Clerkship/career benefits to Law Review board?

[Anonymous User]

There was at least one thread on this not too far back, but the info was conflicting/mixed. My LR's board selection is coming up, and I am not sure whether it would make sense for me to be on it. The time commitment would be really significant (anywhere from 10-40 hours a week depending on position, but my commitment cannot be dependent on which position I ultimately get).

Law Review is fine; I enjoy the community, but it is not super fun or anything, especially remote. I would rather scale back my commitment to it and focus on my classes or even researching for a professor. That being said, I am not sure whether I am missing out on another shiny gold star.

If it matters:
-T6
-Very good grades
-Will have SA position by the time the board selection comes around (assuming no strikeout)
-COA clerkship lined up

So, I guess the more specific question is whether being on the board would be helpful (1) for my career down the line or (2) for feeder clerkships, assuming I remain competitive for them (a big assumption).

Sorry if this is a dumb question--obviously my LR is plugging board positions, and I do not know many LR alumni.

[Anonymous User]

I'm assuming you're at UChicago given the timing of this question (if not, maybe this is helpful for other Chicago students). The commitment regardless of role doesn't mean you don't control what role you get. You can 100% guarantee you won't get one of the long-hours roles (EIC, executive, executive comments or articles, managing, or articles) by not interviewing for them. There are also some jobs well under ten hours a week like business/communications, online, symposia, and topic access.

There are probably some benefits for clerkships with some judges for even a minor role, but like everything for clerkships, it depends on the judge. It may not make sense for someone with a COA locked down, most who had one last year ran but at least one didn't.

For what it's worth, (1) being on board is generally much more interesting than being a staffer and (2) being in-person is much better than being remote. I'd think you were a bit weird if you were over the moon about being a remote staffer tbh. You'll get more information about this stuff soon. Also, random board members will be happy to give honest opinions about being on board, the culture at Chicago is that there's no expectation for anyone to drink the Kool Aid.

[Anonymous User]

Original anon. Thanks for the response, that was helpful--I am not actually at Chicago; the only guarantee I have is not being EIC.

That being said, I think you are right in saying the work will be more interesting. I will try to find out what positions are most comparable to standard staffer work in terms of time.

[Anonymous User]

.

[nixy]

Not at a T6, but fwiw, I really liked my work on the law review board, in part because I liked my fellow board members a lot and working with them was fun (I’m also a research/writing nerd). That said, I realize I’m weird that way, and I don’t think it would have a measurable impact on your future success to ditch it. Many people want the help in getting a clerkship, but you already have a COA lined up. I think that generally, not having a board position isn’t going to outweigh your grades and clerking experience and take you out of the running anywhere (mayyyyyybe with a very small number of very particular judges?).

However, I can’t comment knowledgeably about possible impact on applications to feeders (that’s not who I mean by a very small number of very particular judges, for the latter I just mean there’s likely some judge out there that has some preference about any possible aspect of an application that most judges won’t care about). To the extent a board position can affect your career, I tend to think that EIC has the most impact and everything after that is a distant second.

Again, I can’t guarantee no one will care, but I don’t think it will be a material issue, especially if you fill that time with something else you like better (so personally I’d look into researching for a prof rather than just focus on classes, but again, that’s just a personal take).

[Fireworks2016]

If I were in your position, the only way I'd vie for E-Board is if I had legitimate SCOTUS ambitions. I didn't particularly enjoy being a staffer, and the true leadership positions (EIC, Lead Articles Editor in particular) are way, way worse.

You're sitting pretty to have a relatively chill 3L year, but that will go up in smoke if you're dedicating 30-40 hours of work to thankless law review tasks.

[Anonymous User]

If I were in your position, the only way I'd vie for E-Board is if I had legitimate SCOTUS ambitions. I didn't particularly enjoy being a staffer, and the true leadership positions (EIC, Lead Articles Editor in particular) are way, way worse.

You're sitting pretty to have a relatively chill 3L year, but that will go up in smoke if you're dedicating 30-40 hours of work to thankless law review tasks.

OP. You are distinguishing E-Board from the general board, correct? Also, how significant is E-Board (rather than just board) to SCOTUS (the conservative bloc, specifically).

[stoopkid13]

For what it's worth, (1) being on board is generally much more interesting than being a staffer

Perhaps its different at Chicago, but IME this is pretty faint praise.

[Anonymous User]

For what it's worth, (1) being on board is generally much more interesting than being a staffer

Perhaps its different at Chicago, but IME this is pretty faint praise.

Different jobs on boards do very different things. If you really like law, and especially legal scholarship, you’ll like articles. It tends to be very hard to get and demanding on time though. Same for comments/notes to a lesser degree. Whoever does the proofreading and bluebooking stuff probably has it the worst.

[shoebox]

It is unlikely to materially advance your career, especially given the gigs you already have lined up. Also, it was a ton of work, and I didn't particularly care for it. That said, most of my lasting law school friendships with people that have gone on to have impressive careers came out of being in the trenches on the law review board together. I don't think there's going to be a clear answer to your question.

[Anonymous User]

Anon b/c I was EIC of LR. in your situation, don't bother with being on the e-board unless you're genuinely interested in getting intensely involved with LR. While EIC/e-board can get you a decent bump for clerkships, you already have one lined up. I can guarantee you that almost no one in biglaw or most other legal settings will care about whether you were on the e-board or not (or heck, if you were even on LR).

While I don't regret being EIC, being on e-board is a TREMENDOUS time-suck and 90% of it is boring, mindless work unless you do one of the "chill" e-board positions like organizing the symposium or whatever. And as others have said, unfortunately non-EIC e-board positions aren't valued any more than just generally being on LR. You've accomplished SO much already - treat yourself with a chill 3L year!

[Anonymous User]

Anon b/c I was EIC of LR. in your situation, don't bother with being on the e-board unless you're genuinely interested in getting intensely involved with LR. While EIC/e-board can get you a decent bump for clerkships, you already have one lined up. I can guarantee you that almost no one in biglaw or most other legal settings will care about whether you were on the e-board or not (or heck, if you were even on LR).

While I don't regret being EIC, being on e-board is a TREMENDOUS time-suck and 90% of it is boring, mindless work unless you do one of the "chill" e-board positions like organizing the symposium or whatever. And as others have said, unfortunately non-EIC e-board positions aren't valued any more than just generally being on LR. You've accomplished SO much already - treat yourself with a chill 3L year!

I (and our CSO and clerkship people) pretty strongly disagree that there is no marginal benefit to non-EIC board vs. staff, especially as OP is interested in applying to 1-2 more clerkships. Sounds like an egotistical EIC to me. Of course, it depends on the judge, but you could see real variance on our board for clerkships.

Also, as said before, there is tremendous variance in how interesting and time-sucky jobs are. Being EIC absolutely blows aside from career benefits, but it’s an outlier and you knew that going in. OP should get a feel for the demandingness and duties of different positions on their LR and decide to run based on that. If they all suck, don’t run.

Also if you say you don’t want to be EE or EIC in interviews, realistically you’re not gonna get it even if you could in theory.