Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=276492
You'd be better served doing something else, but understanding that there really aren't that many good places looking to hire someone they know is leaving a year later to clerk, two district court clerkships wouldn't be the worst thing ever.Anonymous User wrote:I have an offer for a D. Ct. clerkship in a competitive district (SDNY/EDNY/NDCal/DDC) for a year out from graduation. Is it worth it to try for another D. Ct. clerkship in the year between? I think most CoAs are filled for the 2018 term, so it would most likely be another D. Ct. or state court. Career goals are litigation in gov't/public interest/plaintiff side firms.
Agreed. Working in govt/PI/firm would be a much better use of your year. But if you can't make that work for some reason, then another trial-level clerkship is certainly better than doing nothing.lolwat wrote:You'd be better served doing something else, but understanding that there really aren't that many good places looking to hire someone they know is leaving a year later to clerk, two district court clerkships wouldn't be the worst thing ever.Anonymous User wrote:I have an offer for a D. Ct. clerkship in a competitive district (SDNY/EDNY/NDCal/DDC) for a year out from graduation. Is it worth it to try for another D. Ct. clerkship in the year between? I think most CoAs are filled for the 2018 term, so it would most likely be another D. Ct. or state court. Career goals are litigation in gov't/public interest/plaintiff side firms.
As a d ct clerk halfway into a two year term, I can say the work becomes monotonous. Working for another judge will briefly break up the monotony but you'll still be doing the same work (mostly dispositive motions) for two yearsAnonymous User wrote:I have an offer for a D. Ct. clerkship in a competitive district (SDNY/EDNY/NDCal/DDC) for a year out from graduation. Is it worth it to try for another D. Ct. clerkship in the year between? I think most CoAs are filled for the 2018 term, so it would most likely be another D. Ct. or state court. Career goals are litigation in gov't/public interest/plaintiff side firms.
No.FascinatedWanderer wrote:Wouldn't there be some concern of a prestige hit if you decide to clerk for a mag first?
This (but only if you already have a district court/COA clerkship locked). But, I think the only reason I'd ever choose a magistrate clerkship over a second district court clerkship is if the magistrate clerkship is (a) in the same district as the district court clerkship I already had or (b) in the district where I'd want to end up working after the clerkships are over.rpupkin wrote:No.FascinatedWanderer wrote:Wouldn't there be some concern of a prestige hit if you decide to clerk for a mag first?
rpupkin wrote:No.FascinatedWanderer wrote:Wouldn't there be some concern of a prestige hit if you decide to clerk for a mag first?
What reason is there to clerk for a second d ct? If anything clerking twice at the same level raises the question whether you want to practice law or to work as a career clerklolwat wrote:This (but only if you already have a district court/COA clerkship locked). But, I think the only reason I'd ever choose a magistrate clerkship over a second district court clerkship is if the magistrate clerkship is (a) in the same district as the district court clerkship I already had or (b) in the district where I'd want to end up working after the clerkships are over.rpupkin wrote:No.FascinatedWanderer wrote:Wouldn't there be some concern of a prestige hit if you decide to clerk for a mag first?
My public interest/plaintiff-side firm, which has offices in several major cities, semi-routinely hires folks for the gap year between graduation and a clerkship. Feel free to PM if you'd like to discuss--I accepted clerkship with one year gap and had to deal with this situation as a 3L.Anonymous User wrote:I have an offer for a D. Ct. clerkship in a competitive district (SDNY/EDNY/NDCal/DDC) for a year out from graduation. Is it worth it to try for another D. Ct. clerkship in the year between? I think most CoAs are filled for the 2018 term, so it would most likely be another D. Ct. or state court. Career goals are litigation in gov't/public interest/plaintiff side firms.
Not a prestige hit, but there is likely a monetary hit to going this route. I know a lot of biglaw firms wont give class-credit for a magistrate clerkship, and it likely wouldn't bump your ultimate clerkship bonus from $50K to $70K (for firms that typically offer a bump for a second clerkship).FascinatedWanderer wrote:Wouldn't there be some concern of a prestige hit if you decide to clerk for a mag first? I have no basis for this, but my gut check impression would be that it makes the resume less impressive.
In the context of choosing between a second district court clerkship and a magistrate clerkship, I disagree. Getting more of the "same" experience at the district court level: analyzing dispositive motions, drafting opinions, helping your judge at trial, etc.... all of the more "substantive" lawyer work -- is more valuable than clerking for a year at the magistrate level where, depending on the district, you'd likely be either working on subjects which you'd likely never work on as a lawyer, or handling discovery disputes. You can spin a double district court clerkship in several ways (more experience, geographical location, whatever)... but it's harder to justify doing a magistrate clerkship. Just IMO.wwwcol wrote:What reason is there to clerk for a second d ct? If anything clerking twice at the same level raises the question whether you want to practice law or to work as a career clerk
Query whether that additional $20k is routinely applied to a double district court clerkship. I thought the bump is typical for someone who does a district court and a court of appeal. But I don't know.Not a prestige hit, but there is likely a monetary hit to going this route. I know a lot of biglaw firms wont give class-credit for a magistrate clerkship, and it likely wouldn't bump your ultimate clerkship bonus from $50K to $70K (for firms that typically offer a bump for a second clerkship).
The problem is that most firms that offer a bump for a second clerkship also won't give you extra for a second district-court clerkship. You gotta do district court/COA.Barrred wrote:Not a prestige hit, but there is likely a monetary hit to going this route. I know a lot of biglaw firms wont give class-credit for a magistrate clerkship, and it likely wouldn't bump your ultimate clerkship bonus from $50K to $70K (for firms that typically offer a bump for a second clerkship).FascinatedWanderer wrote:Wouldn't there be some concern of a prestige hit if you decide to clerk for a mag first? I have no basis for this, but my gut check impression would be that it makes the resume less impressive.
I hear you. On the other hand, the typical associate spends way more time dealing with "discovery disputes" than doing what you call "substantive" lawyer work. In terms of practical skills/knowledge, a magistrate clerkship strikes me as quite useful for anyone thinking of going into litigation.lolwat wrote:In the context of choosing between a second district court clerkship and a magistrate clerkship, I disagree. Getting more of the "same" experience at the district court level: analyzing dispositive motions, drafting opinions, helping your judge at trial, etc.... all of the more "substantive" lawyer work -- is more valuable than clerking for a year at the magistrate level where, depending on the district, you'd likely be either working on subjects which you'd likely never work on as a lawyer, or handling discovery disputes.wwwcol wrote:What reason is there to clerk for a second d ct? If anything clerking twice at the same level raises the question whether you want to practice law or to work as a career clerk
After you do 20 or 30 12b or rule 56 motions, they all start to look the same. And discovery takes up far more of a trial lawyer's time than drafting motionslolwat wrote:In the context of choosing between a second district court clerkship and a magistrate clerkship, I disagree. Getting more of the "same" experience at the district court level: analyzing dispositive motions, drafting opinions, helping your judge at trial, etc.... all of the more "substantive" lawyer work -- is more valuable than clerking for a year at the magistrate level where, depending on the district, you'd likely be either working on subjects which you'd likely never work on as a lawyer, or handling discovery disputes. You can spin a double district court clerkship in several ways (more experience, geographical location, whatever)... but it's harder to justify doing a magistrate clerkship. Just IMO.wwwcol wrote:What reason is there to clerk for a second d ct? If anything clerking twice at the same level raises the question whether you want to practice law or to work as a career clerk
Query whether that additional $20k is routinely applied to a double district court clerkship. I thought the bump is typical for someone who does a district court and a court of appeal. But I don't know.Not a prestige hit, but there is likely a monetary hit to going this route. I know a lot of biglaw firms wont give class-credit for a magistrate clerkship, and it likely wouldn't bump your ultimate clerkship bonus from $50K to $70K (for firms that typically offer a bump for a second clerkship).
This is important. Further, while the mag. judges where I clerked were given broad duties, I believe that what they are allowed to work on is technically at the discretion of the chief judge of that judicial district, such that magistrate judges in some districts may not even work on discovery matters at all.lolwat wrote:OP might want to do some more research into magistrate clerkships. Discovery disputes are relatively useful, but other aspects of a magistrate clerkship -- social security, 1983, etc. cases -- might really not be.
I'm a DJ clerk and completely agree. I've been here almost two years and don't know the first thing about discovery (well, I did work on an appeal from a MJ discovery order). Not to mention, depending on the district, you might do plenty of stuff DJ clerks do, but on F&R/R&R or consent. But it's critical to find out how the court functions because the way MJs are used varies tremendously. Even more specifically, MJs (like all judges) have widely ranging reputations and expertise, so some get more consent cases than others. For instance, there is one MJ in my court I'd never consent to, and another who I'd probably want over most of the DJs here.rpupkin wrote:I hear you. On the other hand, the typical associate spends way more time dealing with "discovery disputes" than doing what you call "substantive" lawyer work. In terms of practical skills/knowledge, a magistrate clerkship strikes me as quite useful for anyone thinking of going into litigation.lolwat wrote:In the context of choosing between a second district court clerkship and a magistrate clerkship, I disagree. Getting more of the "same" experience at the district court level: analyzing dispositive motions, drafting opinions, helping your judge at trial, etc.... all of the more "substantive" lawyer work -- is more valuable than clerking for a year at the magistrate level where, depending on the district, you'd likely be either working on subjects which you'd likely never work on as a lawyer, or handling discovery disputes.wwwcol wrote:What reason is there to clerk for a second d ct? If anything clerking twice at the same level raises the question whether you want to practice law or to work as a career clerk
Of course it's worth it. Also, what is your alternative? It's a lot easier to fill in a year with a clerkship than to find a job for a year.Anonymous User wrote:I'm in the same position (DC clerkship for 2019, graduate 2018), and have the opportunity to do SSC in 2018. Is that worth it? It's in the same geographical area as my DC clerkship and that's where I want to practice (at least right now). Also not Big Law focused but wouldn't rule out smaller lit shops.
It's absolutely prestige-whoring. SSC on its own isn't guaranteed to get you biglaw in NYC/DC, but then, neither is DCt, if you don't independently have the stats for it. All the SSC clerks I know have had good outcomes, and to the extent state v. federal prestige matters, you're going to have a federal clerkship on your resume as well. It's not like having a tiny-bit-less-prestigious state clerkship will sully/tarnish/diminish the value of your federal clerkship.Anonymous User wrote:Alternative would be some kind of fellowship.
Thanks, I think you're right, but looking at threads on here makes it seem like SSC clerkships are not that valuable/good experiences. Or is that mainly preftige-whoring? SSC judge seems well-regarded (career govt litigator, SCOTUS clerk) but haven't really been able to find out what his former clerks have gone on to do.
If you planned leave the state for NYC big law or something, then the SSC clerkship wouldn't be a particularly valuable credential (though, for the reasons mentioned by others, it might still be worth doing). But you're considering smaller lit shops in the state—which probably do a lot of litigating in state court. A SSC clerkship will be particularly helpful in your case: you'll do an appellate-level clerkship (to compliment your trial-level clerkship), and you'll get exposure to your state's laws (to compliment your exposure to federal laws).Anonymous User wrote:I'm in the same position (DC clerkship for 2019, graduate 2018), and have the opportunity to do SSC in 2018. Is that worth it? It's in the same geographical area as my DC clerkship and that's where I want to practice (at least right now). Also not Big Law focused but wouldn't rule out smaller lit shops.
Thanks, this is all helpful advice. I'm leaning towards doing SSC, but if I do that, would it then make little sense to try for fed COA after the Dist. Ct.? That seems like a whole lot of clerking. I would also be trying to stay in same general area because of family/kids (so D.C./2/3/4). Grades are competitive for 3/4; 2/DC are a little more of a stretch (though Dist. Ct./SSC clerkship is in D.C./2).rpupkin wrote:If you planned leave the state for NYC big law or something, then the SSC clerkship wouldn't be a particularly valuable credential (though, for the reasons mentioned by others, it might still be worth doing). But you're considering smaller lit shops in the state—which probably do a lot of litigating in state court. A SSC clerkship will be particularly helpful in your case: you'll do an appellate-level clerkship (to compliment your trial-level clerkship), and you'll get exposure to your state's laws (to compliment your exposure to federal laws).Anonymous User wrote:I'm in the same position (DC clerkship for 2019, graduate 2018), and have the opportunity to do SSC in 2018. Is that worth it? It's in the same geographical area as my DC clerkship and that's where I want to practice (at least right now). Also not Big Law focused but wouldn't rule out smaller lit shops.
This is a great opportunity for you. It's a perfect way to fill the year between law school and your district-court clerkship.