SSC offer for 17-18, but would have to clerk in trial court for 16-17: worth it? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Title speaks for itself; that is the offer I received. Is it worth taking a year doing a not prestigious state trial court clerkship to have the opportunity to clerk with the CJ of a SSC the year afterwards? Or should i decline and hope for a SSC clerkship for the 16-17 year?

[Nebby]

Yes it's worth it.

[Elston Gunn]

What would you do otherwise? Is the SSC in the state you want to practice?

Assuming you don't have another job lined up, and want to stay in-state, it seems worth it.

[Jchance]

depends on where you go to school and class rank

[Anonymous User]

OP here. My stats are: top 5% of class, LR, lots of internship experiences (federal district court, state court, attorney generals office). I also have an interview with another SSC judge for the 16-17 term coming up. No to sound dramatic, but I've always heard that state trial court clerkships have no prestige value and can hurt your resume. Is this true? Would this be taking a step backwards?

[Anonymous User]

TLS is sometimes an echo chamber that shits on most things outside the fed system. If you want to practice in the state, then state trial + SSC is a pretty good combo. How will the trial court position work? Will you have to apply seperately or will the CJ hook you up with a trial ct position?

[Anonymous User]

OP. The CJ would be basically giving me the state trial court clerkship without having to apply I believe. Has anyone clerked for 2 years, in this fashion (not 2 years for the same judge)? did you get antsy to practice?

[Cogburn87]

I've always heard that state trial court clerkships have no prestige value and can hurt your resume

lol

[A. Nony Mouse]

OP. The CJ would be basically giving me the state trial court clerkship without having to apply I believe. Has anyone clerked for 2 years, in this fashion (not 2 years for the same judge)? did you get antsy to practice?

I clerked for 2 years, different judges. Yes, I got antsy to practice, but it was still a great experience. Your setup sounds like a good deal to me.

[emciosn]

I'm assuming you don't have any other options so the short answer here is yes, take it and don't look back. I had a bit of a similar situation so I will give you a little insight from my experience.

I did two BK clerkships. Anyone who knows anything about BK clerkships knows that there is SDNY/DE (corporate havens) and then there is every other jurisdiction (99% consumer)--this is changing a little bit these days but still mostly holds true. Obviously the SDNY/DE clerkships are considered much more prestigious. Well, my first clerkship was in flyover country (non-prestigious) and my second was SDNY/DE (prestige!). The first clerkship was an extremely useful experience, even if I didn't gain a lot of substantive corporate experience. Just being in court (observing good and bad lawyering) and drilling your writing skills are important no matter where you are. With my second clerkship I got all of that plus the corporate substance and now I am in biglaw so it all worked out (in a manner of speaking...).

During the interview process firms did not care in the slightest that my first clerkship was less "prestigious." Obviously the second clerkship got me in the door but I honestly explained why I took each clerkship (I essentially took the first to make me a more attractive candidate for the second) and firms appreciated why I did what I did. In fact, most were very impressed that I took a long-term, strategic view on my career. I think the combo of the two clerkships ended up making me a more attractive candidate.

I will say that two years of clerking was kind of a grind for me (I was offered both before I even started my first, like OP). It was always sort of a means to an end for me, so perhaps that cast a shadow on my experience. Some people absolutely love clerking. Others find it to be a bit isolating and lacking in excitement. Either way, you'll survive just fine. It's only two years and you will at the very least find your experience to be palatable (and will probably enjoy it quite a bit).

So, I think you should just take the job. Trial courts are less prestigious I suppose but you will get some absolutely fantastic experience. Trial work involves a whole different set of concerns than appellate. Assuming you are interested in litigation, you will probably being doing predominantly trial work (or work leading up to a trial), so the trial clerkship will probably be more valuable from an experience perspective, plus you are getting the prestige bump from the SSC on the tail end. The more I think and write about it, it seems like you are in a great spot with an opportunity to see how things work at both the trial and appellate level.

I grow weary of law students being so prestige obsessed while being blinded to solid opportunities for career development. Firms respond well to applicants who take their professional development seriously and have sought out experiences that will maximize development. I think if you frame the narrative correctly during interviews, doing a trial court and a SSC would be much more powerful and two SSC clerkships or just an SSC clerkship by itself.

Just my $.02. HTH.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for the advice everyone. I think I am going to take the opportunity. It is a big risk to not take it with the hope of landing another SSC clerkship for 2016-2017 (especially when I only have one other interview lined up). CSO may scoff at the lack of prestige because they think I have a good shot at landing a SSC clerkship without having to do a term in the trial court, but it sounds like the trial court clerkship will be good experience nonetheless.

[timmyd]

Its been said already, but as long as the state is the one in which you intend to practice, it seems like a great set up. With top 5% grades from what I'm assuming is a law school in the area you want to work and a SSC clerkship, you should have a strong resume for working in the state.

[emciosn]

Thanks for the advice everyone. I think I am going to take the opportunity. It is a big risk to not take it with the hope of landing another SSC clerkship for 2016-2017 (especially when I only have one other interview lined up). CSO may scoff at the lack of prestige because they think I have a good shot at landing a SSC clerkship without having to do a term in the trial court, but it sounds like the trial court clerkship will be good experience nonetheless.

In my experience CSOs are especially clueless when it comes to clerkship hiring. I think you're making the right choice. Take it and stop fretting. Years down the road I'm sure you will be happy with the decision.

[Anonymous User]

I agree with what was said above. I am in a similar situation. I am doing a state COA clerkship and then a SSC clerkship. If you plan to practice in that state, you will meet many attorneys at the state trial court and will then learn about appellate practice at the SSC. Additionally, the benefits of having a SSC on your resume will be significant in terms of recognition (particularly in the state where you clerk, don't know about others). Also, although it is clear that a district court clerkship is more prestigious (generally) than any state clerkship, I presume the experience you will gain at your state trial court clerkship will comparable because you will deal with motions and discovery on a daily basis. In other words, I do not think you should think of your first clerkship as having little value - it might turn out to be a great learning experience.

I just realized this post is a little old. Did you make a decision?

[Anonymous User]

Hi ,
Sorry for the delayed response....I don't log on here too often during busy semesters.

I ended up accepting the SSC offer for the 17-18 year and the judge let me keep interviewing for the 16-17 year and I, ironically, ended up getting an offer from another judge (same court) for the 16-17 year.

It was not exactly what I had planned to do (2 SSC clerkships in a row), but I made the best decision with what I had at the time. I sometimes have a tinge of regret, as I see my peers doing SSC and then --> Fed. D. Ct., but I probably cannot/ should not renege on the 17-18 offer. Hopefully future employers will not consider it a disability going forward. Regardless, I think it can be easily explained away?

Thank you everyone for the feedback and help!

[Anonymous User]

I agree with what was said above. I am in a similar situation. I am doing a state COA clerkship and then a SSC clerkship. If you plan to practice in that state, you will meet many attorneys at the state trial court and will then learn about appellate practice at the SSC. Additionally, the benefits of having a SSC on your resume will be significant in terms of recognition (particularly in the state where you clerk, don't know about others). Also, although it is clear that a district court clerkship is more prestigious (generally) than any state clerkship, I presume the experience you will gain at your state trial court clerkship will comparable because you will deal with motions and discovery on a daily basis. In other words, I do not think you should think of your first clerkship as having little value - it might turn out to be a great learning experience.

I just realized this post is a little old. Did you make a decision?

Hi ,
Sorry for the delayed response....I don't log on here too often during busy semesters.

I ended up accepting the SSC offer for the 17-18 year and the judge let me keep interviewing for the 16-17 year and I, ironically, ended up getting an offer from another judge (same court) for the 16-17 year.

It was not exactly what I had planned to do (2 SSC clerkships in a row), but I made the best decision with what I had at the time. I sometimes have a tinge of regret, as I see my peers doing SSC and then --> Fed. D. Ct., but I probably cannot/ should not renege on the 17-18 offer. Hopefully future employers will not consider it a disability going forward. Regardless, I think it can be easily explained away?

Thank you everyone for the feedback and help!