sense. There is the possibility that OP would be stuck with all the routine, non-substantive shit we clerks have to deal with. That might make a paid state appellate clerkship the clear choice. But if OP would essentially be a clerk, only unpaid, it's a more difficult decision, IMO.

I think you may have misunderstood the final sentence of my post—which, I can now see, wasn't entirely clear. When I suggested it was "not worth it" to clerk for one of "those judges," I was specifically referring to those judges who would force a clerk to designate their unpaid status on a resume; I wasn't referring to all judges who hire volunteer clerks. To me, forcing the "clerk" to indicate that they were a volunteer suggest that the judge views the person as something other than a genuine clerk. This could affect the quality of work that the clerk gets assigned. Even more importantly, I think that prospective employers would be more likely to view the position as an internship instead of a genuine clerkship, and that could be a problem for the person when trying to get a job somewhere.

But that concern aside, I agree with your post.

Ah, that makes sense. I agree. If a judge forces someone to designate themselves as a "volunteer law clerk," it suggests that they are not equal. I know of a judge that does that and, well, those clerks definitely are not equal. Conversely, a judge in my court has had volunteer clerks for years and treats them equally (which his/her main clerks appreciate). One of said volunteer clerks recently got hired by another judge based solely on the judge's rec, so that's another reason why volunteering could be worth it.

Wouldn't it be deceitful for me to fail to indicate that it is a volunteer federal clerkship regardless of what my judge allows?

[Desert Fox]

Lolol no. Hell I wouldn't ask the judge and just do it anyway.

[Nomo]

I think you lose some dignity by taking unpaid work (with unpaid volunteer work for a non-profit whose cause you believe in being an exception). You're a law school graduate. Your time is worth something and you shouldn't be a little offended at the suggestion that you give away your time and skills for free.

It's also hard to imagine you will be treated the same as a paid clerk by the judge, staff, and other clerks - even if they try too. And its hard to imagine that you're going to have the motivation to do quality work for free if two other clerks are doing the same work for a salary.

I do not think you should turn down a decent offer for unpaid work.

[Anonymous User]

So you're considering whether to go to COSA or D.Md im guessing?

How did you know this?

Thank you everyone for the helpful responses.

Because Im in the state at the COA--honestly COSA clerks probably do more writing since there is an automatic appeal, whereas we have discretion to grant/deny cert petitions. Unfortunately, I can't speak as to post-COSA job prospects, i simply just don't have info. But, looking at some of the judges' info, they generally seem to have worked in firms more recently than the COA judges so they might have stronger ties.

As for the pro bono law clerk I knew at D.Md., Im not sure what they listed on their resume, but on the court's website they are listed as an "administrative assistant" which I find to be kind of terrible.

[Anonymous User]

Wouldn't it be deceitful for me to fail to indicate that it is a volunteer federal clerkship regardless of what my judge allows?

OP/D. ct. clerk here.

Yes, I would think it would be deceitful. If you list "law clerk to Judge McJudge" on your resume, the assumption is that you are "an elbow clerk." The fact that you're not getting paid or not is irrelevant; what is relevant is the experience. And unless you are positive you're being treated the same as other clerks, you need to make clear that you're volunteering. Like it or not, you will be considered to effectively be an intern unless your judge makes it clear that you can say you are clerking for him/her.

Also, as a general rule, if you have any questions about it, you should ask the judge. You asking the question suggests that you're uneasy about it, and you should be.

[Anonymous User]

OP/D. ct. clerk here.

Yes, I would think it would be deceitful. If you list "law clerk to Judge McJudge" on your resume, the assumption is that you are "an elbow clerk." The fact that you're not getting paid or not is irrelevant; what is relevant is the experience. And unless you are positive you're being treated the same as other clerks, you need to make clear that you're volunteering. Like it or not, you will be considered to effectively be an intern unless your judge makes it clear that you can say you are clerking for him/her.

Also, as a general rule, if you have any questions about it, you should ask the judge. You asking the question suggests that you're uneasy about it, and you should be.

(different district court clerk)

If you do what the other clerks do, I think it's fair to put "Law Clerk." If you don't do what the other clerks do but your title is "Volunteer Law Clerk," I wouldn't necessarily call it deceitful to put "Law Clerk." Resume writing and interviewing is really all about stretching the truth as far possible. If you want to call it deceitful, you can call it that, but everyone does that sort of stuff all the time. Putting "Law Clerk" when your title is "Volunteer Law Clerk" yet you do different things than regular law clerks is stretching the truth pretty far, but I'm not sure it's past the point of being unethical.

Asking the judge is obviously the safest bet, but it is the one that risks hemming you in the most. Asking the judge risks him/her saying "you must put 'volunteer.'" Alternatively he/she could also bless you just putting "law clerk." It is a bit risky not to ask since the judge might be upset at what you chose to list. On the other hand, your judge might also might not care if they see that you've already put "law clerk" but could decide to make you put "volunteer" if you ask them advance (i.e. it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission). I'm honestly not sure whether asking the judge in advance is the best course of action or not.

You could also ask prior to the clerkship and let that be your deciding factor if you're truly waffling. If the judge says you have to put "volunteer" then that might make it easier to take the state appellate clerkship and vice versa.

[Anonymous User]

OP/D. ct. clerk here.

Yes, I would think it would be deceitful. If you list "law clerk to Judge McJudge" on your resume, the assumption is that you are "an elbow clerk." The fact that you're not getting paid or not is irrelevant; what is relevant is the experience. And unless you are positive you're being treated the same as other clerks, you need to make clear that you're volunteering. Like it or not, you will be considered to effectively be an intern unless your judge makes it clear that you can say you are clerking for him/her.

Also, as a general rule, if you have any questions about it, you should ask the judge. You asking the question suggests that you're uneasy about it, and you should be.

(different district court clerk)

If you do what the other clerks do, I think it's fair to put "Law Clerk." If you don't do what the other clerks do but your title is "Volunteer Law Clerk," I wouldn't necessarily call it deceitful to put "Law Clerk." Resume writing and interviewing is really all about stretching the truth as far possible. If you want to call it deceitful, you can call it that, but everyone does that sort of stuff all the time. Putting "Law Clerk" when your title is "Volunteer Law Clerk" yet you do different things than regular law clerks is stretching the truth pretty far, but I'm not sure it's past the point of being unethical.

Asking the judge is obviously the safest bet, but it is the one that risks hemming you in the most. Asking the judge risks him/her saying "you must put 'volunteer.'" Alternatively he/she could also bless you just putting "law clerk." It is a bit risky not to ask since the judge might be upset at what you chose to list. On the other hand, your judge might also might not care if they see that you've already put "law clerk" but could decide to make you put "volunteer" if you ask them advance (i.e. it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission). I'm honestly not sure whether asking the judge in advance is the best course of action or not.

You could also ask prior to the clerkship and let that be your deciding factor if you're truly waffling. If the judge says you have to put "volunteer" then that might make it easier to take the state appellate clerkship and vice versa.

OP d. ct. clerk here.

I really can't imagine why or how asking the judge about this could create a problem. It's completely legitimate and a valid concern--for one, you don't want upset the judge in anyway, especially if it's on an ethical matter, so asking for permission seems prudent to me. Then again, I've only worked for extremely nice judges who treat their clerks well, so maybe that's skewed my opinion.

As for whether it's deceitful, I look at it from the potential employer's perspective. If you just list "Law Clerk," it's presumed you're exactly that--a judge's law clerk with all of the attendant responsibilities. But, as I and others have noted, in some chambers, volunteer law clerks are not equal, and it's totally deceitful IMO to not indicate that in some way on your resume. And the honest/best way to indicate it is "Volunteer Law Clerk," because either an employer will know what that implies or they'll want to ask to make sure. You don't need to say "Volunteer Law Clerk - responsible only for the mundane shit the main clerks don't want to do." But you at least need to somehow explain the difference in your position.

[Anonymous User]

OP d. ct. clerk here.

I really can't imagine why or how asking the judge about this could create a problem. It's completely legitimate and a valid concern--for one, you don't want upset the judge in anyway, especially if it's on an ethical matter, so asking for permission seems prudent to me. Then again, I've only worked for extremely nice judges who treat their clerks well, so maybe that's skewed my opinion.

As for whether it's deceitful, I look at it from the potential employer's perspective. If you just list "Law Clerk," it's presumed you're exactly that--a judge's law clerk with all of the attendant responsibilities. But, as I and others have noted, in some chambers, volunteer law clerks are not equal, and it's totally deceitful IMO to not indicate that in some way on your resume. And the honest/best way to indicate it is "Volunteer Law Clerk," because either an employer will know what that implies or they'll want to ask to make sure. You don't need to say "Volunteer Law Clerk - responsible only for the mundane shit the main clerks don't want to do." But you at least need to somehow explain the difference in your position.

Asking the judge creates a "problem" in the sense that he/she might require you to put "volunteer." Obviously you don't want to upset the judge but my point is that the judge might be more likely to condone it after the fact than condone it when asked upfront. I may be in the minority but my opinion is that these kinds of post-JD unpaid jobs (aka not the kind that people routinely get fellowships to cover the lack of pay) generally exist to take advantage of desperate grads. I get that the work of the federal judiciary is not supported well enough. But if you ask me whether more JDs need jobs or the judiciary needs more employees, I'm going to side with the JDs every day of the week. Maybe the judge is nice, but without knowing anything more than that I start with a negative opinion of him/her purely based on the fact that he/she offers an unpaid law clerk position.

In regards to your second point, plenty of people in all types of industries have bullshit titles that make them seem more important than they really are or make it seem like they do something that they really don't. Is this an ethical gray area? It sure is, but what many people say/do in job applications and in interviews is often no different than an unpaid law clerk obscuring the fact that the position was unpaid (eg portray their work experience in a way that makes it seem different than reality even though technically they are not lying).

[Anonymous User]

OP d. ct. clerk here.

I really can't imagine why or how asking the judge about this could create a problem. It's completely legitimate and a valid concern--for one, you don't want upset the judge in anyway, especially if it's on an ethical matter, so asking for permission seems prudent to me. Then again, I've only worked for extremely nice judges who treat their clerks well, so maybe that's skewed my opinion.

As for whether it's deceitful, I look at it from the potential employer's perspective. If you just list "Law Clerk," it's presumed you're exactly that--a judge's law clerk with all of the attendant responsibilities. But, as I and others have noted, in some chambers, volunteer law clerks are not equal, and it's totally deceitful IMO to not indicate that in some way on your resume. And the honest/best way to indicate it is "Volunteer Law Clerk," because either an employer will know what that implies or they'll want to ask to make sure. You don't need to say "Volunteer Law Clerk - responsible only for the mundane shit the main clerks don't want to do." But you at least need to somehow explain the difference in your position.

Asking the judge creates a "problem" in the sense that he/she might require you to put "volunteer." Obviously you don't want to upset the judge but my point is that the judge might be more likely to condone it after the fact than condone it when asked upfront. I may be in the minority but my opinion is that these kinds of post-JD unpaid jobs (aka not the kind that people routinely get fellowships to cover the lack of pay) generally exist to take advantage of desperate grads. I get that the work of the federal judiciary is not supported well enough. But if you ask me whether more JDs need jobs or the judiciary needs more employees, I'm going to side with the JDs every day of the week. Maybe the judge is nice, but without knowing anything more than that I start with a negative opinion of him/her purely based on the fact that he/she offers an unpaid law clerk position.

In regards to your second point, plenty of people in all types of industries have bullshit titles that make them seem more important than they really are or make it seem like they do something that they really don't. Is this an ethical gray area? It sure is, but what many people say/do in job applications and in interviews is often no different than an unpaid law clerk obscuring the fact that the position was unpaid (eg portray their work experience in a way that makes it seem different than reality even though technically they are not lying).

I understand what you're saying and agree to an extent. There are certainly judges exploiting the glut of un/underemployed JDs, and I do not condone that. But there are also hundreds, if not thousands, of JDs who can't find ANY meaningful work, paid or unpaid. Some courts are so understaffed and some JDs so desperate that hiring an unpaid clerk is a win-win for everyone involved. While working for free is never ideal, it beats sitting around doing nothing by a mile. And I think working for free for a federal judge can be and often is better experience than working for peanuts for some shitfirm or solo, so the fact that it's unpaid is not dispositive.

W/r/t the second point, I think there is a distinction between, say, a CVS cashier putting "Sales Associate" on his/her resume and an unpaid volunteer at a fed court saying he/she is a "Law Clerk" when all he/she is doing is handling 2255s, adopting F&Rs, admin orders, etc. IMO, the former is puffery and the latter is deceitful.

And, more importantly, I stand by my opinion that you should never put anything on your resume that blurs the line in a way that can bite you in the ass. This is especially true for JDs/lawyers because of the legal profession's emphasis on candor. Not saying you're a volunteer, without the judge's explicit permission, could definitely get you in trouble. It just doesn't seem to be worth it to me.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Re: offering a pro bono clerkship - I think a lot of judges will agree to take on a free/volunteer clerk if the student or school gets in touch with them to ask if they'd be willing. In fact, I'd bet it's more common that a student/school sets it up than that a judge actively seeks out volunteers. Obviously some judges do, but I don't think most judges are trying to exploit unemployed JDs. So I wouldn't necessarily base my decision how to represent the position on that issue.

But then, I haven't come across volunteer law clerks who did any different work from the term clerks, so clearly it varies a lot by location.

[Anonymous User]

I understand what you're saying and agree to an extent. There are certainly judges exploiting the glut of un/underemployed JDs, and I do not condone that. But there are also hundreds, if not thousands, of JDs who can't find ANY meaningful work, paid or unpaid. Some courts are so understaffed and some JDs so desperate that hiring an unpaid clerk is a win-win for everyone involved. While working for free is never ideal, it beats sitting around doing nothing by a mile. And I think working for free for a federal judge can be and often is better experience than working for peanuts for some shitfirm or solo, so the fact that it's unpaid is not dispositive.

W/r/t the second point, I think there is a distinction between, say, a CVS cashier putting "Sales Associate" on his/her resume and an unpaid volunteer at a fed court saying he/she is a "Law Clerk" when all he/she is doing is handling 2255s, adopting F&Rs, admin orders, etc. IMO, the former is puffery and the latter is deceitful.

And, more importantly, I stand by my opinion that you should never put anything on your resume that blurs the line in a way that can bite you in the ass. This is especially true for JDs/lawyers because of the legal profession's emphasis on candor. Not saying you're a volunteer, without the judge's explicit permission, could definitely get you in trouble. It just doesn't seem to be worth it to me.

I've never noted that any of my unpaid internships were unpaid. I just list them as intern/extern/etc and have them mixed with my other paid experiences. Of course that is a bit different since there are different presumptions that people apply to "law clerk" and "intern," but it still obscures the truth in some way. My inclination is that it is merely a difference of degree but your position (which is definitely reasonable) is that the degree difference is so large that it is a difference of kind.

I agree that lopping off the word "volunteer" without the judge's knowledge is definitely risky, but with the legal market the way it is, sometimes risks are worth taking. As full on district court clerks, you and I are likely operating in a much different world in terms of job prospects (at least for the moment) than people who are debating whether they should take an unpaid district court clerkship. For people in that position, I think it can make sense to stretch the truth and take more risks than you might if your immediate career prospects were fine. In the end I don't really disagree with what you're saying, I just think the line is in a different place and that one's circumstances can dictate how close to get to that line.

[BVest]

I don't normally advocate having a description for what you do in a clerkship (I'm of the CW that a clerkship is self-descriptive) but this might be a case you would want one so as to include your volunteer status but not in the job title itself.

[Anonymous User]

I have a few thoughts on unpaid clerkships. I know one person who's not a US citizen and thus can't be paid for her clerkship under federal law; she seems happy with her clerkship so far, and I don't think her judge treats her any differently from her paid co-clerk.

Also, one of the district judges I interviewed with specifically told me that in addition to the two clerks he is allocated, he likes to hire a third clerk without pay. He asked me whether I would be interested in that position, and said that an answer of "no" would not adversely impact my consideration for a paid position. I specifically asked him if the duties are the same, whether I could put the same line on my resume, etc., and he was very clear that other than the payment he considered the unpaid clerk no different than any of his other clerks.

So I think it depends on the judge. (None of the people I'm referring to are in D.Md., by the way.)

If faced with this decision I would ask the district judge's chambers what exactly the clerkship entailed. Would you get assigned a similar chunk of the docket to the other clerks? What would the judge expect you to put on your resume, and what would your actual role in chambers be?