Am I forever and always out of the running for a clerkship? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I have slightly below median grades from UVA and am going into a pretty specialized transactional practice at a biglaw firm in a secondary market. Despite this, I've always thought it would be a great experience to clerk sometime down the line. So, putting aside whether it'd be a rational career move at all for me at all in a few years (read: probably not), would I even be in the running for any kind of federal or SSC clerkship with my meh law school performance and practice trajectory?

[rpupkin]

I have slightly below median grades from UVA and am going into a pretty specialized transactional practice at a biglaw firm in a secondary market. Despite this, I've always thought it would be a great experience to clerk sometime down the line. So, putting aside whether it'd be a rational career move at all for me at all in a few years (read: probably not), would I even be in the running for any kind of federal or SSC clerkship with my meh law school performance and practice trajectory?

Not really, no. The answer would be different if you were headed into lit.

[grand inquisitor]

it will be really hard--I think the combo of lower grades and transactional practice is going to cause a lot of people to place your resume in the "this one doesn't get to the judge" pile

[los blancos]

I have slightly below median grades from UVA and am going into a pretty specialized transactional practice at a biglaw firm in a secondary market. Despite this, I've always thought it would be a great experience to clerk sometime down the line. So, putting aside whether it'd be a rational career move at all for me at all in a few years (read: probably not), would I even be in the running for any kind of federal or SSC clerkship with my meh law school performance and practice trajectory?

Not really, no. The answer would be different if you were headed into lit.

Agree on both counts.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I mostly agree with everyone else. The one exception is if you can find an in - like, someone from your firm can hook you up with their former boss or something; I think the right connection could trump a lot. But I think that's likely to be a very long shot.

[NYU2009]

The people saying you have no chance don't know what they're talking about. I helped with hiring for my federal judge for multiple years, and had many peers and colleagues who did the same and we talked about the process together. Every judge is different. Some don't care about grades. Some care about grades for only some subset of classes. Even in SDNY or similarly competitive jurisdictions (to say nothing of less competitive ones), there are federal judges who will interview and hire you if you happen to fit their random criteria. This is doubly true of state supreme courts.

Are the chances lower with lower grades? Of course. But you knew that. Are the chances 0%? Not even close. The claim that transactional experience hurts you is especially dubious. It's as likely to be an advantage as a disadvantage.

[rpupkin]

The people saying you have no chance don't know what they're talking about.

The claim that transactional experience hurts you is especially dubious. It's as likely to be an advantage as a disadvantage.

Wow.

[NYU2009]

Forgive me if I sounded overly harsh. I get frustrated at how much incorrect conventional wisdom floats through the law school message boards.

The core truth is that judges hire who they want and they want different things.

For the sample I know well enough to say (maybe a dozen or so district judges in SDNY, DNJ, EDPA, and D.C.), what they want is someone with the demonstrated intelligence, maturity, and judgment to do the job well and who they can work closely with without personality conflicts. They all have different heuristics for that stuff. Grades are a common one, but not an exclusive one. Litigation background is not something they commonly seek. A couple of years in litigation isn't better training for those things than a couple of years of transactional work. On the contrary, of the two, the attorney in transactional work is likelier to have done more work requiring intelligence, maturity, and judgment (and not just doc review!).

[grand inquisitor]

this guy is an idiot, op. it'll be an uphill battle, but miracles happen so if you really wanna do it just apply broadly.

[los blancos]

. A couple of years in litigation isn't better training for those things than a couple of years of transactional work. On the contrary, of the two, the attorney in transactional work is likelier to have done more work requiring intelligence, maturity, and judgment (and not just doc review!).

wat

[NYU2009]

Yeah yeah. OP: ask these guys how many hiring processes they've seen from inside chambers. They're probably just recycling the same bullshit conventional wisdom someone else told them.

[rpupkin]

Yeah yeah. OP: ask these guys how many hiring processes they've seen from inside chambers. They're probably just recycling the same bullshit conventional wisdom someone else told them.

I clerked. I seriously doubt that you did.

By way of example, I belong to two law-school alumni lists where folks circulate last-minute clerkship opportunities for alumni (e.g., because a new judge was confirmed, because an incoming clerk had to unexpectedly delay for a year). Over the past three years, there were seventeen emails to the lists about open clerkship spots. In every single one, the solicitation asked for applicants with litigation experience. Every. Single. One. Not all the postings mentioned grades or law review, but they all mentioned experience in litigation.

NYU2009, I think you are likely making some things up. If not, your personal experience is very unrepresentative and misleading.

[NYU2009]

In every single one, the solicitation asked for applicants with litigation experience. Every. Single. One. Not all the postings mentioned grades or law review, but they all mentioned experience in litigation.

Baloney.

NYU2009, I think you are likely making some things up. If not, your personal experience is very unrepresentative and misleading.

[/quote]

You're probably just misreading me. All I'm saying is that it's flat wrong to say OP is "forever and always out of the running," because hiring is not as mechanical as most law students make it out to be. I'm not saying his odds are good. Just not zero. In the real world, things like social connections matter. It is perfectly plausible for him to go work for a partner who is close to a judge who also went to his undergrad, and that judge happens to like duck hunting and he lists duck hunting, and he gets an interview and knocks it out of the park (or whatever, that's just an example). That's how probably 5-10% of hires work out in the real world.

[rpupkin]

You're probably just misreading me. All I'm saying is that it's flat wrong to say OP is "forever and always out of the running," because hiring is not as mechanical as most law students make it out to be.

I don't think I'm misreading you. You wrote this:

Litigation background is not something they commonly seek. A couple of years in litigation isn't better training for those things than a couple of years of transactional work. On the contrary, of the two, the attorney in transactional work is likelier to have done more work requiring intelligence, maturity, and judgment (and not just doc review!).

If your judge actually believes the above (which I seriously doubt), it is not representative of how the vast majority of judges think. Frankly, the above reads like it was written by someone who has never practiced law and who is imagining how clerkship hiring works.

No one is saying that it would be literally impossible for the OP to get a clerkship. It's just very unlikely.

[NYU2009]

Here's a simple exercise, OP. You can believe I'm just a broom in a horse costume and that rpupkin here is John Roberts himself. But go look at OSCAR (if you have an account) and see what actual judges have to say about who they hire.

Despite the bellyaching, I think we basically agree that the odds are low but not zero. Not much more you need to know than that.

[Anonymous User]

None of these things individually put you out of the running, but it's going to be hard to look at your application and conclude that your reasons for clerking make sense or that you bring something valuable to the table that other clerks don't. Conversely, at least some judges will conclude (based on your grades and lack of litigation experience) that you lack the basic skills necessary to do the job with a minimum of hand-holding.

Source: I clerked for (and reviewed hundreds of applications to clerk for) a federal judge.

[rpupkin]

Here's a simple exercise, OP. You can believe I'm just a broom in a horse costume law student and that rpupkin here is John Roberts himself a lawyer and former clerk.

[jbagelboy]

The core truth is that judges hire who they want and they want different things.

For the sample I know well enough to say (maybe a dozen or so district judges in SDNY, DNJ, EDPA, and D.C.), what they want is someone with the demonstrated intelligence, maturity, and judgment to do the job well and who they can work closely with without personality conflicts. They all have different heuristics for that stuff. Grades are a common one, but not an exclusive one.

the reality, unfortunate as it may be, is that in those districts, and especially in SDNY and DDC, judges won't even ever look at the resume or writing sample or cover letter if their clerks can't pre-screen the transcript as an acceptable candidate.** So this whole transactional versus litigation debate isn't even particularly relevant yet. sure, it's quite true that different judges look for different things in candidates, but only the candidates whose applications they ever actually see. I don't know a single judge who takes a first crack at the OSCAR/mail applications; in every competitive district and circuit, clerks make a rough calculation of the student's GPA (a glance can be enough if its strong) before reading any of the supplementary materials or passing the applicant profile on to the judge. I've seen so many cover letters go unread in the stacks and stacks of applications an SDNY or EDNY judge will receive for a single open position. A below median student at UVA just won't have their application read in those districts unless the judge specifically told their clerks to pull applications with a very specific quality, which is rare. This mysterious land of chambers that are reading applications from under-qualified candidates to search for whether they played the baritone in high school band or write beautiful haiku's (or practice as a transactional attorney), it's just not real.

there are other district courts, especially in the southeast, where a UVA student with middling grades might get a full read from a clerk. but you have to be geographically and temporally flexible.

**the exception being if a recommender regularly advises the judge on potential clerks and pushed hard for the student

[rpupkin]

The core truth is that judges hire who they want and they want different things.

For the sample I know well enough to say (maybe a dozen or so district judges in SDNY, DNJ, EDPA, and D.C.), what they want is someone with the demonstrated intelligence, maturity, and judgment to do the job well and who they can work closely with without personality conflicts. They all have different heuristics for that stuff. Grades are a common one, but not an exclusive one.

the reality, unfortunate as it may be, is that in those districts, and especially in SDNY and DDC, judges won't even ever look at the resume or writing sample or cover letter if their clerks can't pre-screen the transcript as an acceptable candidate.** So this whole transactional versus litigation debate isn't even particularly relevant yet.

It actually is relevant, though, because the OP's plan is to get a clerkship through a non-traditional path: he wants to work for several years first and then apply. When those types of applicants land clerkships, it's usually not through the typical apply-to-oscar-and-then-get-screened-by-the-clerks process. As Nony suggests, those candidates get noticed when someone who knows the judge personally sends application materials--along with a strong recommendation--directly to the judge. But for (what I thought were) obvious reasons, those "heavy work experience" candidates almost always come from litigation backgrounds.

[jbagelboy]

The core truth is that judges hire who they want and they want different things.

For the sample I know well enough to say (maybe a dozen or so district judges in SDNY, DNJ, EDPA, and D.C.), what they want is someone with the demonstrated intelligence, maturity, and judgment to do the job well and who they can work closely with without personality conflicts. They all have different heuristics for that stuff. Grades are a common one, but not an exclusive one.

the reality, unfortunate as it may be, is that in those districts, and especially in SDNY and DDC, judges won't even ever look at the resume or writing sample or cover letter if their clerks can't pre-screen the transcript as an acceptable candidate.** So this whole transactional versus litigation debate isn't even particularly relevant yet.

It actually is relevant, though, because the OP's plan is to get a clerkship through a non-traditional path: he wants to work for several years first and then apply. When those types of applicants land clerkships, it's usually not through the typical apply-to-oscar-and-then-get-screened-by-the-clerks process. As Nony suggests, those candidates get noticed when someone who knows the judge personally sends application materials--along with a strong recommendation--directly to the judge. But for (what I thought were) obvious reasons, those "heavy work experience" candidates almost always come from litigation backgrounds.

well you obviously know better than me; I just think if we're talking about certain districts its a non-starter to debate the secondary qualifications when the applicant hasn't shown they have either 1) the grades or 2) the connection/recommendation that they would need for their materials to get a second look

I agree, of course, that working as a litigator, you're far more likely to develop the sort of contacts that would be helpful in securing a federal clerkship.

[rpupkin]

The core truth is that judges hire who they want and they want different things.

For the sample I know well enough to say (maybe a dozen or so district judges in SDNY, DNJ, EDPA, and D.C.), what they want is someone with the demonstrated intelligence, maturity, and judgment to do the job well and who they can work closely with without personality conflicts. They all have different heuristics for that stuff. Grades are a common one, but not an exclusive one.

the reality, unfortunate as it may be, is that in those districts, and especially in SDNY and DDC, judges won't even ever look at the resume or writing sample or cover letter if their clerks can't pre-screen the transcript as an acceptable candidate.** So this whole transactional versus litigation debate isn't even particularly relevant yet.

It actually is relevant, though, because the OP's plan is to get a clerkship through a non-traditional path: he wants to work for several years first and then apply. When those types of applicants land clerkships, it's usually not through the typical apply-to-oscar-and-then-get-screened-by-the-clerks process. As Nony suggests, those candidates get noticed when someone who knows the judge personally sends application materials--along with a strong recommendation--directly to the judge. But for (what I thought were) obvious reasons, those "heavy work experience" candidates almost always come from litigation backgrounds.

well you obviously know better than me; I just think if we're talking about certain districts its a non-starter to debate the secondary qualifications when the applicant hasn't shown they have either 1) the grades or 2) the connection/recommendation that they would need for their materials to get a second look

I agree, of course, that working as a litigator, you're far more likely to develop the sort of contacts that would be helpful in securing a federal clerkship.

Yeah, I agree with you about the "certain districts" (like SDNY and DDC) thing. In support of your point, I think there's generally less alumni hiring in those competitive districts. The district court judges there tend to look for a lot of the same things that most COA judges look for: second-year law students with good grades from top schools. An applicant with below-median grades from a non-HYS school is going to have an uphill climb anywhere, but it's especially tough in districts like SDNY and DDC.

[grand inquisitor]

also clerked, more laconic than rpupkin, but I can tell you honestly that I would never have let your resume get to my judge, op.

[Anonymous User]

I've interned and clerked for a total of 7 judges, state and federal, trial and appellate. When I was an intern, I asked about their hiring criteria. When clerking, I was part of the hiring decision for 4 different clerks.

Every single judge I've worked for hires exclusively people who are exclusively litigation-oriented. There is a simple, obvious reason for this: clerking requires litigation skills, and only litigation skills. My judge won't even consider someone without at least 2 years of clerking or solid litigation practice. Every single judge and clerk in my court has an exclusively litigation background. To suggest that judges don't care about litigation experience or consider transactional experience to be on the same footing as litigation experience is just plain absurd.

(Okay, maybe there is a judge out there who doesn't care whether his/her clerks have only transactional experience, but I've never heard of any judge like that and I refuse to assume one exists.)

[Anonymous User]

OP here.

Thanks for all the replies. My takeaway is

[bruinfan10]

.