Top Law Schools

To preface, assume that an attorney leaves practice to clerk for a couple years, then jumps back into practice at the same firm.

Can someone please explain why spending those two years clerking would be better experience than actually practicing law.

1) most (though not all) people who clerk for 2 years will do 2 different clerkships at different level courts, which are very different experiences
2) it gives you a bird's-eye perspective on litigation that you don't get as an associate
3) you learn what judges look for/like/hate, which is also useful for litigation
4) ideally you get personal mentoring and training that's very difficult to get in private practice, which teaches you a lot about writing/researching/thinking/litigation
5) it's intensive training in writing
6) you get a judge in your corner
7) you get a credential that some kinds of employers value over a couple more years of practice

No one is going to claim that clerking is a substitute for practice/teaches you directly how to practice. But it enhances your ability as a litigator.

nixy wrote:1) most (though not all) people who clerk for 2 years will do 2 different clerkships at different level courts, which are very different experiences
2) it gives you a bird's-eye perspective on litigation that you don't get as an associate
3) you learn what judges look for/like/hate, which is also useful for litigation
4) ideally you get personal mentoring and training that's very difficult to get in private practice, which teaches you a lot about writing/researching/thinking/litigation
5) it's intensive training in writing
6) you get a judge in your corner
7) you get a credential that some kinds of employers value over a couple more years of practice

No one is going to claim that clerking is a substitute for practice/teaches you directly how to practice. But it enhances your ability as a litigator.

Well put. Seconded. Absolutely a worthwhile experience if you can get it, particularly early in one’s career

nixy wrote:1) most (though not all) people who clerk for 2 years will do 2 different clerkships at different level courts, which are very different experiences
2) it gives you a bird's-eye perspective on litigation that you don't get as an associate
3) you learn what judges look for/like/hate, which is also useful for litigation
4) ideally you get personal mentoring and training that's very difficult to get in private practice, which teaches you a lot about writing/researching/thinking/litigation
5) it's intensive training in writing
6) you get a judge in your corner
7) you get a credential that some kinds of employers value over a couple more years of practice

No one is going to claim that clerking is a substitute for practice/teaches you directly how to practice. But it enhances your ability as a litigator.

Thank you so much for the insight! If I may follow-up:

3) Wouldn't you learn what (only) your judge likes/hates, which (presumably) would be subjective and not necessarily relevant when litigating before other judges? In that respect, wouldn't you learn more about what (many) judges like/hate by working under/with biglaw litigators?

4/5) Would the mentoring/training be better than you'd receive working under/with biglaw litigators?

6) Does having a judge in your corner outweigh the benefit of networking/reputation-building you could accomplish over the same two-year period?

Again, thank you for helping me work through this.

BeeTeeZ wrote:Thank you so much for the insight! If I may follow-up:

3) Wouldn't you learn what (only) your judge likes/hates, which (presumably) would be subjective and not necessarily relevant when litigating before other judges? In that respect, wouldn't you learn more about what (many) judges like/hate by working under/with biglaw litigators?

4/5) Would the mentoring/training be better than you'd receive working under/with biglaw litigators?

6) Does having a judge in your corner outweigh the benefit of networking/reputation-building you could accomplish over the same two-year period?

Again, thank you for helping me work through this.

3) you learn what your judge likes/hates, but you also learn more generally what judges look for. A judge is just in a fundamentally different position in the litigation process and they all share certain likes/dislikes by virtue of being in that position. You learn what "writing like a judge" means, and it's not the same thing as what you'll do as an associate but it's a valuable thing to learn nonetheless. Working under/with biglaw litigators isn't the same because it's not about getting to know individual judges, not all biglaw litigators have clerked, and even those who have aren't necessarily interested in imparting that wisdom to you. Plus it makes much more sense to experience it directly than to try to learn from someone who's experienced it, because it's one of those things that's hard to describe but you know it when you see it.

4/5) this will vary - some judges are terrible and some biglaw litigators are great - but generally yes. When you clerk for a judge you are one of at the most 4 clerks (for COA), often 2 (D. Ct), and you work directly with the judge in small quarters. You are IMing the judge in court about how they should be deciding on an evidentiary ruling or the like, real-time. There are (usually) tons of associates and no one partner or senior associate feels particularly invested in making sure you, associate 17 out of 40, are getting good mentoring.

Now, again, it's not impossible to get good mentoring in biglaw and some judges are not very good at it at all. But generally speaking it's entirely different.

You may well get helpful training in biglaw, too, but again, the two experiences offer different kinds of training, not substitutes for one another.

6) again, in theory you can get a terrible judge, but IMO it does. Also you can actually network (to some extent) while you're clerking - you don't have to hide away like a hermit, so it's not either/or.

I mean, it sounds like you're not at all convinced and don't really want to clerk and don't see the point. That's fine. Personally I found it incredibly valuable experience, but no one's going to make you do it.

nixy wrote:

BeeTeeZ wrote:Thank you so much for the insight! If I may follow-up:

3) Wouldn't you learn what (only) your judge likes/hates, which (presumably) would be subjective and not necessarily relevant when litigating before other judges? In that respect, wouldn't you learn more about what (many) judges like/hate by working under/with biglaw litigators?

4/5) Would the mentoring/training be better than you'd receive working under/with biglaw litigators?

6) Does having a judge in your corner outweigh the benefit of networking/reputation-building you could accomplish over the same two-year period?

Again, thank you for helping me work through this.

3) you learn what your judge likes/hates, but you also learn more generally what judges look for. A judge is just in a fundamentally different position in the litigation process and they all share certain likes/dislikes by virtue of being in that position. You learn what "writing like a judge" means, and it's not the same thing as what you'll do as an associate but it's a valuable thing to learn nonetheless. Working under/with biglaw litigators isn't the same because it's not about getting to know individual judges, not all biglaw litigators have clerked, and even those who have aren't necessarily interested in imparting that wisdom to you. Plus it makes much more sense to experience it directly than to try to learn from someone who's experienced it, because it's one of those things that's hard to describe but you know it when you see it.

4/5) this will vary - some judges are terrible and some biglaw litigators are great - but generally yes. When you clerk for a judge you are one of at the most 4 clerks (for COA), often 2 (D. Ct), and you work directly with the judge in small quarters. You are IMing the judge in court about how they should be deciding on an evidentiary ruling or the like, real-time. There are (usually) tons of associates and no one partner or senior associate feels particularly invested in making sure you, associate 17 out of 40, are getting good mentoring.

Now, again, it's not impossible to get good mentoring in biglaw and some judges are not very good at it at all. But generally speaking it's entirely different.

You may well get helpful training in biglaw, too, but again, the two experiences offer different kinds of training, not substitutes for one another.

6) again, in theory you can get a terrible judge, but IMO it does. Also you can actually network (to some extent) while you're clerking - you don't have to hide away like a hermit, so it's not either/or.

I mean, it sounds like you're not at all convinced and don't really want to clerk and don't see the point. That's fine. Personally I found it incredibly valuable experience, but no one's going to make you do it.

Thank you for clarifying all this for me. Everything you said makes sense, and I definitely see the value in clerking. I have a great deal of respect for students/lawyers like you who worked themselves into a clerkship, and I'm not trying to minimize the legitimacy of that venture at all.

I truly wish I was in a position to clerk right out of school, but for many reasons that wasn't realistic for me. I'd still love to clerk (for all the reasons you mentioned), but I fear that interrupting my practice to clerk may carry (potential) risks that wouldn't be a concern for someone clerking right out of school.

Here's my thought process: someone clerking out of school is basically "getting a leg up" and entering practice as a first year with more experience than first years who didn't clerk (everything else being equal). Whereas someone clerking mid-practice basically puts their practice "on hold," so the cost-benefit analysis seems a little more complex.

Though (perhaps) more complex, the analysis apparently results in the same conclusion: clerking is always a net benefit to one's legal career. Thank you for taking the time to help me understand why that's the case.

Nixy's posts have been great. One thing I wanted to mention (nixy may have said it, but if he did, I missed it) is working as a clerk gives you a lot of insight into the do's and don'ts of practicing. You'd be surprised at how much power some clerks have, especially at the federal D. Ct. level. Thus, having done the job, you understand how to avoid getting on their bad side. It's surreal to me at times how much say I have as a recent law school grad.