Top Law Schools

Just thinking a few years down the road.

How many years in private practice is "too many," when you can't (or shouldn't bother) applying for clerkships? Does that number change if you're applying to district vs. circuit courts?

How much do grades come into receiving an alumni clerkship? Must you have had the grades in law school, and you just chose not to clerk? If there's leeway, how much?

It varies widely from judge to judge. Some don't care (i.e., they'll be happy to take a ten year plus lawyer), some prefer five years or less, some really only want someone who has been out a couple of years. My general sense is that district court judges tend to be more receptive to alumni, especially the ones who have been out a while. I think a lot of that is that they aren't as able to attract super elite candidates (top grades from a top school), and if they can't get the tip top best, they'd prefer to have people with experience.

My judge (alum only) generally required good-but-not-great grades from a T14 (top third or so), very good grades from the big public institutions in the region (top 10% or so), and top-of-the-class grades from the T2 nearby schools (maybe top five students or so).

Does "alumni clerking" mean getting a clerkship with a judge you externed with?

In this context, it means applying to clerk after you've already been out practicing rather than as a 2L or 3L.

(I certainly understand the confusion though. It could very well mean what it does mean here, or what you read it to mean, or possible even judges who only take their alma mater, though I'd think that last reading of it would be a little bit of a stretch).

And for the record, there are some judges who won't hire their former interns. Others like to hire their former interns, and some don't have a policy either way, but it's worth keeping in mind.

I'm not sure if they all do, but I've encountered a number of judges who don't hire former interns who give fair warning of that on their internship job posting.

BVest wrote:I'm not sure if they all do, but I've encountered a number of judges who don't hire former interns who give fair warning of that on their internship job posting.

Good to know. I haven't actually seen that, ever (although the judges may make it clear in the interview or something).

BVest wrote:In this context, it means applying to clerk after you've already been out practicing rather than as a 2L or 3L.

(I certainly understand the confusion though. It could very well mean what it does mean here, or what you read it to mean, or possible even judges who only take their alma mater, though I'd think that last reading of it would be a little bit of a stretch).

Yes, I meant it as a thread regarding clerking after a few years working as a lawyer, rather than right after law school. I'm happy with the firm I'm going to, but if I was going to make a switch after a few years, it seems that clerking would be a good way to transition. I was curious whether anyone had info or thoughts as to when "a few years" becomes "too many years."

gregfootball2001 wrote:

BVest wrote:In this context, it means applying to clerk after you've already been out practicing rather than as a 2L or 3L.

(I certainly understand the confusion though. It could very well mean what it does mean here, or what you read it to mean, or possible even judges who only take their alma mater, though I'd think that last reading of it would be a little bit of a stretch).

Yes, I meant it as a thread regarding clerking after a few years working as a lawyer, rather than right after law school. I'm happy with the firm I'm going to, but if I was going to make a switch after a few years, it seems that clerking would be a good way to transition. I was curious whether anyone had info or thoughts as to when "a few years" becomes "too many years."

It probably varies by judge. I've spoken to a few knowledgeable folks and I've heard that to the extent a judge hires alumni if you're 4 or 5 years out you are probably fine. There's a thread in legal employment that mentions a guy (and links to his bio - which seems creepy to me) who clerked COA as an 8th year or something so that's a data point for you.

I am currently a biglaw associate who spoke to folks at my firm who alumni clerked and they agreed that within 5 years you are good but questioned whether or not it would be worth leaving. It seems that the value of a clerkship, as far as developing substantive litigation skills, decreases over time and the sort of stuff you should be getting better at as let's say a 5th or 6th year at a firm is more like managing junior associates as opposed to drafting bench memos. Just food for thought.