CoA clerk taking questions Forum

[LBJ's Hair]

OP of the original question here:

I have already accepted two COA's, now I'm just worried about fallout. I got one, and then a semi-feeder judge reached out, so I accepted that one too.

You're good. Rest easy.

OK. The comments above have gotten me really worried.

you're fine guy/gal

[nixy]

Yeah, the second clerkship may not add much (though a second well-connected jurist on your side is never a bad thing), but it’s not going to hurt you.

[Vursz]

Yeah, the second clerkship may not add much (though a second well-connected jurist on your side is never a bad thing), but it’s not going to hurt you.

Co-signed. I clerked for two CoA judges and the concerns expressed above are total nonsense. The biggest downside, imo, is losing out on a year of biglaw salary in favor of doing more bench memos after you’ve already mastered them.

[QContinuum]

OP of the original question here:

I have already accepted two COA's, now I'm just worried about fallout. I got one, and then a semi-feeder judge reached out, so I accepted that one too.

You're good. Rest easy.

OK. The comments above have gotten me really worried.

Fear not. There was a single poster, against the consensus of something like 5 or 6 other posters, expressing a fringe opinion on doing two COA clerkships. You won't face any issues anywhere for doing two. Just don't do a third clerkship (of any kind, with the obvious exception of SCOTUS).

And congrats on your two COA clerkships! Very impressive stuff.

[Anonymous User]

I potentially have lined up two clerkships for after graduation. One a district court in an 11th circuit city followed by a 5th circuit clerkship in Texas. However, each judge wants a 2 year commitment. I'd be looking for work in DC or CA after clerking. My gut is telling me that 4 years is just too much time clerking, especially when I'm not overly interested in staying in the south. What would you do if you were in my shoes?

[Anonymous User]

OP here. I would pass. 4 years is a loooong time. And I can assure you both District and Circuit clerking will get very, boring after a year. Really, clerking gets pretty boring after 6 months once you've gotten the hang of things and are just churning things out for the rest of the term.

Also that's a lot of time to pass up biglaw money. I actually think 3 years would be fine- a two year, and a one year, but two two-years is just a lot.

[lavarman84]

I potentially have lined up two clerkships for after graduation. One a district court in an 11th circuit city followed by a 5th circuit clerkship in Texas. However, each judge wants a 2 year commitment. I'd be looking for work in DC or CA after clerking. My gut is telling me that 4 years is just too much time clerking, especially when I'm not overly interested in staying in the south. What would you do if you were in my shoes?

Four years is too much. Trust me. I had a two-year D. Ct. followed by a one-year COA. I wanted nothing to do with another year of clerking. And both my judges were phenomenal people. They were the sort of "dream clerkships" that law schools try to convince you every clerkship is. Two years of COA clerking after D. Ct. clerking will leave you very bored. I think a COA clerkship is worth it, but after the fast-paced style of a D. Ct. clerkship, two years will drag.

However, at the end of the day, I know how difficult it is to land a clerkship. If you want to do D. Ct. and COA and this is your best option, you'll have to weigh whether that extra year is worth it. Just giving you my two cents. BTW, if you want to PM me the judges' names, I might have some insight on them. I know the 5th and 11th pretty well (Texas and Florida, especially).

[mjb447]

I potentially have lined up two clerkships for after graduation. One a district court in an 11th circuit city followed by a 5th circuit clerkship in Texas. However, each judge wants a 2 year commitment. I'd be looking for work in DC or CA after clerking. My gut is telling me that 4 years is just too much time clerking, especially when I'm not overly interested in staying in the south. What would you do if you were in my shoes?

Yeah, I'd probably wouldn't unless, like lavarman said, you're hellbent on clerking and you're not a competitive applicant otherwise. I clerked for four years and enjoyed it fine, but it's not for everyone and you can't tell right now whether you will or not. (It's also hard to tell what working in these particular chambers day-to-day will really be like unless you've got reliable inside info, and two years is a long time with an unreasonable judge or co-workers.)

Additionally, when you start interviewing on the other end you'll probably have to address both "so are you just going to leave when a career clerkship opens up" and "why should we hire someone four years out of law school (and pay them accordingly, or nearly accordingly) who has zero practical experience?" It's not insurmountable, necessarily, but I think it can make you kind of a tough candidate to evaluate.

[Anonymous User]

I potentially have lined up two clerkships for after graduation. One a district court in an 11th circuit city followed by a 5th circuit clerkship in Texas. However, each judge wants a 2 year commitment. I'd be looking for work in DC or CA after clerking. My gut is telling me that 4 years is just too much time clerking, especially when I'm not overly interested in staying in the south. What would you do if you were in my shoes?

Not OP, but similar question. Anon b/c info will out me.

I potentially have an offer to clerk for a COA judge in 20-21. I graduated in ’16, did big law for 1.5 years, and am in the last year of 2.5 years of district court clerkships. The district court clerkships are among three judges (different districts but same state) because one retired and the other took senior status and I had to shuffle around and adjust as a result. It sucked but the judges helped and we made it work. I’m eager to get back to a firm, but COA was my goal all along. Even though there is a good explanation for the three different district court clerkships (I think there is, but pls correct if I’m wrong), the COA clerkship would still be my fourth clerkship. I enjoy clerking and don’t mind doing one more year, especially for COA, and I definitely want to accept the COA, but I am worried about getting back to a firm.

In a sense, the damage (missing out on a firm salary, doing 2.5 years of clerkships, likely dropping a class year) is already done, and I'm committed through 2020. Would I be that much worse off, if at all, applying next year coming off of a COA clerkship than I would be right now coming off of 2.5 years of district clerkships?

[lavarman84]

I potentially have lined up two clerkships for after graduation. One a district court in an 11th circuit city followed by a 5th circuit clerkship in Texas. However, each judge wants a 2 year commitment. I'd be looking for work in DC or CA after clerking. My gut is telling me that 4 years is just too much time clerking, especially when I'm not overly interested in staying in the south. What would you do if you were in my shoes?

Not OP, but similar question. Anon b/c info will out me.

I potentially have an offer to clerk for a COA judge in 20-21. I graduated in ’16, did big law for 1.5 years, and am in the last year of 2.5 years of district court clerkships. The district court clerkships are among three judges (different districts but same state) because one retired and the other took senior status and I had to shuffle around and adjust as a result. It sucked but the judges helped and we made it work. I’m eager to get back to a firm, but COA was my goal all along. Even though there is a good explanation for the three different district court clerkships (I think there is, but pls correct if I’m wrong), the COA clerkship would still be my fourth clerkship. I enjoy clerking and don’t mind doing one more year, especially for COA, and I definitely want to accept the COA, but I am worried about getting back to a firm.

In a sense, the damage (missing out on a firm salary, doing 2.5 years of clerkships, likely dropping a class year) is already done, and I'm committed through 2020. Would I be that much worse off, if at all, applying next year coming off of a COA clerkship than I would be right now coming off of 2.5 years of district clerkships?

I'd say go for it.

[Foodz]

Is there a better way to find out which COA judges are hiring besides OSCAR?

[Anonymous User]

In your experience, what are the hours like? I know this varies wildly by judge, but I'd love some anecdata.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. I work about 9-6 consistently. Couple hours on the weekends once in a while when I need to. Probably more like 9-5/530 on Fridays.

[Anonymous User]

In your experience, what are the hours like? I know this varies wildly by judge, but I'd love some anecdata.

Different COA Clerk. I generally work 9 to 5ish. Occasionally, I have to work later. Have avoided weekend work thus far. But there are times where you get slammed. It ebbs and flows.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry to hijack, but a word of advice for some of the eager applicants currently considering applying to open COA positions.

I work for one of those judges listed in the "worst judges to work for" thread. He oddly doesn’t get much mention, but he’s on there.

We work 12 hour days most weeks and at least one full day over the weekend. It has been the worst professional experiences of my life. I'd like to say there is some discernible career upside or mentorship (apart from the stamp), but there's none. I won’t comment on the overly formalistic chambers rules and snide emails. More fundamentally, I realize it’s been a huge professional risk because he does not go to bat for clerks. We are basically glorified staff. He squeezes you for work and discards you. All of us in chambers feel the same way. Sadly though, the risks are too great to disclose the experience with any particularity on here.

So I guess the one word of advice for the eager applicants out there is the following: if someone is listed as bad (even if there is some disagreement from the odd anonymous person), there may be dozens of clerks who hated the experience that cannot share it. So, do your research. In fact, perhaps the better move is this:

If you get an offer, ask the JA to speak with some current clerks before accepting. You can make it innocuous enough about logistics or the kind of cases they work on. I suspect any discussion with any of the current clerks in my chambers would sound alarm bells. Just don’t out the clerk when you can’t take the job for personal reasons or whatever. When we have interviewees in, we seriously feel bad for them, and want to warn them. But of course, the risk is too great.

Oh, and to the person working 9-5, I hate you.... particularly if that judge is human....

[Wild Card]

Sorry to hijack, but a word of advice for some of the eager applicants currently considering applying to open COA positions.

Are you ever concerned that you could be fired? That is my only concern.

Everything you described is just biglaw, so it's no big deal at all--sorry.

But being fired from a clerkship sounds life ending.

[QContinuum]

Sorry to hijack, but a word of advice for some of the eager applicants currently considering applying to open COA positions.

Are you ever concerned that you could be fired? That is my only concern.

Everything you described is just biglaw, so it's no big deal at all--sorry.

But being fired from a clerkship sounds life ending.

Thanks very much, anon, for sharing your experience. An important cautionary tale to keep in mind, amidst all the kumbaya back-patting amongst the 9-5 crowd!

Ignore Wild Card's "no big deal at all" hot take, which could not be more wrong. Obviously, working BigLaw hours as a clerk is much worse than working BigLaw hours as a BigLawyer. For one thing, the yawning pay gap. For another thing, clerkships are often seen as the ideal way to take a breather from BigLaw while simultaneously enhancing the ol' resume. For someone already on the edge of burning out, who desperately needs that break, working for anon's judge could be ruinous. And, of course, for a third thing: BigLaw hours are BigLaw hours. But anon's clerkship hours are absolutely not standard or average clerkship hours by any stretch. So, the BigLawyer working "normal" (albeit brutal) BigLaw hours has little to complain about, but I can see why anon hates their fellow clerks working 9-5 M-F.

And, finally, anon, as you correctly note, much of the benefit of clerking, particularly at the CoA level, is being able to take advantage of the judge's (presumably) deep network. If the judge withholds that benefit, that's awful.

[Anonymous User]

Anon from before: I appreciate the responses. Wildcards take is indeed a hot one, but I take his general point on hours. I could provide more details to substantiate my point, but the risks aren’t worth identifying my chambers. I will say though, that several of us worked in biglaw and other high stress jobs and we find this experience way, way worse. It’s not uncommon that I work 8am-12am several days in a row. And unlike most days in biglaw, these are high focus hours. Utter silence. No convos in the office, meals behind a screen. I’ll even concede the hours point, if WildCard insists. I will say though that my colleague billed 2800 hours at a V5 last year and finds this job generally way worse, even if the money were somehow the same.

A fear of getting fired is only a small part of the experience here. It’s borderline abuse, and I guess you’re gonna have to trust me on that because I’m not gonna get specific.

But again, my bigger point is this information is not readily available to applicants, so when someone flags a judge mildly on here, even a short snub like “X works his clerks very hard,” I would seriously consider it as an applicant. And there’s a difference between working big law hours and working big law hours for a judge who ignores you, does not care about your career or professional development, and is a jerk. One other ingredient to this cocktail of misery is that you are constantly reminded her that you have the worst deal going at sittings and in daily interactions with court personnel. Just about every week, someone will say to me: “Oh you work for X? I don’t know how you do it.”

And finally, QC’s points are all spot on. Not only is there no real network, the guy has undercut past clerks applying for big jobs when called for background checks. Again, sadly cannot be more specific, but I am confident this job is among the worst federal clerkships in America, and I just don’t think people know about it because there’s no incentive to blow the whistle. So consider this my general warning to all.

That’s all from me on this. Good luck.

[Anonymous User]

Oh, and to the person working 9-5, I hate you.... particularly if that judge is human....

Howdy. He is. Really incredible man. I don't say this to rub it in. I'm sorry you got the short end of the clerkship stick. Your advice is dead on. Do your research and make sure you know what you're getting yourself into. For my D. Ct. clerkship, I went in blind, and I lucked out big time. My judge there treated me like family. The hours were longer, but I consider him a personal friend, not just a mentor. However, in the same courthouse, there were a couple other chambers where the clerks were pretty miserable because of either the judge or the JA.

When I applied for COA clerkships, I made sure I had at least decent information on the judges and that they were tolerable to work for at minimum. My relationship with my COA judge is more professional than personal, but he's very approachable, reasonable, and decent. Anyways, moral of the story here is that clerkships fall all over the spectrum. Some are amazing. Many are just okay. Some are horrible. Do your research when you're applying (to the extent you can).

[Anonymous User]

And finally, QC’s points are all spot on. Not only is there no real network, the guy has undercut past clerks applying for big jobs when called for background checks. Again, sadly cannot be more specific, but I am confident this job is among the worst federal clerkships in America, and I just don’t think people know about it because there’s no incentive to blow the whistle. So consider this my general warning to all.

What a dick. A good friend of mine had a judge like that. Ended up landing a big job that he desperately wanted because other people went to bat for him. But he was on pins and needles about whether his judge would undercut him when they called to talk to him. Luckily for him, the judge didn't undercut him, but he also didn't lift a finger to help. He was a neutral, which was a victory because my friend thought he would be a negative. I just don't understand why a judge would be that way. I am truly sorry about your situation.

And the people who haven't clerked who say it's no big deal don't get it. When you answer to one person who has an outsized influence on your career, damn near every day has to be nerve-wracking if that person is a massive dick.

[QContinuum]

I just don't understand why a judge would be that way. I am truly sorry about your situation.

I never used to understand either, because giving someone a recommendation doesn't seem like it would cost the judge anything. But then, a few years ago, one of the *cough* characters who does this kind of thing was kind enough to explain his reasoning. The explanation was this. He felt that each and every time he recommended someone, he was putting his whole reputation on the line. Did he really know that person well enough to take that risk? (Apparently, spending an entire year supervising someone wasn't enough.) Moreover, most everyone had, at least in his view, messed up at some point or another (surprise, surprise). If he recommended that person without also disclosing their (supposed) shortcomings, was he not being dishonest? What if folks relied on his recommendation, and the person screwed up again down the road? His own hard-earned reputation, developed over decades, would be shot. People would no longer trust him or his judgment. To him, it just wasn't worth the risk.

And the people who haven't clerked who say it's no big deal don't get it. When you answer to one person who has an outsized influence on your career, damn near every day has to be nerve-wracking if that person is a massive dick.

This is exactly it. Clerks are uniquely vulnerable in a way BigLaw associates aren't. After first year, it's usually fairly easy to lateral. Stub-years/first-years are more vulnerable, true, but even they aren't generally subject to the whims of a single partner. But clerks depend on a single judge. They can't migrate to a different practice group, or find a different senior to pull for them. It's kind of like the medieval master-apprentice system, where the apprentice was pretty much at the master's mercy.

[nixy]

Re: a judge being neutral - I think, too, there are some judges out there who take the appearance of neutrality really far and don't want to weigh in as a reference b/c they don't want employers to hire a clerk to please them/don't want to look like they're using their position at all. In the same vein as judges who won't write letters to recommend their clerks, but will take phone calls, some take it further and won't say anything. Now, I (and clearly many judges) don't think that's what the position requires, and if the judge is genuinely a dick in all other matters, the neutrality policy may owe just as much/more/all to the judge being a dick than any abstract principle. But I know some judges just really really really don't want to look like they're trying to use their position to influence anyone.

Though I get it still completely sucks for the clerk regardless.

I do think that having the clerkship itself on your resume is still valuable even without the judge actively working to help you - I have ended up working in states/practice areas where no one knows my judges in any way, and while I was lucky and they were supportive, they also haven't played any direct role in the jobs I've gotten. Obviously it's even BETTER if you do get a great judge who goes to bat for you and makes connections for you, but the work itself is likely still valuable for your career.

But I realize that's cold comfort for someone going through a bad clerkship, so various anons who've written about it, I'm so sorry that you dealt with/are dealing with that.

[Anonymous User]

Re: a judge being neutral - I think, too, there are some judges out there who take the appearance of neutrality really far and don't want to weigh in as a reference b/c they don't want employers to hire a clerk to please them/don't want to look like they're using their position at all. In the same vein as judges who won't write letters to recommend their clerks, but will take phone calls, some take it further and won't say anything. Now, I (and clearly many judges) don't think that's what the position requires, and if the judge is genuinely a dick in all other matters, the neutrality policy may owe just as much/more/all to the judge being a dick than any abstract principle. But I know some judges just really really really don't want to look like they're trying to use their position to influence anyone.

Though I get it still completely sucks for the clerk regardless.

I do think that having the clerkship itself on your resume is still valuable even without the judge actively working to help you - I have ended up working in states/practice areas where no one knows my judges in any way, and while I was lucky and they were supportive, they also haven't played any direct role in the jobs I've gotten. Obviously it's even BETTER if you do get a great judge who goes to bat for you and makes connections for you, but the work itself is likely still valuable for your career.

But I realize that's cold comfort for someone going through a bad clerkship, so various anons who've written about it, I'm so sorry that you dealt with/are dealing with that.

As the previous anon, my friend's judge wasn't neutral out of concern for those things. I don't want to go into detail on everything because it was told to me in confidence. It was a bad situation. I understand you're speaking more generally, though.

[Anonymous User]

I never used to understand either, because giving someone a recommendation doesn't seem like it would cost the judge anything. But then, a few years ago, one of the *cough* characters who does this kind of thing was kind enough to explain his reasoning. The explanation was this. He felt that each and every time he recommended someone, he was putting his whole reputation on the line. Did he really know that person well enough to take that risk? (Apparently, spending an entire year supervising someone wasn't enough.) Moreover, most everyone had, at least in his view, messed up at some point or another (surprise, surprise). If he recommended that person without also disclosing their (supposed) shortcomings, was he not being dishonest? What if folks relied on his recommendation, and the person screwed up again down the road? His own hard-earned reputation, developed over decades, would be shot. People would no longer trust him or his judgment. To him, it just wasn't worth the risk.

What a pompous jerk. It's not like he has to worry about his reputation. He's a federal judge. If you don't think your people are up to snuff, don't hire them. Frankly, that's the sort of person who should just hire all career clerks and be done with it. He's not much of a mentor.

[nixy]

As the previous anon, my friend's judge wasn't neutral out of concern for those things. I don't want to go into detail on everything because it was told to me in confidence. It was a bad situation. I understand you're speaking more generally, though.

Oh sure, and I didn't mean to suggest I knew more about your friend's situation than you did.