Top Law Schools

Greetings, TLS.

Which is more prestigious- clerking for a SSC or for a fed Magistrate? Both are in an east coast state in which I'd like to practice. Some on this board argue that fed always > state, but It seems like the work will be more challenging and significant at the SSC. Also, it appears that most big firms offer clerkship bonuses to SSC clerks, while few (if any) make such offers to Magistrate clerks. Still, the Magistrate gig seems like it would be fun.

Thanks for your help.

SSC is probably more "prestigious," to the extent that means anything. Which one will be more useful likely depends on what your career goals are.

I think many would argue that Art. III clerkships, i.e. not magistrates, are generally more "prestigious" that SSC clerkships (w/the exception of maybe CA/MSJC). That said, as the above poster mentioned, it really depends on your career goals. If you're headed to Big Law, the SSC is generally regarded as more prestigious, hence the fact that you'll get a bonus like any other Art. III clerkship. In terms of practicality, I think magistrate clerks get excellent litigation experience with trials, motions, settlement talks, etc. Nonetheless, I think we sometimes underestimate how much state law comes into play even in Big Law, so I think a SSC clerkship can be quite useful particularly if it's in the state you'll be practicing in.

elipad wrote:I think many would argue that Art. III clerkships, i.e. not magistrates, are generally more "prestigious" that SSC clerkships (w/the exception of maybe CA/MSJC). That said, as the above poster mentioned, it really depends on your career goals. If you're headed to Big Law, the SSC is generally regarded as more prestigious, hence the fact that you'll get a bonus like any other Art. III clerkship. In terms of practicality, I think magistrate clerks get excellent litigation experience with trials, motions, settlement talks, etc. Nonetheless, I think we sometimes underestimate how much state law comes into play even in Big Law, so I think a SSC clerkship can be quite useful particularly if it's in the state you'll be practicing in.

Isn't Alaska considered prestigious? A friend mentioned that the other day and I thought he was kidding, but he insisted it's pretty elite.

FrattyBoh wrote:

elipad wrote:I think many would argue that Art. III clerkships, i.e. not magistrates, are generally more "prestigious" that SSC clerkships (w/the exception of maybe CA/MSJC). That said, as the above poster mentioned, it really depends on your career goals. If you're headed to Big Law, the SSC is generally regarded as more prestigious, hence the fact that you'll get a bonus like any other Art. III clerkship. In terms of practicality, I think magistrate clerks get excellent litigation experience with trials, motions, settlement talks, etc. Nonetheless, I think we sometimes underestimate how much state law comes into play even in Big Law, so I think a SSC clerkship can be quite useful particularly if it's in the state you'll be practicing in.

Isn't Alaska considered prestigious? A friend mentioned that the other day and I thought he was kidding, but he insisted it's pretty elite.

What I've heard is that yes, it is, because it has very little established law, so the issues that arise tend to be interesting. Also, there are plenty of people who think spending a year in Alaska would be cool, and there's no local law school from which to draw, so you get a lot of applications. (As I understood it, the justices - or some proportion of them - come down and hire in California rather than making everyone go to Alaska? I could be wrong. Point is more that they have a slightly unusual application process, or did, at least.)

Put prestige aside for a moment. Which sounds more fulfilling: babysitting discovery disputes and grinding through SSA appeals, or deciding important legal issues as a court of last resort? This is not a trick question.

I believe that your focus on prestige might be clouding your judgment. Many lawyers unfairly denigrate the state courts. A SSC gig is almost always a fantastic opportunity, and a number of federal clerks choose to pursue one.

Would be interesting to hear from members of the Alaska Law Review (Duke Law School) if any clerk in Alaska.

If Alaska SSC clerkship is prestigious, it is probably due to the number of first impression issues as well as the lack of a similar jurisdiction from which to draw guidance.

State Supreme Court clerkship is more prestigious & more akin to law school (as it is an appellate practice) than is the more practical, litigation-oriented federal magistrate court.

CanadianWolf wrote:Would be interesting to hear from members of the Alaska Law Review (Duke Law School) if any clerk in Alaska.

What does this mean? I feel like there is an inside reference that I missed.

FrattyBoh wrote:

CanadianWolf wrote:Would be interesting to hear from members of the Alaska Law Review (Duke Law School) if any clerk in Alaska.

What does this mean? I feel like there is an inside reference that I missed.

Duke essentially is the home to the Alaska Law Review as Alaska doesn't have a state flagship. Not really a joke just an obscure fact. I only stumbled upon it after essentially wasting time looking up being a lawyer in Alaska.

2012LawGrad wrote:Put prestige aside for a moment. Which sounds more fulfilling: babysitting discovery disputes and grinding through SSA appeals, or deciding important legal issues as a court of last resort? This is not a trick question.

I believe that your focus on prestige might be clouding your judgment. Many lawyers unfairly denigrate the state courts. A SSC gig is almost always a fantastic opportunity, and a number of federal clerks choose to pursue one.

^not sure this is a great post... even though I agree with the general tenor...

1) what mag clerks do can vary a lot district to district - my impression is there are a lot of places where they don't really handle SSA appeals or habeas petitions, etc.

Oh, and you say "babysitting discovery disputes" like it's a bad thing... sure, it's not as fun in a vacuum as the type of work that SSC clerks often do, but I'd guess that most clerks are headed to firms and working in complex civil lit - and seeing as many [most?] cases settle long before a district judge ever really gets her/his hands on them, and given that discovery is basically the most prominent component of lit these days, i think there's a viable argument that, in the right district and under the right M.J., mag judge clerkships can be the single most valuable lit experience you can get as a clerk. SSCs are great experiences themselves I'm sure, but I'd bet most young lawyers would be better served by clerking for a trial judge, arguably even magistrates (or state ct trial judges, if going to a more state court-heavy practice) over d. ct. judges.

2) tenor of your post is strange to me - if anything i'd guess an SSC is almost always going to be viewed as more preftigious than a magistrate clerkship. don't know - might be local biases coloring perceptions. Have always had the impression that SSCs were a lot more competitive generally, closer to d. ct. judges in selectivity. I might be wrong.

I'd also give OP the benefit of the doubt and assume she/he isn't caring about prestige for its own sake but because unfortunately it has a major place in this profession.


tl;dr - OP it sort of depends a lot on what you want to do. Any interest in appellate work? Go SSC. Know for sure you want to practice in a particular state? Having that SSC on your resume is always going to stick out. Already have the job you want at a place you'll be doing lots of federal civil lit? Mag clerkship might be a more valuable experience and help you hit the ground running.

Babysitting discovery disputes and grinding through SSA appeals... Lol... Could you possibly "denigrate" a federal magistrate clerkship any worse? In the district where I clerked, the magistrate clerks did as much if not more "interesting" and "challenging" work relative to the DC clerks. It all depends on the district and what kind of standing orders they have regarding referrals. Some get to work on a lot of dispositive motions. If that's not "interesting" or "challenging," then I don't know what is.

Also, I don't understand why people think a SSC, by and large, involves cutting edge legal work. In my state, the SC takes very few cases and the cases that they do take rarely involve interesting issues... But hey, if interpreting attorneys fees' statutes gets you going, then by all means...

I mean, the point of the SC is that they take issues of first impression. What kind of work that ends up being can depend on the state and how much established law it has. (My employment law prof, when asked about what jurisdiction we should assume on an exam: "You should presume you're in a jurisdiction with very little settled law. Say... Wyoming.") Mostly it depends on what you'd like to do - a SC clerkship will be focused on figuring out legal issues that haven't yet been decided, on the court's schedule; you can delve pretty deeply that way. A magistrate clerkship is going to be much more nitty gritty and concerned with applying law to the facts in front of you, and getting cases out the door. Both have pluses and minuses in terms of exit options/networking, especially depending on which state/magistrate and where you want to work after.

Which one generally leads to better employment outcomes? We know that the firms don't give bonuses to Mag clerks, and they do for SSC clerks, but what about government? Would SSC clerks also have an easier time getting into state and fed gigs? It would appear that the Mag clerk might have an advantage with federal gigs since it's federal in nature...but who knows.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I mean, the point of the SC is that they take issues of first impression. What kind of work that ends up being can depend on the state and how much established law it has. (My employment law prof, when asked about what jurisdiction we should assume on an exam: "You should presume you're in a jurisdiction with very little settled law. Say... Wyoming.") Mostly it depends on what you'd like to do - a SC clerkship will be focused on figuring out legal issues that haven't yet been decided, on the court's schedule; you can delve pretty deeply that way. A magistrate clerkship is going to be much more nitty gritty and concerned with applying law to the facts in front of you, and getting cases out the door. Both have pluses and minuses in terms of exit options/networking, especially depending on which state/magistrate and where you want to work after.

And wouldn't the writing be more substantive at the SC? Writing full-blown opinions seems to be more challenging than writing Orders. More likely to improve your writing, etc.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

FrattyBoh wrote:

elipad wrote:I think many would argue that Art. III clerkships, i.e. not magistrates, are generally more "prestigious" that SSC clerkships (w/the exception of maybe CA/MSJC). That said, as the above poster mentioned, it really depends on your career goals. If you're headed to Big Law, the SSC is generally regarded as more prestigious, hence the fact that you'll get a bonus like any other Art. III clerkship. In terms of practicality, I think magistrate clerks get excellent litigation experience with trials, motions, settlement talks, etc. Nonetheless, I think we sometimes underestimate how much state law comes into play even in Big Law, so I think a SSC clerkship can be quite useful particularly if it's in the state you'll be practicing in.

Isn't Alaska considered prestigious? A friend mentioned that the other day and I thought he was kidding, but he insisted it's pretty elite.

What I've heard is that yes, it is, because it has very little established law, so the issues that arise tend to be interesting. Also, there are plenty of people who think spending a year in Alaska would be cool, and there's no local law school from which to draw, so you get a lot of applications. (As I understood it, the justices - or some proportion of them - come down and hire in California rather than making everyone go to Alaska? I could be wrong. Point is more that they have a slightly unusual application process, or did, at least.)

I know that one Judge came to Ann Arbor to do interviews. I think that they do interviews at a number of law schools around the country.