How Necessary is Fed Courts? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Interested in clerking at both the D.Ct. and COA level (have the stats to be competitive), and wondering whether I can get away with not taking fed courts or conversely, not taking evidence. I have an SA in DC lined up and will be probably be practicing in the litigation group doing white-collar and reg. enforcement, or if not, on the strictly reg. side of things. Long-term goal is financial regulator, although not sure of whether enforcement or rulemaking/other reg role interests me more. Secondary goal (of less interest) would be DOJ/State AG/Local gov lit department.

Because of schedule issues and a desire to take both sec. reg. and bank reg. 3L, it seems like I will need to go without one out of the following 3: Admin, Fed Courts, and Evidence. Admin seems like a must for D.C. lit or reg work, so that leaves either evidence or fed courts to get cut in my mind; am I wrong about thinking of admin as necessary? FWIW I took legislation and regulation as a 1L and vaguely learned basic admin.

As to the evidence v. fed courts issue, I'd probably rather just learn evidence during bar prep and then actually learn on my feet, however, I've seen many threads saying not to do this. Not really sure how much an evidence course would help when it would likely be with a mediocre professor and just be rote memorization combined with the usual study routine of learning the class in the last week or so and then forgetting most of the substance after finals. On the other hand, I've seen several people get away with not taking federal courts so maybe I should cut that? Lastly, maybe I should avoid taking one of the substantive finreg courses and just learn on the job? Any thoughts?

[Anonymous User]

I’m a Second Circuit clerk, and I took none of those three courses (though I did take something like the 1L course you described). It hasn’t mattered to any noticeable degree. I imagine evidence might be more important for the district court, but I have no direct insight on that.

[nixy]

I didn’t take fed courts and it didn’t affect me getting (or doing) a clerkship. I think evidence would be more of a bear to teach yourself during bar prep, and that a class would be helpful (mostly it’s the discipline of spending a semester reading the rules even with a mediocre prof). Also I’m just pro-taking evidence.

But I think you can make arguments for any of the choices you outlined, and judges aren’t consistent enough in their preferences to say there’s one best or worst path.

[Anon-non-anon]

Agree with Nixy for the most part, but will say I've found federal courts useful during clerkship.

[beepboopbeep]

I found fed courts and admin both useful during my COA clerkship. Just having had some time to mull basic agency review principles (deference, chenery issues, etc.) helped a lot rather than having to encounter those for the first time in a context where advocates and your judge might often refer to them in shorthand. I didn't take evidence and that was fine, both for the clerkship and for passing the bar, but I imagine it would be much less fine at the DCt level. Otherwise agree with nixy.

[nixy]

Yeah, to be fair, I can see how Fed Courts definitely would be helpful, I just never managed to fit it in. Honestly, evidence, admin, and fed courts are likely all helpful, but none is strictly necessary.

[Quichelorraine]

My Fed Courts class was absolutely useless from a "knowledge" standpoint (the gunner cannonade drowned out anything I might actually have learned), but I've seen enough clerkship hiring rounds to know that some screeners are puzzled if you haven't taken it. So it's very useful to signal "hey, I'm interested," especially if you're otherwise not a shoe-in candidate.

Evidence was more useful as a class, and in my actual practice of law, but came up not at all in either clerkships or hiring. Make of that what you will.

[stoopkid13]

I'd just take whatever courses have the best professors. Agree that fed courts is useful and stands out a bit more when reviewing apps. But it's not really necessary and I wouldnt feel pressured to take it. I think the advice to take evidence for the bar can be good advice if you need extra bar prep. But if you have the grades and resume to be a competitive COA applicant, you'll almost definitely be fine just studying over the summer.

Admin is the tricky one for me because, while I dont think you need it to clerk, I have no insight as to whether its helpful if you want to practice in DC doing regulatory work.

[nixy]

My Fed Courts class was absolutely useless from a "knowledge" standpoint (the gunner cannonade drowned out anything I might actually have learned), but I've seen enough clerkship hiring rounds to know that some screeners are puzzled if you haven't taken it. So it's very useful to signal "hey, I'm interested," especially if you're otherwise not a shoe-in candidate.

Evidence was more useful as a class, and in my actual practice of law, but came up not at all in either clerkships or hiring. Make of that what you will.

Evidence was helpful for both my clerkships, actually (esp for criminal appeals). But I do think you can learn everything you need to know on the job.

[lavarman84]

I took all three. I'd recommend taking all three if you can. If you can't, maybe drop evidence. You can learn it in bar prep, even though it'll be a pain in the ass.

[texanslimjim]

I would say they are all useful, but none of them are necessary. There's nothing special about the issues covered in those classes that make them impossible to learn on your own if they come up in a case. It's very helpful to have had a primer if they do come up, but that's true of any type of issue you'll deal with.

Fed Courts, Admin, and Evidence are probably more useful than any other random upper division course just because you're a bit more likely to have to deal with those issues than a niche, specific substantive area like Antitrust or Secured Transactions. But they're not necessary. (Except, as someone noted above, Fed Courts is a very useful course to have on your transcript if you're a 3L or graduate trying to land a clerkship).

[Anonymous User]

Very court-dependent. In a court with a heavy crim docket and lots of trials, evidence is helpful. FedCourts will probably help a little with everything no matter where you end up. Admin only necessary in terms of clerking probably at COA level or in a few districts. It can help with things like immigration cases but probably not essential.

[The_Lorax]

At the district court level, evidence is nearly a must unless you plan on making it through your clerkship without a trial.

I took all three, but like others have said Fed Courts and Admin were most useful to just have on the transcript. Crim Pro was more valuable than either of them from a practical standpoint. Now, I had a 1L admin lite class that did rulemaking, chevron, etc., so if I hadn't taken that I may think admin would be more essential.

[Taco]

For my COA clerkship I probably would’ve ranked them in importance as:

Fed Courts
Evidence
Admin

This in terms of useful knowledge that helped with the clerkship. Taking fed courts gave me a base level of knowledge for understanding habeas appeals (although it still took me several weeks of pretty intensive self-study at the beginning of my clerkship to really begin to wrap my head around it)

I could imagine for a district court clerkship, not taking evidence could be a slight to moderate handicap, but that’s speculation on my part.

I enjoyed Admin the most of all 3 classes, but it probably helped the least. It helped me build an overall judicial philosophy, but for day to day clerkship duties it wasn’t all that important.

There may be some judges who won’t want to hire you if you haven’t taken fed courts.

Honestly, I’d definitely take Evidence. Between Admin and Fed Courts, take whichever one you’d prefer. Just be prepared to possibly explain to an interviewing judge why you didn’t take fed courts (if you choose not to take it)

[FND]

I didn’t take fed courts and it didn’t affect me getting (or doing) a clerkship. I think evidence would be more of a bear to teach yourself during bar prep, and that a class would be helpful (mostly it’s the discipline of spending a semester reading the rules even with a mediocre prof). Also I’m just pro-taking evidence.

But I think you can make arguments for any of the choices you outlined, and judges aren’t consistent enough in their preferences to say there’s one best or worst path.

I didn't take Evidence in law school, and had no problem learning it for the bar. By the time I did bar prep, I could barely remember any of my 1L classes, and pretty much had to learn everything all over again anyway.

[nixy]

I didn’t take fed courts and it didn’t affect me getting (or doing) a clerkship. I think evidence would be more of a bear to teach yourself during bar prep, and that a class would be helpful (mostly it’s the discipline of spending a semester reading the rules even with a mediocre prof). Also I’m just pro-taking evidence.

But I think you can make arguments for any of the choices you outlined, and judges aren’t consistent enough in their preferences to say there’s one best or worst path.

I didn't take Evidence in law school, and had no problem learning it for the bar. By the time I did bar prep, I could barely remember any of my 1L classes, and pretty much had to learn everything all over again anyway.

This is all pretty subjective - my school made you take Evidence, and the other students in my prep course who hadn't had to take it made it sound terrible to learn. And while I certainly didn't remember much of my 1L courses it was a lot easy to relearn them than to learn stuff I'd never had any exposure to (plus the OP wouldn't be taking Evidence as a 1L - they're in their 2L year so would be taking Evidence much closer to the bar). That said, it's a test of minimum competence so you can always learn what you need to, and I'm generally anti-taking stuff just b/c it's on the bar. I just happen to like Evidence a lot, really.

[FND]

I'm generally anti-taking stuff just b/c it's on the bar. I just happen to like Evidence a lot, really.

I'm also against taking stuff just because it's on the bar.
I liked what I learned about evidence in bar prep, and I think that helped a lot for me to learn it. Mostly it's a puzzle - how do you make something that should be inadmissible admissible? What's the exception?
I just didn't take it in law school because I had zero interest in litigation. If I had to do it all over again, I'd have taken it for fun

[Anonymous User]

I clerked for a DJ and didn't take fed courts or admin. Difficult fed courts issues rarely came up, so I didn't find it hard to figure out the law when necessary. Same for admin.

I would recommend evidence not just for clerking, but for litigating in general. It's so critical and it always comes up. Always. And you really need to master it to be a strong litigator.