Three clerkships? Forum

[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.

[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.

Two circuit clerkships and a district court clerkship is overkill and won't do much to help you achieve your goals. If you can't get SCOTUS, consider a prestigious state supreme court clerkship instead.

[Anonymous User]

Two circuit clerkships and a district court clerkship is overkill and won't do much to help you achieve your goals. If you can't get SCOTUS, consider a prestigious state supreme court clerkship instead.

If you have a big name Professor who’s agree to push hard for you when the time comes, it might be worth it if this is your overriding life goal and you are ok with the odds being heavily against you and the financial hit. I’d still advise against it.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think it's normal by any means but if you're picking the right judges, it might be OK? There's an incoming Alito clerk who clerked for Sykes/Pryor/Katsas. I guess it worked for him? Same with another Katsas clerk who clerked for CT after Pryor, a district judge, and Katsas. I would not do it for any DC Circuit judge just because they're on DC Circuit. But Srinivasan/Katsas/Pillard might be worth it.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think it's normal by any means but if you're picking the right judges, it might be OK? There's an incoming Alito clerk who clerked for Sykes/Pryor/Katsas. I guess it worked for him? Same with another Katsas clerk who clerked for CT after Pryor, a district judge, and Katsas. I would not do it for any DC Circuit judge just because they're on DC Circuit. But Srinivasan/Katsas/Pillard might be worth it.

My guess is that a good percentage of those clerks are backfilling clerkships - they’ve been hired already and instead of working at a law firm rather pointlessly for a year, one judge helps place them with a friend.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think it's normal by any means but if you're picking the right judges, it might be OK? There's an incoming Alito clerk who clerked for Sykes/Pryor/Katsas. I guess it worked for him? Same with another Katsas clerk who clerked for CT after Pryor, a district judge, and Katsas. I would not do it for any DC Circuit judge just because they're on DC Circuit. But Srinivasan/Katsas/Pillard might be worth it.

My guess is that a good percentage of those clerks are backfilling clerkships - they’ve been hired already and instead of working at a law firm rather pointlessly for a year, one judge helps place them with a friend.

The guy who clerked 3x is currently a KE associate (previously clerked 18-21, SCOTUS starts 22).

[LBJ's Hair]

the question is how much you value the marginal benefit a third recommender for SCOTUS will do for your app vs making a commitment several years in advance to do a job that has 0 (probably negative) professional for you otherwise.

I, personally, would accept my status as a very marginal SCOTUS applicant, apply when appropriate with 2 clerkships, and not build the next 3+ years of my professional life around enhancing my application.

but if this is the most important thing in the world for you, proceed accordingly.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think it's normal by any means but if you're picking the right judges, it might be OK? There's an incoming Alito clerk who clerked for Sykes/Pryor/Katsas. I guess it worked for him? Same with another Katsas clerk who clerked for CT after Pryor, a district judge, and Katsas. I would not do it for any DC Circuit judge just because they're on DC Circuit. But Srinivasan/Katsas/Pillard might be worth it.

My guess is that a good percentage of those clerks are backfilling clerkships - they’ve been hired already and instead of working at a law firm rather pointlessly for a year, one judge helps place them with a friend.

The guy who clerked 3x is currently a KE associate (previously clerked 18-21, SCOTUS starts 22).

Yes, he was still a backfill (CT hires far out). This brings up another good point - if OP clerks 3x, people may assume (rightly or wrongly) that OP was obsessed with making SCOTUS but couldn't.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think it's normal by any means but if you're picking the right judges, it might be OK? There's an incoming Alito clerk who clerked for Sykes/Pryor/Katsas. I guess it worked for him? Same with another Katsas clerk who clerked for CT after Pryor, a district judge, and Katsas. I would not do it for any DC Circuit judge just because they're on DC Circuit. But Srinivasan/Katsas/Pillard might be worth it.

My guess is that a good percentage of those clerks are backfilling clerkships - they’ve been hired already and instead of working at a law firm rather pointlessly for a year, one judge helps place them with a friend.

The guy who clerked 3x is currently a KE associate (previously clerked 18-21, SCOTUS starts 22).

This is complete speculation on my part, and this model should not be taken as what actually happened in the case of this clerk. This is merely instructive as to what happens in some cases.

Its entirely plausible that said clerk got Pryor/Katsas early pre-plan with a gap year (or any combination of Sykes/Katsas, etc.), and then one of the judges (or Justice Thomas himself) suggested that the clerk fill another year with a friend who needed a clerk. In any case, the point is that the third clerkship didn’t actually help or was accepted for the primary purpose of boosting a SCOTUS candidacy.

[Anonymous User]

Justice Alito typically hires extremely late so my guess is that the KE associate who will be with him in OT 22 just wanted three clerkships. The gap-filling is less likely for established judges who have otherwise hired out for the year. For example, Katsas is probably filling 2025 right now. It's unlikely he'll have spots for people who are already hired by SCOTUS. I think that his first couple of classes when he just got on the bench were mostly people Thomas had already hired but that effect is no longer playing a big role.

For OP, I'd say do 3 clerkships only if you'd still be fine with it if SCOTUS never works out. Each judge could be a lifelong mentor and the work is intrinsically interesting. On the other hand, you're giving up a lot of money each year you clerk instead of working in private practice (if that's the alternative).

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Thanks everyone for the replies.

I understand that my chances at SCOTUS, even after a third clerkship with the right DC Circuit judge, would still effectively be zero. It’s just that if I could do the three clerkships and then go on to OLC/OSG/academia etc. (without SCOTUS), perhaps boosted by whatever added “wow” factor might come with the DC Circuit credential, versus do the two clerkships and not do any of those things, I would very happily do the former. But it sounds like any such benefit would be very marginal at best, beyond potentially building a relationship with a third mentor.

[Anonymous User]

Frankly you may be bored of clerking and burned out by then, which is pretty common. I probably wouldn’t do it if it wasn’t with a major feeder, but it might have some marginal benefit for your goals.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Thanks everyone for the replies.

I understand that my chances at SCOTUS, even after a third clerkship with the right DC Circuit judge, would still effectively be zero. It’s just that if I could do the three clerkships and then go on to OLC/OSG/academia etc. (without SCOTUS), perhaps boosted by whatever added “wow” factor might come with the DC Circuit credential, versus do the two clerkships and not do any of those things, I would very happily do the former. But it sounds like any such benefit would be very marginal at best, beyond potentially building a relationship with a third mentor.

Yeah, other than getting another judge in your corner, I don’t think a DC circuit credential in a vacuum is going to make any difference. TLS loves to rank circuits but I don’t think it really works that way - there are particularly prestigious judges, who can make a difference to your career, and DDC has a lot of those by virtue of circumstance, but there isn’t really a DDC boost. There are specific judge boosts. (You may well realize this but thought I’d throw it out there anyway.)

That said, if you really want another clerkship and get an opportunity with a great judge, I don’t think it would actively hurt you, it just won’t likely add much to your application. Clerking burnout is definitely a thing (maybe less if you’re someone who wants academia anyway) and you will be passing on a lot of money if you’d otherwise go to a firm, or getting other valuable experience one year sooner if you do something else. If you really want three years of the experience, go for it. But if you’re interested only because you’re worried on missing out on something more prestigious you could have got, I wouldn’t do it. It’s better to learn to deal with that feeling than to feed it (totally unsolicited personal opinion).

[Anonymous User]

Frankly you may be bored of clerking and burned out by then, which is pretty common. I probably wouldn’t do it if it wasn’t with a major feeder, but it might have some marginal benefit for your goals.

Anecdotally, I am on my second clerkship proceeding to a third and am so, so burned out already. However, my third clerkship provides something the other two don't. If you're just repeating yourself, I would discourage you from doing a third.

[Anonymous User]

Frankly you may be bored of clerking and burned out by then, which is pretty common. I probably wouldn’t do it if it wasn’t with a major feeder, but it might have some marginal benefit for your goals.

Anecdotally, I am on my second clerkship proceeding to a third and am so, so burned out already. However, my third clerkship provides something the other two don't. If you're just repeating yourself, I would discourage you from doing a third.

I find these "multiple clerkships cause you to burn out" sentiments a little strange. Actual law practice is so, so much more grueling than clerking, especially clerking on a court of appeals. I did two clerkships (district court and COA) and by the end of each, I was sad it was over and wished it could have gone on for longer. In no other law job do you experience such a broad swath of types of law. It's always interesting and new stuff is always popping up. Plus it takes about 6 months until you fully get the hang of it.

[Anonymous User]

Frankly you may be bored of clerking and burned out by then, which is pretty common. I probably wouldn’t do it if it wasn’t with a major feeder, but it might have some marginal benefit for your goals.

Anecdotally, I am on my second clerkship proceeding to a third and am so, so burned out already. However, my third clerkship provides something the other two don't. If you're just repeating yourself, I would discourage you from doing a third.

I find these "multiple clerkships cause you to burn out" sentiments a little strange. Actual law practice is so, so much more grueling than clerking, especially clerking on a court of appeals. I did two clerkships (district court and COA) and by the end of each, I was sad it was over and wished it could have gone on for longer. In no other law job do you experience such a broad swath of types of law. It's always interesting and new stuff is always popping up. Plus it takes about 6 months until you fully get the hang of it.

I mean, people have different experiences, and clerkships have different intensities. There was a recent long thread on here filled with burned out clerks. Some clerks work biglaw-plus hours. Some clerks have unpleasant bosses. Some clerks just don’t like the work.

Plus, the variety of cases clerking can be overstated—most districts are dominated by some combo of Social Security, guns, drugs, habeas, immigration, and employment. There’s interesting stuff in nooks and crannies there, for sure, but I personally found employment MSJs to be incredibly tedious, for example, and they take forever.

Biglaw can also be super tedious obviously, but nobody’s surprised that biglaw associates burn out.

[lavarman84]

Frankly you may be bored of clerking and burned out by then, which is pretty common. I probably wouldn’t do it if it wasn’t with a major feeder, but it might have some marginal benefit for your goals.

Anecdotally, I am on my second clerkship proceeding to a third and am so, so burned out already. However, my third clerkship provides something the other two don't. If you're just repeating yourself, I would discourage you from doing a third.

I find these "multiple clerkships cause you to burn out" sentiments a little strange. Actual law practice is so, so much more grueling than clerking, especially clerking on a court of appeals. I did two clerkships (district court and COA) and by the end of each, I was sad it was over and wished it could have gone on for longer. In no other law job do you experience such a broad swath of types of law. It's always interesting and new stuff is always popping up. Plus it takes about 6 months until you fully get the hang of it.

I wouldn't call it burn out. I would simply say that I was ready to start practicing law by the end. It wasn't challenging once I got the hang of it, and I wanted to start litigating my own cases as an advocate. Could I have done another year? Sure. The hours were reasonable, and my judges were good people. But I was ready to develop new skills and challenge myself in new ways.

I also wouldn't say that it's always interesting. There were plenty of cases that weren't interesting (ex. ERISA appeal). Frankly, my job now is far more interesting. (But I'm not in biglaw.)

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Thanks everyone for the replies.

I understand that my chances at SCOTUS, even after a third clerkship with the right DC Circuit judge, would still effectively be zero. It’s just that if I could do the three clerkships and then go on to OLC/OSG/academia etc. (without SCOTUS), perhaps boosted by whatever added “wow” factor might come with the DC Circuit credential, versus do the two clerkships and not do any of those things, I would very happily do the former. But it sounds like any such benefit would be very marginal at best, beyond potentially building a relationship with a third mentor.

In addition to what others have said, I'd encourage you to interrogate your goals further. Why OLC/OSG/academia? They all require thinking and writing about abstract legal issues, but the similarities end there. OSG only hires SCOTUS clerks with a few years of experience in appellate big law, and it's not for the faint of heart. OLC is equally intense and also requires political savvy and a cautious disposition. Academia looks for publications and (increasingly) advanced degrees and rewards bold thinkpieces. It's the rare sort that finds all these options equally attractive.

[Anonymous User]

Frankly you may be bored of clerking and burned out by then, which is pretty common. I probably wouldn’t do it if it wasn’t with a major feeder, but it might have some marginal benefit for your goals.

Anecdotally, I am on my second clerkship proceeding to a third and am so, so burned out already. However, my third clerkship provides something the other two don't. If you're just repeating yourself, I would discourage you from doing a third.

I find these "multiple clerkships cause you to burn out" sentiments a little strange. Actual law practice is so, so much more grueling than clerking, especially clerking on a court of appeals. I did two clerkships (district court and COA) and by the end of each, I was sad it was over and wished it could have gone on for longer. In no other law job do you experience such a broad swath of types of law. It's always interesting and new stuff is always popping up. Plus it takes about 6 months until you fully get the hang of it.

This depends a lot on the individual. Many people doubtless feel like you do. I had a similar experience to lavarman, I wanted to start litigating my own cases. But the bigger issue for me was that while I really enjoy research and writing, I wanted a little more variation in my day and to have interactions with more people than just those in chambers (which, honestly, can be a stressor in itself). The variety of practice may be more grueling in many ways, but it can also be more mentally stimulating than sitting in front of your computer doing the exact same thing for 8 hours a day every day. Practice is definitely more/harder work than my clerkships were, but for me more variety is key.

[Anonymous User]

Frankly you may be bored of clerking and burned out by then, which is pretty common. I probably wouldn’t do it if it wasn’t with a major feeder, but it might have some marginal benefit for your goals.

Anecdotally, I am on my second clerkship proceeding to a third and am so, so burned out already. However, my third clerkship provides something the other two don't. If you're just repeating yourself, I would discourage you from doing a third.

I find these "multiple clerkships cause you to burn out" sentiments a little strange. Actual law practice is so, so much more grueling than clerking, especially clerking on a court of appeals. I did two clerkships (district court and COA) and by the end of each, I was sad it was over and wished it could have gone on for longer. In no other law job do you experience such a broad swath of types of law. It's always interesting and new stuff is always popping up. Plus it takes about 6 months until you fully get the hang of it.

This depends a lot on the individual. Many people doubtless feel like you do. I had a similar experience to lavarman, I wanted to start litigating my own cases. But the bigger issue for me was that while I really enjoy research and writing, I wanted a little more variation in my day and to have interactions with more people than just those in chambers (which, honestly, can be a stressor in itself). The variety of practice may be more grueling in many ways, but it can also be more mentally stimulating than sitting in front of your computer doing the exact same thing for 8 hours a day every day. Practice is definitely more/harder work than my clerkships were, but for me more variety is key.

Yes. I was the one who originally commented about being burned out, and I am burned out because the work is repetitive, frequently boring, I don't feel invested in the result, and I have absolutely no contact outside chambers. I certainly don't mind having more free time than I might in actual law practice, but I didn't go to law school because I wanted time to hit the gym twice a day. Perhaps "burned out" is the wrong word, but I can't think of a better one that covers those bases.

[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.

[Anonymous User]

I think the previous comment is probably a bit over the top, but it is interesting that Biden has nominated only a couple of SCOTUS clerks. That’s not the result of the recent lack of spots, but it might indicate the declining value of the credential for one of its traditional major uses on the left.

[Anonymous User]

I think the previous comment is probably a bit over the top, but it is interesting that Biden has nominated only a couple of SCOTUS clerks. That’s not the result of the recent lack of spots, but it might indicate the declining value of the credential for one of its traditional major uses on the left.

There's no cohesive, organizing, robust force on the left that matches the Federalist Society, and the American Constitution Society doesn't come close. The legal establishment of the left is a diffuse amalgam of civil rights lawyers, socially liberal academic types, and your typical center-left coastal elite grads of ivy league or other top universities and law schools who are only liberal because they absorbed the social norms of the majority of people around them during their educations. There's no real ongoing "liberal" project to transform the role the judiciary in American life in the same way that there is a conservative one.

[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.

This is OP. I'm a liberal. This makes sense. Unfortunately, my COA clerkship is not with a Watford/Pillard/Srinivasan etc. judge, so some of the "uber-elite" jobs may be just out of reach.

But I realize that at this level we're just splitting tiny, tiny hairs (and I really like my judges). So, as another poster wisely suggested above, it would probably be a better use of my time/energy to stop obsessing over marginally better outcomes I could have gotten and instead focus on beginning my career as a practicing lawyer!

Thanks everyone for your input! I wish I had spent more time on here (TLS) when I was applying after 2L. I might have been a bit more strategic with my applications and, I dunno, bided my time a bit more if things didn't work out right away.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks everyone for your input! I wish I had spent more time on here (TLS) when I was applying after 2L. I might have been a bit more strategic with my applications and, I dunno, bided my time a bit more if things didn't work out right away.

FWIW, lots of people feel like you do, b/c it's hard to game the clerkship application process - you can't guarantee who you'll hear back from first and once you get an offer, you have to either be convinced you couldn't work with that judge, or REALLY confident in the strength of your application actually to turn it down. Because there are also always people who try to be more strategic/bide their time, and end up with nothing, and everyone wants to avoid that fate.

Besides, you couldn't know that you'd do so well during 3L. If your grades had dipped, you'd be thrilled to be in the position you are right now.

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.