Full-Time Volunteer Clerkships Forum

[JusticeSquee]

Was just browsing OSCAR for clerkship postings this morning and came across a prominent SDNY judge who was only "hiring" unpaid volunteers for full-time clerkships. I guess my first question is, what the fuck? Who can afford to go a year without a paycheck? How is it even permissible to have such a "position" where a candidate is expected to work full-time without pay?

I'm just baffled at this, seems like total exploitative bullshit on par with asking someone to work "for exposure."

[dvlthndr]

Nobody does a clerkship for the money.
You are already giving up tens of thousands (possibly up to a hundred thousand) in earnings by not jumping straight to big law.

If you come from a wealthy family, have savings from working, etc., giving up on that government-worker salary in exchange for working with a “prominent” judge could be worth if.

I wouldn’t do it personally, but I could see these unpaid positions attracting either (1) wealthy kids or (2) LLM/JD graduates who aren’t citizens and couldn’t get paid for clerking anyway.

[nixy]

A lot of them began during the recession. Some firms, instead of laying associates off, were delaying start dates for a year and giving the associates small stipends, so the associates would go volunteer for non-profits or clerk for a year on their stipends. I interned with a district ct judge when a biglaw associate was doing this.

Another option is people whose schools offer post-grad fellowships for the year after graduation for people who don't have jobs lined up - I know people who've clerked on those fellowships. The court doesn't pay but they support themselves on the fellowship.

I agree overall it's crappy, but if there weren't any people willing to take the unpaid year, judges wouldn't get anyone to take the job. I also doubt that judge has someone there all the time in such a position, so much as it's an ad showing they're open to the possibility. It can be a good way to get experience if you can swing it financially, though of course lots of people won't be able to swing it financially.

[Wild Card]

The vast majority of students at top law schools come from households with fuck you money and don't have to work a day in their lives.

These volunteer positions are for the wealthiest of the wealthy, and for international students, who are also extremely wealthy.

Note that these positions are still highly competitive. Think T6 magna or Kent.

[QContinuum]

An important caveat is that there's some dispute (reflected in various discussions on this fora over the years) about whether unpaid law clerks must, as an ethical matter, draw special attention to their unpaid status on their resumes, e.g., by listing themselves as a "Volunteer Clerk" or "Unpaid Clerk" or similar. I understand some courts actually require unpaid law clerks to do this; and even beyond those courts/judges who require unpaid law clerks to highlight their unpaid status, there are lawyers who believe strongly that failing to expressly highlight unpaid status amounts to some kind of ethical or at least norm violation.

Given that murkiness, I don't think it's a particularly good use of anyone's time to serve as an unpaid clerk (unless a non-U.S. citizen legally barred from serving as a paid clerk). Most/all U.S. citizens who are able to secure an unpaid federal clerkship should be able to secure some more desirable (and paying!) legal job instead.

[beepboopbeep]

The vast majority of students at top law schools come from households with fuck you money and don't have to work a day in their lives.

do you ever stop spouting nonsense

[JusticeSquee]

An important caveat is that there's some dispute (reflected in various discussions on this fora over the years) about whether unpaid law clerks must, as an ethical matter, draw special attention to their unpaid status on their resumes, e.g., by listing themselves as a "Volunteer Clerk" or "Unpaid Clerk" or similar. I understand some courts actually require unpaid law clerks to do this; and even beyond those courts/judges who require unpaid law clerks to highlight their unpaid status, there are lawyers who believe strongly that failing to expressly highlight unpaid status amounts to some kind of ethical or at least norm violation.

Given that murkiness, I don't think it's a particularly good use of anyone's time to serve as an unpaid clerk (unless a non-U.S. citizen legally barred from serving as a paid clerk). Most/all U.S. citizens who are able to secure an unpaid federal clerkship should be able to secure some more desirable (and paying!) legal job instead.

Wow I had absolutely no clue about this, thank you for that! Kind of crazy you’d have to include that modifier in a resume, seems almost unfair.

Kind of a side issue, but do folks who clerked for a magistrate typically say so in firm profile or a resume? Just asking since a colleague just put “clerked for Judge X” when in fact it was a magistrate and I thought it was a little weird but assumed it was normal practice to do so.

[QContinuum]

Wow I had absolutely no clue about this, thank you for that! Kind of crazy you’d have to include that modifier in a resume, seems almost unfair.

There are strong feelings on both sides of the issue. The best argument in the "no need to list" camp is that unpaid law clerks do the exact same work, acquire the exact same skills, receive the exact same mentoring, and gain access to the exact same judicial network as their paid co-clerks. Thus, it would be unfair to force unpaid law clerks to include an eyebrow-raising modifier on their resume. After all, people never list their previous positions' salary on a resume.

The best argument in the "must list" camp is that (a significant part of) federal clerkships' value stems from their selectivity, and unpaid clerkships, while still selective, are (significantly) less selective than paid clerkships. Thus, it would be unfair for unpaid law clerks to effectively mislead employers into believing that their credentials were strong enough to land a paid clerkship.

In my personal view - not that it matters - the former camp has the stronger argument. Sure, unpaid clerkships are less selective, but so what? Employers can evaluate applicants' pre-clerkship credentials for themselves (and, in any case, it probably doesn't make sense to rely too strongly on a single judge's evaluation - judges can be very idiosyncratic in hiring clerks, as is well known). If an employer feels a law clerk's pre-clerkship credentials aren't suitably impressive, they're under no obligation to hire that clerk, regardless of whether that clerk was selected for a paid or unpaid clerkship. And to the extent an employer is interested in an applicant specifically because they clerked for Judge Y, why should it matter whether the clerk was paid by Uncle Sam or not?

[objctnyrhnr]

I have conflicting views on this.

On the one hand, from a hiring perspective (as a biglaw associate, government employee, or fedclerk hiring my replacement), an applicant’s having worked at such a position would almost detract from an individual’s candidacy in my mind. These things are the utter manifestation of privilege. I’m not sure I can think of a better example of somebody being able to do something so significant in this field, purely on the basis of their own privilege (ie familial wealth and generosity). From experience, I realize that the clerkship experience is inherently valuable from a skill-building standpoint...but if you draw somebody like me as an interviewer, you’re also 100% getting judged for the reasons discussed above.

And on a related note, if you insinuate that you were a paid clerk on your res (ie if you don’t disclose that you were unpaid), and I somehow learn that you were a volunteer, it would be very very bad for the applicant. Regardless of what one technically can or cannot do in this respect (as discussed by QCont), that is definitely not the kind of lawyer I want repping my firm. Maybe I’m in the minority on this, but my feelings on the issue are strong.

Now this viewpoint directly conflicts with my honest acknowledgement that, if I personally had the requisite privilege and didn’t have other options post-grad and were offered one of these...yeah I’d take it and be honest about disclosing it and hope that I don’t draw a resume reviewer like myself (per the above).

My two cents.

[Internationalist]

I have conflicting views on this.

On the one hand, from a hiring perspective (as a biglaw associate, government employee, or fedclerk hiring my replacement), an applicant’s having worked at such a position would almost detract from an individual’s candidacy in my mind. These things are the utter manifestation of privilege. I’m not sure I can think of a better example of somebody being able to do something so significant in this field, purely on the basis of their own privilege (ie familial wealth and generosity). From experience, I realize that the clerkship experience is inherently valuable from a skill-building standpoint...but if you draw somebody like me as an interviewer, you’re also 100% getting judged for the reasons discussed above.

And on a related note, if you insinuate that you were a paid clerk on your res (ie if you don’t disclose that you were unpaid), and I somehow learn that you were a volunteer, it would be very very bad for the applicant. Regardless of what one technically can or cannot do in this respect (as discussed by QCont), that is definitely not the kind of lawyer I want repping my firm. Maybe I’m in the minority on this, but my feelings on the issue are strong.

Now this viewpoint directly conflicts with my honest acknowledgement that, if I personally had the requisite privilege and didn’t have other options post-grad and were offered one of these...yeah I’d take it and be honest about disclosing it and hope that I don’t draw a resume reviewer like myself (per the above).

My two cents.

Chiming in regarding your point on privilege: many of the volunteer clerks in my district work on the side (rather than rely on family wealth or generosity). Sure, many of them don't have the same credentials as the paid clerks, but I've come to admire their hard work for essentially taking on two full-time jobs. As for disclosing whether they were paid or not, as the interviewer, I (try to) evaluate candidates based on their skills and experience so if an volunteer clerk had better or more relevant experience than a paid clerk, I would not hold it against them just because they didn't tell me how much or little they made (especially since we don't expect other candidates to disclose how much or little they made). You make valid points but I want to provide another perspective.

[objctnyrhnr]

I have conflicting views on this.

On the one hand, from a hiring perspective (as a biglaw associate, government employee, or fedclerk hiring my replacement), an applicant’s having worked at such a position would almost detract from an individual’s candidacy in my mind. These things are the utter manifestation of privilege. I’m not sure I can think of a better example of somebody being able to do something so significant in this field, purely on the basis of their own privilege (ie familial wealth and generosity). From experience, I realize that the clerkship experience is inherently valuable from a skill-building standpoint...but if you draw somebody like me as an interviewer, you’re also 100% getting judged for the reasons discussed above.

And on a related note, if you insinuate that you were a paid clerk on your res (ie if you don’t disclose that you were unpaid), and I somehow learn that you were a volunteer, it would be very very bad for the applicant. Regardless of what one technically can or cannot do in this respect (as discussed by QCont), that is definitely not the kind of lawyer I want repping my firm. Maybe I’m in the minority on this, but my feelings on the issue are strong.

Now this viewpoint directly conflicts with my honest acknowledgement that, if I personally had the requisite privilege and didn’t have other options post-grad and were offered one of these...yeah I’d take it and be honest about disclosing it and hope that I don’t draw a resume reviewer like myself (per the above).

My two cents.

Chiming in regarding your point on privilege: many of the volunteer clerks in my district work on the side (rather than rely on family wealth or generosity). Sure, many of them don't have the same credentials as the paid clerks, but I've come to admire their hard work for essentially taking on two full-time jobs. As for disclosing whether they were paid or not, as the interviewer, I (try to) evaluate candidates based on their skills and experience so if an volunteer clerk had better or more relevant experience than a paid clerk, I would not hold it against them just because they didn't tell me how much or little they made (especially since we don't expect other candidates to disclose how much or little they made). You make valid points but I want to provide another perspective.

I take your point and agree that, yeah, this would mitigate it a bit if the info was brought to my attention as an interviewer in the hypo we are discussing—where I am the interviewer or resume reviewer.

If I were advising a volunteer clerk looking for a post clerkship gig who fell into the category youre describing, in order to avoid bias of the sort that I might admittedly hold, I would suggest that the applicant’s resume make it evident that it was necessary for the clerk to work another job during this time (and since resumes track work exp, this wouldn’t be that hard to do).

[nixy]

Again, a fair number of unpaid clerkships are supported by school fellowships, so it’s not necessarily pure family privilege.

(Also, the family privilege shouldn’t really matter if someone can demonstrate they’re qualified and do good work. The system that lets someone from a rich family do something others can’t afford to do is crappy, and sucks, but the individual still might be a good candidate. That said, I can also see preferring to pick someone who didn’t benefit from having those advantages, all else being equal. I think it’s a little unfair to prejudge an individual for having a rich family, but there are probably enough lawyers who’d give the rich ones an unfair advantage that your take adds a little balance.)