Top Law Schools

The sequence would be 1 year at a firm, state supreme, federal district (major district), CoA.

I would only do the CoA if it was 2/9/DC or feeder. Stats are consistent with ability to achieve this. Thoughts? Would firms not like someone coming to them 4 years out, if 3 were clerkships?

Anonymous User wrote:The sequence would be 1 year at a firm, state supreme, federal district (major district), CoA.

I would only do the CoA if it was 2/9/DC or feeder. Stats are consistent with ability to achieve this. Thoughts? Would firms not like someone coming to them 4 years out, if 3 were clerkships?

You should be fine. But you definitely won't get service credit for all three years. Firms will want you to come in as a third-year or four-year associate.

depends on a whole host of factors. but 3 is viewed as a bit much, in a vacuum, and i don't believe any firm would give you three years of credit. what is the rationale behind doing all three? obviously the SSC is the one to drop, but if you're locked into that one, I think it's wise to think about what kind of litigation you'd like to practice, and pick either federal district or COA. I don't think the benefits of grabbing the credentials outweighs the third year lost, but i think it ultimately depends on subjective goals.

OP here. Locked into SSC, but the judge is very well respected and extremely well connected, including to major CoA feeders. If I'm dropping anything would be the DCt. interview. Want to do it though because the district judge has an excellent track record of placing clerks in major USAOs. After that, the CoA would be for the brass ring + shot at SCOTUS.

Edited to add: More than happy to take a 1 year seniority hit, was just wondering about if I'd have trouble with standard NYC firms and also Kellogg Huber, W&C etc.

Anonymous User wrote:OP here. Locked into SSC, but the judge is very well respected and extremely well connected, including to major CoA feeders. If I'm dropping anything would be the DCt. interview. Want to do it though because the district judge has an excellent track record of placing clerks in major USAOs. After that, the CoA would be for the brass ring + shot at SCOTUS.

Edited to add: More than happy to take a 1 year seniority hit, was just wondering about if I'd have trouble with standard NYC firms and also Kellogg Huber, W&C etc.

You might take a 2-year seniority hit.

I think you'd be fine with Kellogg Huber and W&C. Don't know about the NYC big law sweatshops, but I'm sure at least a few would be interested if you wanted to work there for some reason after your clerkships.

if you're interested in AUSA, it makes sense to do the district court. Just go in eyes wide open: it's a lot of time off, and I don't think the clerkships will really move the needle with w&c or Kellogg either way: if you've summered there, you have an in, and if you haven't, the odds are slim. 2 versus 3 clerkships won't make a difference. But NYC firms will take you, no doubt.

Anonymous User wrote:if you're interested in AUSA, it makes sense to do the district court. Just go in eyes wide open: it's a lot of time off, and I don't think the clerkships will really move the needle with w&c or Kellogg either way: if you've summered there, you have an in, and if you haven't, the odds are slim.

This isn't true.

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:if you're interested in AUSA, it makes sense to do the district court. Just go in eyes wide open: it's a lot of time off, and I don't think the clerkships will really move the needle with w&c or Kellogg either way: if you've summered there, you have an in, and if you haven't, the odds are slim.

This isn't true.

i meant having 2 versus 3 clerkships won't move the needle.

Anonymous User wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:if you're interested in AUSA, it makes sense to do the district court. Just go in eyes wide open: it's a lot of time off, and I don't think the clerkships will really move the needle with w&c or Kellogg either way: if you've summered there, you have an in, and if you haven't, the odds are slim.

This isn't true.

i meant having 2 versus 3 clerkships won't move the needle.

I generally agree with that, though a third clerkship with a "feeder" (which the OP is gunning for) could help.

Anyway, I took issue with your suggestion that having summered at W&C/Kellogg was a significant factor. Those firms have small summer programs. The vast majority of their hired associates are clerks who did not summer at the firm.

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:if you're interested in AUSA, it makes sense to do the district court. Just go in eyes wide open: it's a lot of time off, and I don't think the clerkships will really move the needle with w&c or Kellogg either way: if you've summered there, you have an in, and if you haven't, the odds are slim.

This isn't true.

i meant having 2 versus 3 clerkships won't move the needle.

I generally agree with that, though a third clerkship with a "feeder" (which the OP is gunning for) could help.

Anyway, I took issue with your suggestion that having summered at W&C/Kellogg was a significant factor. Those firms have small summer programs. The vast majority of their hired associates are clerks who did not summer at the firm.

I can't speak for Kellogg as I have not researched them closely, but I don't think its fair to say W&C hires the vast majority of its associates outside the summer program. W&C Is a 250 person firm and takes on a summer class around around 40.

Old but all I could find: https://www.nalpdirectory.com/content/O ... t_4404.pdf

Anonymous User wrote:

rpupkin wrote: Anyway, I took issue with your suggestion that having summered at W&C/Kellogg was a significant factor. Those firms have small summer programs. The vast majority of their hired associates are clerks who did not summer at the firm.

I can't speak for Kellogg as I have not researched them closely, but I don't think its fair to say W&C hires the vast majority of its associates outside the summer program. W&C Is a 250 person firm and takes on a summer class around around 40.

Old but all I could find: https://www.nalpdirectory.com/content/O ... t_4404.pdf

I stand corrected. W&C is more like MTO than I realized.

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:The sequence would be 1 year at a firm, state supreme, federal district (major district), CoA.

I would only do the CoA if it was 2/9/DC or feeder. Stats are consistent with ability to achieve this. Thoughts? Would firms not like someone coming to them 4 years out, if 3 were clerkships?

You should be fine. But you definitely won't get service credit for all three years. Firms will want you to come in as a third-year or four-year associate.

Idk. I'm getting 3 years of credit for my 3 years clerking.

Anonymous User wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:The sequence would be 1 year at a firm, state supreme, federal district (major district), CoA.

I would only do the CoA if it was 2/9/DC or feeder. Stats are consistent with ability to achieve this. Thoughts? Would firms not like someone coming to them 4 years out, if 3 were clerkships?

You should be fine. But you definitely won't get service credit for all three years. Firms will want you to come in as a third-year or four-year associate.

Idk. I'm getting 3 years of credit for my 3 years clerking.

Did you clerk for three years right after school? If so, there are several firms that will give you three years. (Some will, some won't.) But if you work for a year at a firm first, and then do three years of clerking, I'd be surprised if many firms would let you come in as a fifth-year associate.

Why do you want to clerk for so long OP?

It's less glorious once you actually do it. Don't get me wrong: it's been fine and nice and pretty cool in some ways. But I am already ready for my (one-year COA) clerkship to be over. It's not exactly a job that is full of glory. And the financial costs are high -- I wouldn't want to clerk twice more and lose out on two years of biglaw pay. As far as SCOTUS goes, well, let me save you the worry and tell you that unless you have some sweet connections you probably have no chance; the fact that you're not doing feeder COA off the bat pretty much tells me that.

Don't really want to get more specific, but let's just say the SSC judge counts as "sweet connections".

Unless the SSC judge has fed to the Court before (and honestly I'm struggling to recall many examples of this) I'm doubtful. I really don't think structuring life choices with SCOTUS in mind is a good idea unless you've already got feeder COA lined up and are top 1-2% at T14 or top 5% at HYS (or have whatever X factor Thomas or Sotomayor occasionally go for). It's a bloodbath out there.

On an entirely unrelated note I would suggest trying to get an idea from former clerks for the judges you are looking at about the lifestyle of the job. I am lucky in that my COA judge keeps semi-reasonable hours and is generally pretty good to work for. But I know a lot of district courts are more swamped than we are (friend's hours look like 8 AM to 6 PM, then two more hours from home M-F, plus a little bit on weekends = adds to 65ish hours of week at least). Some other COA clerks I know are getting away with 9-5, but on the other hand some are pulling 70+ hour weeks (which, yeah, is maybe what we'll get hit with in Biglaw all the time, but on the other hand at least you get paid for it then). The working patterns of the circuits and different courts vary. I'm constantly grateful that I lucked into the "easy" sort of clerkship that I have. Doing three years of the alternative for crap pay would be torture.

SSC judge has fed previously, and I'm north of top 5% at a T14. I agree SCOTUS chances are still minimal. If it does happen, would be my 4th clerkship, which is entirely excessive, but would be mitigated because SCOTUS.

How frequently has the SSC person fed, and are you sure the SSC was the feeder and not a subsequent COA judge?

Unclear if success is attributable to subsequent CoA judge. Last thing I'll say on this- SSC judge him/herself knows several SCOTUS justices very well.

I would do the 3 clerkships and go for the brass ring

Anonymous User wrote:Why do you want to clerk for so long OP?

It's less glorious once you actually do it. Don't get me wrong: it's been fine and nice and pretty cool in some ways. But I am already ready for my (one-year COA) clerkship to be over. It's not exactly a job that is full of glory. And the financial costs are high -- I wouldn't want to clerk twice more and lose out on two years of biglaw pay. As far as SCOTUS goes, well, let me save you the worry and tell you that unless you have some sweet connections you probably have no chance; the fact that you're not doing feeder COA off the bat pretty much tells me that.

This is flat wrong. I don't think intentionally so, but my guess is that your understanding of the clerkship process doesn't extend to the tier that OP is interested in / qualified for.

There is a significant proportion of SCOTUS clerks who don't get there off-the-bat after a feeder clerkship.

Anonymous User wrote:SSC judge has fed previously

So probably AHE in CO or GL in CA, then. If that's the case case, I say go for it. Clerking for either of them in addition to two federal clerkships is a completely solid move.

(Edited to Google-proof OP a bit)

Torts Illustrated wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:SSC judge has fed previously

So probably AHE in CO or GL in CA, then. If that's the case case, I say go for it. Clerking for either of them in addition to two federal clerkships is a completely solid move.

(Edited to Google-proof OP a bit)

I can think of a candidate too but why would I name it?

DELG wrote:

Torts Illustrated wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:SSC judge has fed previously

So probably AHE in CO or GL in CA, then. If that's the case case, I say go for it. Clerking for either of them in addition to two federal clerkships is a completely solid move.

(Edited to Google-proof OP a bit)

I can think of a candidate too but why would I name it?

There's at least 2-3 others that could match that description.

DELG wrote:

Torts Illustrated wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:SSC judge has fed previously

So probably AHE in CO or GL in CA, then. If that's the case case, I say go for it. Clerking for either of them in addition to two federal clerkships is a completely solid move.

(Edited to Google-proof OP a bit)

I can think of a candidate too but why would I name it?

What other current state supreme court justices have fed to the Court in the last 10 years? Genuinely asking. I don't know of any.

Not trying to be a tool by guessing who it is, but I think it changes the answer to OP's question. If the question is, "should I clerk for one of those two justices," the answer is yes, period. If the question is, "should I do three clerkships, if one of them is with a random SSC justice," the answer is probably no. If the question is, "should I do three clerkships, if one of them is with a feeder SSC justice not mentioned in this thread" the answer is, I have no idea, because I don't know who that is.

Edit: It looks like there are two answers to the question I asked above: one in Utah, one in Alaska. They seem like they're probably one-offs (especially the Alaska justice), in a way that the other two justices aren't, so I do think OP has a significantly tougher call if it's either of them.