Top Law Schools

Hey everyone,

I think clerking would be a great opportunity and I'm starting to get my applications in order for 2017 spots. My law school performance puts me in the running for most State Supreme and Federal District courts, but I'm having trouble deciding which would be "better" to go after. I'm interested in litigation and have a 2L SA lined up in NYC so I have a solid fallback. So, considering any advantage clerkships might give in finding government or competitive PI work a few years down the line, is there a clear advantage to one over the other? The OCS adviser at my school seemed in a hurry and simply told me "both are good." I didn't find that too helpful, so I turn to you. Or is that really what it comes down to?

Odd background note: I'd like to try living in Texas, but I struck out in my TX interviews at OCI (presumably due to lack of ties + avoidance of Houston). Ideally, I'd get a clerkship there to try it out, and take a second crack at finding a firm/gov/PI job there afterward if I like it. Second choice would be near my family in the northeast.

Thanks in advance!

For litigation experience it doesn't get much better than a Fed. district court.

Companion Cube wrote:For litigation experience it doesn't get much better than a Fed. district court.

Yeah, this is pretty much correct. SSC is also good experience, and I think it can be a great way to break into a specific market where you don't have ties (assuming the SSC doesn't also want ties), but it's not quite as portable in that you will be learning an awful lot about one state's law (even though federal districts/circuits are different, I think federal transfers across jdx a bit more). SSC is also great if you want to think deeply about legal issues and improve your writing. For down and dirty litigation experience, though, federal district is more helpful. (I think it's also much more helpful if you want to work for the feds at some point down the line.)

No contest between the two for one interested in civil litigation = take the Federal District Court clerkship position because it is a trial, as opposed to appellate, court.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

Companion Cube wrote:For litigation experience it doesn't get much better than a Fed. district court.

Yeah, this is pretty much correct. SSC is also good experience, and I think it can be a great way to break into a specific market where you don't have ties (assuming the SSC doesn't also want ties), but it's not quite as portable in that you will be learning an awful lot about one state's law (even though federal districts/circuits are different, I think federal transfers across jdx a bit more). SSC is also great if you want to think deeply about legal issues and improve your writing. For down and dirty litigation experience, though, federal district is more helpful. (I think it's also much more helpful if you want to work for the feds at some point down the line.)

Yeah, I'd only take SSC over a D. ct. if I was 90+% sure I wanted to be in that state and was either targeting state gvmt jobs or an appellate lit career. They're both great experiences tho and I'd imagine dealing with issues of first impression and collaborating with other justices and their clerks could be a lot of fun.

los blancos wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

Companion Cube wrote:For litigation experience it doesn't get much better than a Fed. district court.

Yeah, this is pretty much correct. SSC is also good experience, and I think it can be a great way to break into a specific market where you don't have ties (assuming the SSC doesn't also want ties), but it's not quite as portable in that you will be learning an awful lot about one state's law (even though federal districts/circuits are different, I think federal transfers across jdx a bit more). SSC is also great if you want to think deeply about legal issues and improve your writing. For down and dirty litigation experience, though, federal district is more helpful. (I think it's also much more helpful if you want to work for the feds at some point down the line.)

Yeah, I'd only take SSC over a D. ct. if I was 90+% sure I wanted to be in that state and was either targeting state gvmt jobs or an appellate lit career. They're both great experiences tho and I'd imagine dealing with issues of first impression and collaborating with other justices and their clerks could be a lot of fun.

What y'all are saying makes sense. I do like the idea of appellate litigation, but I'm also not sure about staying the state long-term. I guess I could try for D.Ct. first and see what happens. I suppose it would be possible to do both if I really I wanted to/had the credentials?

robotrick wrote:

los blancos wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

Companion Cube wrote:For litigation experience it doesn't get much better than a Fed. district court.

Yeah, this is pretty much correct. SSC is also good experience, and I think it can be a great way to break into a specific market where you don't have ties (assuming the SSC doesn't also want ties), but it's not quite as portable in that you will be learning an awful lot about one state's law (even though federal districts/circuits are different, I think federal transfers across jdx a bit more). SSC is also great if you want to think deeply about legal issues and improve your writing. For down and dirty litigation experience, though, federal district is more helpful. (I think it's also much more helpful if you want to work for the feds at some point down the line.)

Yeah, I'd only take SSC over a D. ct. if I was 90+% sure I wanted to be in that state and was either targeting state gvmt jobs or an appellate lit career. They're both great experiences tho and I'd imagine dealing with issues of first impression and collaborating with other justices and their clerks could be a lot of fun.

What y'all are saying makes sense. I do like the idea of appellate litigation, but I'm also not sure about staying the state long-term. I guess I could try for D.Ct. first and see what happens. I suppose it would be possible to do both if I really I wanted to/had the credentials?

A common two-clerkship path is d. Ct to circuit court. That's the way I'd try to go, personally.

Some people combine SSC & D.Ct. clerkships as well.

robotrick wrote: What y'all are saying makes sense. I do like the idea of appellate litigation, but I'm also not sure about staying the state long-term. I guess I could try for D.Ct. first and see what happens. I suppose it would be possible to do both if I really I wanted to/had the credentials?

Staying in the state long-term doesn't matter so much as long as you want to be there for a few years. What is more important for leaving is the job you get after. You might as well apply to both if you are interested in both.

If your State Supremes are elected, there's no better connections . . .