Top Law Schools

Assuming I am qualified for a federal DC clerkship, would my circumstances make a state court clerkship not a bad choice?

Stats: T14 Top 25% Currently in Biglaw

Goal: State government position in the same town as the state court clerkships I want to apply for.

Obviously the DC clerkship would be the "prestigious" option, but I am not sure it would be very helpful to land me a job in a position where prestige doesn't seem to be a major factor. On the other hand, doing the state court clerkship for a year and not landing a position I want would set me back because I doubt my firm would take me back after a state court clerkship (unconfirmed though).

I think a state court clerkship can be a very good way to work your way into a new market, as they are good ways to make local connections, and a lot of state judges will have experience in (or a lot of connections to) local government.

But it will depend on what kind of government job and what their hiring criteria usually are - if it's a job that usually wants X years of experience, clerking likely won't fast track that, so you'd have to have a decent sense of the timing and what you'd be competitive for by the time you're done. There also may not be a lot of openings (again, depending) and not a lot of control over when those openings arise.

That said, I would think that if you go biglaw --> state clerkship, you'd have a decent shot at local firms, which would give you the time to wait for government openings and make more pertinent connections. Even if your biglaw firm wouldn't take you back, then, you'd likely find something.

(Am presuming you mean SSC - I've known people to do well coming off state intermediate appeals courts, but it's trickier.)

OP here, when you speak of it being trickier coming off state intermediate courts, can you explain? I was thinking that because of the frequent interactions between those judges and the state compared to the SSC, it would be better as far as connections go.

Anonymous User wrote:OP here, when you speak of it being trickier coming off state intermediate courts, can you explain? I was thinking that because of the frequent interactions between those judges and the state compared to the SSC, it would be better as far as connections go.

I think in terms of sheer networkability, state intermediate courts can be just as helpful. They're not going to be quite as "prestigious" and based on my knowledge (admittedly about one specific market), some people did very well coming out of state COA but others struggled a bit. That was probably determined as much by the clerk's qualifications coming into the clerkship as anything else - people with weaker stats (GPA/pedigree) had a harder time than people with stronger stats. So to be fair, this probably wouldn't be as much of an issue for you - I'm more familiar with people from the two strong-but-not-T14 local law schools, as that was where most of the clerks had attended. (Looking back, the few T14-type clerks who'd wandered into the state COA for various reasons did pretty well - but for instance, one was a HYS grad whose future father in law was a partner at one of the local biglaw firms, so maybe not that typical?)

Wrt to interactions btw the judges and government - I think at the intermediate courts this was really mostly in the criminal arena, and (again, in the market I know) a lot of people doing criminal appeals in the AG's office came out of the state COA. But there isn't a lot more interaction between state COA judges and the government than with SSC - COA judges have very little contact with the parties. State trial court judges do, of course, but trial court clerkships can vary a lot in their substantiveness and aren't where I would recommend you start. At least IME, the SSC justices were all very dialed into the local market so would be just as good connections as the COA judges.

And again, this is really based on the one market I know well, which isn't NYC/CD/LA/Chicago or such, so take these opinions with a grain of salt.

Anonymous User wrote:OP here, when you speak of it being trickier coming off state intermediate courts, can you explain? I was thinking that because of the frequent interactions between those judges and the state compared to the SSC, it would be better as far as connections go.

I'm sure it's very dependent on the state, but at least in NY the intermediate appellate courts are considered a joke by sophisticated practitioners (read a First or Second Department decision if you want to know why), while the high court (Court of Appeals) is generally well-respected.

galba wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP here, when you speak of it being trickier coming off state intermediate courts, can you explain? I was thinking that because of the frequent interactions between those judges and the state compared to the SSC, it would be better as far as connections go.

I'm sure it's very dependent on the state, but at least in NY the intermediate appellate courts are considered a joke by sophisticated practitioners (read a First or Second Department decision if you want to know why), while the high court (Court of Appeals) is generally well-respected.

Second this, and NYC courts are, one would think, actually better than those of most other states. Biggest legal market in the country, greatest # of lawyers per capita outside of DC.

So yeah, no universe in which it'd be better (experientially or reputationally) to clerk for a state intermediate or trial court than a federal court, be it magistrate, bankruptcy, district, COA. (Well ok, Delaware Chancery is the one exception.)

Second this, and NYC courts are, one would think, actually better than those of most other states. Biggest legal market in the country, greatest # of lawyers per capita outside of DC.

Hard disagree. NY has a notoriously dysfunctional system for picking most of its judges, throwing all of the worst parts of elections and appointments into one noxious stew. Whatever the relative merits of state clerkships may be, New York is a bad test case, outside of the Court of Appeals.

Quichelorraine wrote:

Second this, and NYC courts are, one would think, actually better than those of most other states. Biggest legal market in the country, greatest # of lawyers per capita outside of DC.

[insert state] has a notoriously dysfunctional system for picking most of its judges, throwing all of the worst parts of elections and appointments into one noxious stew.

I mean..lol

LBJ's Hair wrote:

Quichelorraine wrote:

Second this, and NYC courts are, one would think, actually better than those of most other states. Biggest legal market in the country, greatest # of lawyers per capita outside of DC.

[insert state] has a notoriously dysfunctional system for picking most of its judges, throwing all of the worst parts of elections and appointments into one noxious stew.

I mean..lol

While amusingly flippant, this isn’t really true. I clerked on the SSC LR a state where the state judiciary, including the intermediate appellate court, was hands down higher quality than NY state courts.

And I’m a New Yorker so it’s not some sort of anti NY bias.

Yeah, I clerked on a state court where the appellate bench were great - no idea how they compare to NY bc I haven’t practiced there, but they were collectively excellent jurists. Mind you, they weren’t elected (but being appointed isn’t always better, depending on the politics of the specific state).

While amusingly flippant, this isn’t really true. I clerked on the SSC LR a state where the state judiciary, including the intermediate appellate court, was hands down higher quality than NY state courts.

And I’m a New Yorker so it’s not some sort of anti NY bias.

I don't know whether you were referring to me or LBJ, but I wasn't trying to be flippant at all, and have no anti-NY bias. NY really does have a weird system for selecting many lower-court judges (who are "elected," but whose nominating process is basically controlled by parties bosses). Appellate Division judges are appointed from that pool. While there are plenty of good judges, the system lacks most of the good qualities attributable to either pure election or pure appointment systems.

Also, the two-paragraph quality of most 1st/2d Department decisions is . . . probably not ideal. But it's been that way forever, so New Yorkers just learn to live with it (and sometimes pretend that it's BRILLIANT in some hard-to-define way).

I have plenty of friends who clerked on the NJ Superior Court Appellate Division. "Prestige" notwithstanding, all had a great experience. Ditto folks I know in Pennsylvania and Delaware. NY is exceptional in this regard, but not in a good way.

Anonymous User wrote:

LBJ's Hair wrote:

Quichelorraine wrote:

Second this, and NYC courts are, one would think, actually better than those of most other states. Biggest legal market in the country, greatest # of lawyers per capita outside of DC.

[insert state] has a notoriously dysfunctional system for picking most of its judges, throwing all of the worst parts of elections and appointments into one noxious stew.

I mean..lol

While amusingly flippant, this isn’t really true. I clerked on the SSC LR a state where the state judiciary, including the intermediate appellate court, was hands down higher quality than NY state courts.

And I’m a New Yorker so it’s not some sort of anti NY bias.

I believe you that they're "better," and agree NY state courts suck?