Three clerkships? Forum

[Anonymous User]

One thing that is relevant is whether OP is a liberal or a conservative. I suspect that the value of a SCOTUS clerkship will be different depending on the answer. For liberals, it'll increasingly become so difficult to get one that it will be less of a big deal if you don't get one. But on the right, if you don't get a SCOTUS clerkship, I actually think that'll be a bigger deal because lots of people are getting them now (this is all relative; "lots" is still a small number in the grand scheme of things).

In other words, when the SG's office is hiring over the next few years, as the people picked by Jeff Wall and Noel Francisco are replaced by people picked by Elizabeth Prelogar, I wouldn't be surprised if you see more people become assistants to the SG without a SCOTUS clerkship (but instead elite COA clerkships like Watford, Pillard, Srinivasan, Lohier etc). But when the SG's office turns over again and the Republicans are picking, it won't be enough to have Thapar or Katsas on the list. Instead, they'll expect you clerked on the Court. The same will likely be true for other uber-elite jobs where it's normal to have multiple applicants with SCOTUS clerkships or SCOTUS-level credentials.

So if you're a liberal, I wouldn't worry as much about not having SCOTUS under your belt. There will only be 12 a year from your class who'll have that credential and most law students are liberal. But if you're conservative, then it might be a bigger deal.

I think this goes too far. If you think about it, the court was 5-4 conservative before Trump, and 6-3 now. And while Kennedy used to hire liberals, the Chief has taken over that role since Kennedy retired. Assuming everything else cancels out - other conservatives will hire the stray liberal, but liberals will also hire the stray conservative - there are now 3 to 5 fewer liberal SCOTUS clerks per year. That's a significant percentage, but it's minuscule in absolute terms.

For the truly super-elite jobs, especially SCOTUS-adjacent jobs like OSG, no one wants to hear about how competitive the year was. There will always be more more qualified liberal SCOTUS clerks than there are ASG openings, even if SCOTUS maintains its current composition. If anything, the increasing power of liberal superfeeders could make life hard for the clerks who barely missed the SCOTUS cut. For instance, OSG can call up their former colleague, Judge Srinivasan, and ask him which of his 15 former clerks he would recommend for an ASG opening. Chances are, he'll name someone he already recommended for SCOTUS.

Judgeships are a different story. Biden has, very much to his credit, looked outside traditional enclaves of prestige in selecting judges. As a whole, the progressive legal movement is committed to elevating public interest litigators, public defenders, and others from diverse professional backgrounds. But don't think that Biden couldn't fill S.D.N.Y., for example, with exclusively former RBG clerks if he wanted to.

[Anonymous User]

I think you'll find once you get through it all that the distinctions you're focusing on now don't really matter. The relevant difference is feeder/not-feeder, not between circuits.

Other than strengthening one’s shot at SCOTUS, what would a third clerkship with a feeder meaningfully help with? Stronger/fancier clerk network for the most competitive job opportunities down the road?

[Anonymous User]

I think you'll find once you get through it all that the distinctions you're focusing on now don't really matter. The relevant difference is feeder/not-feeder, not between circuits.

Other than strengthening one’s shot at SCOTUS, what would a third clerkship with a feeder meaningfully help with? Stronger/fancier clerk network for the most competitive job opportunities down the road?

Their name on your resume; a recommender with a truly national reputation; an enhanced clerk network; and a chance to to work with one of the best judges in the country. I agree with the poster that "the relevant difference is feeder/not-feeder, not between circuits," but I'd also add in the big-name judges who don't feed for whatever reason (like Judge Posner before he retired).

[Anonymous User]

I think you'll find once you get through it all that the distinctions you're focusing on now don't really matter. The relevant difference is feeder/not-feeder, not between circuits.

Other than strengthening one’s shot at SCOTUS, what would a third clerkship with a feeder meaningfully help with? Stronger/fancier clerk network for the most competitive job opportunities down the road?

Their name on your resume; a recommender with a truly national reputation; an enhanced clerk network; and a chance to to work with one of the best judges in the country. I agree with the poster that "the relevant difference is feeder/not-feeder, not between circuits," but I'd also add in the big-name judges who don't feed for whatever reason (like Judge Posner before he retired).

Not the point but Posner was a pretty significant feeder. I don't think a third clerkship with a judge who's truly in that category--Easterbrook and Diane Wood are the two who immediately come to mind--would be worth it for almost anyone.

[Anonymous User]

I think you'll find once you get through it all that the distinctions you're focusing on now don't really matter. The relevant difference is feeder/not-feeder, not between circuits.

Other than strengthening one’s shot at SCOTUS, what would a third clerkship with a feeder meaningfully help with? Stronger/fancier clerk network for the most competitive job opportunities down the road?

Their name on your resume; a recommender with a truly national reputation; an enhanced clerk network; and a chance to to work with one of the best judges in the country. I agree with the poster that "the relevant difference is feeder/not-feeder, not between circuits," but I'd also add in the big-name judges who don't feed for whatever reason (like Judge Posner before he retired).

The reasons there are big name judges who don’t feed is because they don’t really care to - they don’t put in the legwork of calling up the justices and waxing philosophic about their clerks. Doesn’t make the clerkship less informative, but that’s the main difference. Posner did feed by the way, at least until he started going a bit toward the end.

[Anonymous User]

I think you'll find once you get through it all that the distinctions you're focusing on now don't really matter. The relevant difference is feeder/not-feeder, not between circuits.

Other than strengthening one’s shot at SCOTUS, what would a third clerkship with a feeder meaningfully help with? Stronger/fancier clerk network for the most competitive job opportunities down the road?

Their name on your resume; a recommender with a truly national reputation; an enhanced clerk network; and a chance to to work with one of the best judges in the country. I agree with the poster that "the relevant difference is feeder/not-feeder, not between circuits," but I'd also add in the big-name judges who don't feed for whatever reason (like Judge Posner before he retired).

Yeah, there are doubtless judges with fantastic reputations/networks who would be valuable mentors even without actually feeding to SCOTUS, so I probably should have said the relevant factor is the judge, not the circuit. It's just that there are definitely judges, particularly on the 9th and the 2d Circuits (especially those not in NYC/LA/SF) who aren't going to magically open more doors than a judge on any other circuit just by virtue of the circuit they're in.

And I agree with your list of possible benefits.

I actually think probably the most practical reason to do a third clerkship is if you need to move to a jurisdiction where you don't currently have a lot of ties - I've seen people use their time clerking to network really well and line up something great for after the clerkship that they might not have been able to get before they came to town. Obviously this doesn't really address the OP's interests/concerns, though.

(I do tend to think that the OP is suffering from greener grass syndrome. Judges who haven't fed "more than a handful of times" have still fed more than plenty of judges. But I'll fully admit it's not an issue I personally have ever had to grapple with, so take me with a grain of salt.)

[Anonymous User]

Just graduated from a non-HYS T14 near the top of the class (not #1 but likely very close). Will be clerking at both the district (one of DDC/EDNY/SDNY/NDCA/NDIL) and appellate (2/7/9) levels. Neither judge has fed more than a handful of times. I accepted these offers pretty much immediately after the Plan opened last summer.

I know that I'm very lucky to have picked up these competitive clerkships at all, especially from a school without a particularly...strong clerkships office/machinery, but a part of me is kicking myself for not applying more selectively as a rising 3L. Though individual professors I spoke with encouraged me to shoot for the stars, I am a naturally risk-averse person and received conflicting intel from our clerkships office, so I applied very conservatively, in retrospect. After doing extremely well during 1L and 2L, I had an amazing 3L year (top grade in key classes and some additional feathers in my cap).

Would it be completely crazy for me to consider applying for a DC Cir. clerkship down the line? I'm particularly interested in admin law, so the docket is extremely appealing to me, and I do have unicorn career goals: think DOJ OLC, OSG, Civil/Criminal Appellate, academia, etc. But I'm aware that three federal clerkships, especially without a clear or even plausible path to a SCOTUS clerkship, would be too much for 99.9999% of lawyers. That said, I've seen some examples of people who have done three (non-SCOTUS) clerkships, so I'm wondering when that would make sense.

Given your interests, I see little reason not to apply for a third clerkship. Remember that this is only an application; heck you could apply to SCOTUS and the DC Circuit at the same time and if you don't get SCOTUS, maybe a DC Circuit clerkship will help move the needle next time you apply. You also have no idea whether you will get the DC Circuit clerkship. Having clerked on that court, I can say the number of incredible applications is overwhelming and you are far from a shoe-in for an interview (from the limited data you provided). Given your interests, it makes sense to apply. It is not going to harm you. Debate about whether to take an interview if and when you get one.

[Anonymous User]

How does this advice apply for someone who is probably a little bit more of a marginal YHS SCOTUS candidate? Have a semi-feeder dct and a feeder COA. Would adding a second feeder COA help with a scotus app?

[Anonymous User]

How does this advice apply for someone who is probably a little bit more of a marginal YHS SCOTUS candidate? Have a semi-feeder dct and a feeder COA. Would adding a second feeder COA help with a scotus app?

This is a closer call but I'd still advise against. If you manage to impress your first two judges adequately, they should be able to get you an interview without extra help. Conversely, if they don't support you, a third judge will likely trust their judgment. Instead, maybe consider doing a SG fellowship (Bristow or a state SG fellowship like the Warren/Coleman/Karas), a prestigious DOJ job (OLC/Civil Appellate), or maybe even a State SC clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

How does this advice apply for someone who is probably a little bit more of a marginal YHS SCOTUS candidate? Have a semi-feeder dct and a feeder COA. Would adding a second feeder COA help with a scotus app?

This is a closer call but I'd still advise against. If you manage to impress your first two judges adequately, they should be able to get you an interview without extra help. Conversely, if they don't support you, a third judge likely will likely trust their judgment. Instead, maybe consider doing a SG fellowship (Bristow or a state SG fellowship like the Warren/Coleman/Karas), a prestigious DOJ job (OLC/Civil Appellate), or maybe even a State SC clerkship.

This is super helpful thank you. Anyone else have thoughts? Just asking quickly because I could feasibly put together apps for this cycle but just want to make sure I'm not messing up by not doing so.

[Anonymous User]

How does this advice apply for someone who is probably a little bit more of a marginal YHS SCOTUS candidate? Have a semi-feeder dct and a feeder COA. Would adding a second feeder COA help with a scotus app?

This is a closer call but I'd still advise against. If you manage to impress your first two judges adequately, they should be able to get you an interview without extra help. Conversely, if they don't support you, a third judge likely will likely trust their judgment. Instead, maybe consider doing a SG fellowship (Bristow or a state SG fellowship like the Warren/Coleman/Karas), a prestigious DOJ job (OLC/Civil Appellate), or maybe even a State SC clerkship.

This is super helpful thank you. Anyone else have thoughts? Just asking quickly because I could feasibly put together apps for this cycle but just want to make sure I'm not messing up by not doing so.

I mean this is pretty credited. You're qualified for two feeders, the signaling element is done. There's nothing magical DC Cir. will add. Rest is down to performance, rest of profile, and luck

[Anonymous User]

I mean this is pretty credited. You're qualified for two feeders, the signaling element is done. There's nothing magical DC Cir. will add. Rest is down to performance, rest of profile, and luck

Secondly, the DC Circuit is not some slingshot to SCOTUS unless you are clerking for one of the mega feeders. I know that the SCOTUS clerk thread mentioned that DC Cir, all things being equal, will improve your chances over other circuits, but it's not worth doing an extra clerkship year if it isn't for like Katsas or Sri. For example, Wilkins and Ginsburg are fine judges and clerkships, but they aren't really moving the needle one way or another.

[Anonymous User]

I mean this is pretty credited. You're qualified for two feeders, the signaling element is done. There's nothing magical DC Cir. will add. Rest is down to performance, rest of profile, and luck

Secondly, the DC Circuit is not some slingshot to SCOTUS unless you are clerking for one of the mega feeders. I know that the SCOTUS clerk thread mentioned that DC Cir, all things being equal, will improve your chances over other circuits, but it's not worth doing an extra clerkship year if it isn't for like Katsas or Sri. For example, Wilkins and Ginsburg are fine judges and clerkships, but they aren't really moving the needle one way or another.

The judges I would be applying for are not level of Katsas or Sri, but more like Watford/Heytens/Nathan/Lohier, etc. Still not worth it?

[Anonymous User]

I mean this is pretty credited. You're qualified for two feeders, the signaling element is done. There's nothing magical DC Cir. will add. Rest is down to performance, rest of profile, and luck

Secondly, the DC Circuit is not some slingshot to SCOTUS unless you are clerking for one of the mega feeders. I know that the SCOTUS clerk thread mentioned that DC Cir, all things being equal, will improve your chances over other circuits, but it's not worth doing an extra clerkship year if it isn't for like Katsas or Sri. For example, Wilkins and Ginsburg are fine judges and clerkships, but they aren't really moving the needle one way or another.

The judges I would be applying for are not level of Katsas or Sri, but more like Watford/Heytens/Nathan/Lohier, etc. Still not worth it?

FYI Heytens won't hire you if already have another COA clerkship

[Anonymous User]

I mean this is pretty credited. You're qualified for two feeders, the signaling element is done. There's nothing magical DC Cir. will add. Rest is down to performance, rest of profile, and luck

Secondly, the DC Circuit is not some slingshot to SCOTUS unless you are clerking for one of the mega feeders. I know that the SCOTUS clerk thread mentioned that DC Cir, all things being equal, will improve your chances over other circuits, but it's not worth doing an extra clerkship year if it isn't for like Katsas or Sri. For example, Wilkins and Ginsburg are fine judges and clerkships, but they aren't really moving the needle one way or another.

The judges I would be applying for are not level of Katsas or Sri, but more like Watford/Heytens/Nathan/Lohier, etc. Still not worth it?

FYI Heytens won't hire you if already have another COA clerkship

Gotcha. If it were the rest, though?

[Anonymous User]

I mean this is pretty credited. You're qualified for two feeders, the signaling element is done. There's nothing magical DC Cir. will add. Rest is down to performance, rest of profile, and luck

Secondly, the DC Circuit is not some slingshot to SCOTUS unless you are clerking for one of the mega feeders. I know that the SCOTUS clerk thread mentioned that DC Cir, all things being equal, will improve your chances over other circuits, but it's not worth doing an extra clerkship year if it isn't for like Katsas or Sri. For example, Wilkins and Ginsburg are fine judges and clerkships, but they aren't really moving the needle one way or another.

The judges I would be applying for are not level of Katsas or Sri, but more like Watford/Heytens/Nathan/Lohier, etc. Still not worth it?

FYI Heytens won't hire you if already have another COA clerkship

Gotcha. If it were the rest, though?

Still wouldn't, but if you want to risk another year of not making a big law salary for something that might, at best, marginally increase your chances and will probably be a boring year, I'm not saying to not go for it. Just know the downsides.

[Anonymous User]

I mean this is pretty credited. You're qualified for two feeders, the signaling element is done. There's nothing magical DC Cir. will add. Rest is down to performance, rest of profile, and luck

Secondly, the DC Circuit is not some slingshot to SCOTUS unless you are clerking for one of the mega feeders. I know that the SCOTUS clerk thread mentioned that DC Cir, all things being equal, will improve your chances over other circuits, but it's not worth doing an extra clerkship year if it isn't for like Katsas or Sri. For example, Wilkins and Ginsburg are fine judges and clerkships, but they aren't really moving the needle one way or another.

The judges I would be applying for are not level of Katsas or Sri, but more like Watford/Heytens/Nathan/Lohier, etc. Still not worth it?

FYI Heytens won't hire you if already have another COA clerkship

Gotcha. If it were the rest, though?

Still wouldn't, but if you want to risk another year of not making a big law salary for something that might, at best, marginally increase your chances and will probably be a boring year, I'm not saying to not go for it. Just know the downsides.

Not to mention that the year in biglaw may do more to help the poster get to SCOTUS, especially if they can work with Fisher, Katyal, Verulli, etc...

[Anonymous User]

I mean this is pretty credited. You're qualified for two feeders, the signaling element is done. There's nothing magical DC Cir. will add. Rest is down to performance, rest of profile, and luck

Secondly, the DC Circuit is not some slingshot to SCOTUS unless you are clerking for one of the mega feeders. I know that the SCOTUS clerk thread mentioned that DC Cir, all things being equal, will improve your chances over other circuits, but it's not worth doing an extra clerkship year if it isn't for like Katsas or Sri. For example, Wilkins and Ginsburg are fine judges and clerkships, but they aren't really moving the needle one way or another.

The judges I would be applying for are not level of Katsas or Sri, but more like Watford/Heytens/Nathan/Lohier, etc. Still not worth it?

FYI Heytens won't hire you if already have another COA clerkship

Gotcha. If it were the rest, though?

Still wouldn't, but if you want to risk another year of not making a big law salary for something that might, at best, marginally increase your chances and will probably be a boring year, I'm not saying to not go for it. Just know the downsides.

Not to mention that the year in biglaw may do more to help the poster get to SCOTUS, especially if they can work with Fisher, Katyal, Verulli, etc...

All the judges you mentioned range from “promising but as of now nonfeeder / semi feeder” to “definitely a feeder, just not insanely generationally so.” In other words, the exact profile you already have locked down x2. I would strongly suggest putting your head down, with your next application to SCOTUS if at all, and instead learning to love money if that route doesn’t work out.