Struck Out On Plan—State Supreme Court? Forum

[Anonymous User]

T14, top 10%, and on LR. Unfortunately I struck out on the plan despite 100s of apps to a fairly broad amount of circuits and districts. Talked to the clerkship office and they gave me a pitch on state supreme courts and honestly... it sounds kind of awesome? I am thinking of sending out a bunch of apps to state supreme courts that I have any—no matter how small—connection to. I have a few questions though. Am I making a mistake? I know that firms don't really give class year credit or bonus for SSCs but I'm fine with that. I was thinking that if I had an SSC under my belt it could also maybe help me, even a little, when I apply for circuits or district court clerkships in the 2024 terms. Is that a correct take, in regard to this slight improvement thing? If not, is it at the very least neutral. My fear is that it may be deemed a "negative" thing especially if it is not a CA/NY/equivalent SSC clerkship.

Ultimately, I think it would be cool to spend a year clerking for a state supreme court Justice in a not necessarily prestigous state but I also want to make sure I am not greatly hobbling my career. Would it be conceivable/possible to do a state supreme court clerkship, a district court clerkship, and a circuit court clerkship or is that really pushing it? Sorry for the somewhat scattered nature of the question, the process is very new to me.

[objctnyrhnr]

There are definitely tiers.

I wanna say you have Ca and ny
Then I dunno maybe MA and TX and a couple others?
Then the rest. This is obviously a terrible list, but the point is that they are not created equal prestige-wise; far from it.

But the biggest pro of doing it is that it gives you another year to land fedclerk. Your creds are great. Start applying immediately once you land a ssc.

[Anonymous User]

There are definitely tiers.

I wanna say you have Ca and ny
Then I dunno maybe MA and TX and a couple others?
Then the rest. This is obviously a terrible list, but the point is that they are not created equal prestige-wise; far from it.

But the biggest pro of doing it is that it gives you another year to land fedclerk. Your creds are great. Start applying immediately once you land a ssc.

OP. So hypothetically let us say I landed like a Colorado SSC or a Rhode Island SSC and then started applying for 2024 circuits. That wouldn't be a dumb thing to do? I'm also a V5 SA right now, so maybe I should stay with that? I do, personally, think I would enjoy an SSC clerkship better than being a 1st year SA if that matters.

[Anonymous User]

Definitely shoot for New Jersey Supreme Court before NY Court of Appeals. In New York City at least, the former has a solidly stronger reputation.

[Anonymous User]

T14, top 10%, and on LR. Unfortunately I struck out on the plan despite 100s of apps to a fairly broad amount of circuits and districts. Talked to the clerkship office and they gave me a pitch on state supreme courts and honestly... it sounds kind of awesome? I am thinking of sending out a bunch of apps to state supreme courts that I have any—no matter how small—connection to. I have a few questions though. Am I making a mistake? I know that firms don't really give class year credit or bonus for SSCs but I'm fine with that. I was thinking that if I had an SSC under my belt it could also maybe help me, even a little, when I apply for circuits or district court clerkships in the 2024 terms. Is that a correct take, in regard to this slight improvement thing? If not, is it at the very least neutral. My fear is that it may be deemed a "negative" thing especially if it is not a CA/NY/equivalent SSC clerkship.

Ultimately, I think it would be cool to spend a year clerking for a state supreme court Justice in a not necessarily prestigous state but I also want to make sure I am not greatly hobbling my career. Would it be conceivable/possible to do a state supreme court clerkship, a district court clerkship, and a circuit court clerkship or is that really pushing it? Sorry for the somewhat scattered nature of the question, the process is very new to me.

I’ve been personally advised to avoid more than two clerkships, but that’s just one person’s experience. If you want to do a SSC, go for it!

What I will say is that I think you should do a de-brief on your app with someone you trust. Your profile is very strong; I’m extremely surprised you didn’t get any interviews even though you applied so broadly. Make sure your writing sample has no errors in it and is compelling. Make sure your recommenders actually wrote good things about you. Make sure you didn’t have any typos or extraneous cringy information in your cover letter.

[Anonymous User]

T14, top 10%, and on LR. Unfortunately I struck out on the plan despite 100s of apps to a fairly broad amount of circuits and districts. Talked to the clerkship office and they gave me a pitch on state supreme courts and honestly... it sounds kind of awesome? I am thinking of sending out a bunch of apps to state supreme courts that I have any—no matter how small—connection to. I have a few questions though. Am I making a mistake? I know that firms don't really give class year credit or bonus for SSCs but I'm fine with that. I was thinking that if I had an SSC under my belt it could also maybe help me, even a little, when I apply for circuits or district court clerkships in the 2024 terms. Is that a correct take, in regard to this slight improvement thing? If not, is it at the very least neutral. My fear is that it may be deemed a "negative" thing especially if it is not a CA/NY/equivalent SSC clerkship.

Ultimately, I think it would be cool to spend a year clerking for a state supreme court Justice in a not necessarily prestigous state but I also want to make sure I am not greatly hobbling my career. Would it be conceivable/possible to do a state supreme court clerkship, a district court clerkship, and a circuit court clerkship or is that really pushing it? Sorry for the somewhat scattered nature of the question, the process is very new to me.

I’ve been personally advised to avoid more than two clerkships, but that’s just one person’s experience. If you want to do a SSC, go for it!

What I will say is that I think you should do a de-brief on your app with someone you trust. Your profile is very strong; I’m extremely surprised you didn’t get any interviews even though you applied so broadly. Make sure your writing sample has no errors in it and is compelling. Make sure your recommenders actually wrote good things about you. Make sure you didn’t have any typos or extraneous cringy information in your cover letter.

Will do! When you say personally advised to avoid more than 2, what was the context of it. I'm fairly young (KJD) and don't care too much about the lost monetary aspect. Is there some career issue with potentially doing three? (note if I do "three" it will probably/hopefully be SSC, District, and Circuit, have no interest/intention in SCOTUS and not like I have a chance anyways).

[Anonymous User]

Imo SSCs generally have more interesting dockets than federal courts—they get all the stuff federal ones do, plus common law and constitutional stuff with leeway to change the law, minus the worst parts of the federal docket like Social Security, etc. Depending on the court’s jurisdiction, they typically just don’t grant cert on anything uninteresting.

Many SSC judges are also federal-quality, including in states you may not expect. E.g. Colorado, already mentioned, or Iowa, or Minnesota.

They’re probably not a big career bump outside of your clerkship’s geographic area, though, which is the big downside.

[Anonymous User]

Alternative view is to accept that the plan didn’t go your way and continue to apply as postings open throughout the year. Not all judges are on plan and not all finish within a couple weeks of the plan. Many have their own timelines. If you don’t get one, go back to your firm and keep at it. I didn’t apply until 3L and just kept applying as I saw openings trickle up on Oscar or clerkship office and got two federal clerkships starting after a year of biglaw. I really wanted to clerk but I also wanted the federal credential and experience (nothing personal against a SSC).

[Anonymous User]

I know a lot of people who did SSC clerkships and it turned out well for all of them. They were basically split between T14 grads coming back to their home state, T14 grads who wanted to spend a year somewhere interesting before going back to major city biglaw, and top students from local schools. This was a secondary market. I think it’s going to be most helpful if you want to work in that market, BUT I also know SSC clerks who went on to federal clerkships in the jurisdiction, too - it’s often a very good way to get another clerkship. Also, whether appointed or elected (ugh), SSC justices have to be connected to get their gig, even if not to the same degree as federal judges.

Anyway, if you’d enjoy appellate work, it’s a good gig and it’s certainly not going to hurt you anywhere. At worst it would be a neutral, but it definitely helps you make connections and provides you time to keep applying (as others have said). In that market, firms also gave bonuses to/held open jobs for SSC clerks, which they didn’t for other state clerkships (though I think the bonus was less), just for context.

One thing is that I saw a pretty convincing argument in another thread here that the NY COA isn’t actually that elite for a SSC, for a variety of specific reasons I can’t remember now (because I don’t have personal experience with it). I’m not saying it’s a bad experience or not worth doing, but I don’t think it’s comparable to CA Supreme Court (which has very limited openings and is easily as competitive as federal clerkships).

Another good SSC clerkship (I’m told) is Alaska, because it has a lot of unsettled law. Not sure how much wanting to spend a year in Alaska plays into that as well, but in any case, they’re very competitive clerkships and I’d say it’s tougher to get than NY.

Certainly clerking in a major economic center with sophisticated legal work, and/or local to where you’d like to work or do a second clerkship, is great career-wise. But taking a year to live someplace different and deciding what issues to take and working on issues of first impression is a cool experience almost anywhere. It’s not going to dilute your other achievements.

So no, I don’t think it’s a dumb thing to do at all. Probably the dumbest thing about it is that state clerkships pay pretty badly, so financially you’d be much better off doing biglaw for a year, but I think there are still a lot of benefits.

I guess the other issue is that some people will look at 3 clerkships and worry that you don’t really want to practice, and there’s the issue of coming into a firm as a 4th year without any practice experience. I think doing SSC/DCt/COA is better than doing 2 of the same level federal clerkship, because they are all different experiences so you’re not just repeating something you’ve already done, but you might have to sell your interest in firm work a little harder than some. You might also have to take a class year cut if you go to a firm after. Those are the main issues with doing 3 clerkships. But I know people who’ve done it and has great outcomes, too.

[Anonymous User]

I know that firms don't really give class year credit or bonus for SSCs but I'm fine with that. I was thinking that if I had an SSC under my belt it could also maybe help me, even a little, when I apply for circuits or district court clerkships in the 2024 terms. Is that a correct take, in regard to this slight improvement thing? If not, is it at the very least neutral. My fear is that it may be deemed a "negative" thing especially if it is not a CA/NY/equivalent SSC clerkship.

Also I think a lot of firms actually do give credit/bonus for a SSC clerkship, at least the few I've worked at/interviewed for. I do think it can only help if you're trying to still clerk afterwards, and you already have a strong profile, I don't think you'll be making a mistake.

[Anonymous User]

I know that firms don't really give class year credit or bonus for SSCs but I'm fine with that. I was thinking that if I had an SSC under my belt it could also maybe help me, even a little, when I apply for circuits or district court clerkships in the 2024 terms. Is that a correct take, in regard to this slight improvement thing? If not, is it at the very least neutral. My fear is that it may be deemed a "negative" thing especially if it is not a CA/NY/equivalent SSC clerkship.

Also I think a lot of firms actually do give credit/bonus for a SSC clerkship, at least the few I've worked at/interviewed for. I do think it can only help if you're trying to still clerk afterwards, and you already have a strong profile, I don't think you'll be making a mistake.

+1. Most firms give credit/bonus for SSC clerkship. Who told you otherwise?

[Anonymous User]

I am also SSC/D/COA. Most firms will give SSC credit but many won't let you enter as a fourth year, which is reasonable IMO. Fourth year is pretty senior for never having worked in a law firm.

[Anonymous User]

Totally fine entering as a third year or even a second year after three clerkships. I am young (KJD) so I have lots of time to gain experience. Thanks for all the help everyone! Going to apply for SSCs very broadly. Are there any SSCs that have a bad rep or that I should avoid though?

[The Lsat Airbender]

I continue to mostly agree with the below:

Quoting this from anon in another thread:

Posting anonymously because I have experience with state supreme court hiring. Speaking only to out-of-state placement in large law firms, state supreme court clerkships fall into three tiers.

Tier 1: California Supreme Court, Delaware Supreme Court, Delaware Court of Chancery. Destination clerkships for out-of-staters. About the same as federal court of appeals clerkships, and ultra-portable. Also in this tier: clerkships for "feeder" justices from other states like Thomas Lee (Utah Supreme Court).

Tier 2: New York Court of Appeals, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Texas Supreme Court. Quality clerkships with national reputations. As valuable as standard federal district court clerkships, sometimes more so, but with greater pull inside the state than outside. Also (possibly) in this tier: the Alaska Supreme Court, which idiosyncratically hires loads of T-14ers.

Tier 3: The rest. Respectable, with some courts (and some justices) enjoying better reputations than others. Substantially more valuable inside the state than outside. When outside the state, substantially more valuable in the nearby region. Colorado Supreme Court clerks do better in Utah than Georgia, for example.

tl;dr clerk in the state you want to practice in, or Delaware if its docket is at all related to your career goals; NY/CA/MA/TX are also great especially if the alternative would be not clerking. I wouldn't bother clerking in some random state where you're not trying to cultivate ties

[Anonymous User]

Wait, maybe I missed something-- why not just go to a firm for a year, make bank, and THEN do a COA or dct somewhere? There's no reason you have to clerk straight out.

[Anonymous User]

just reapply 3L and go to a firm for a year

[Anonymous User]

I genuinely don't understand where you are getting some of this background on SSC clerkships. My firm (V20) pays a bonus for state or federal clerkships. Both are encouraged. I can think of at least 2 people in my class year who did a SSC clerkship. Both had great experiences.

Why would it ever be a "negative" on your resume? The only thing I could think is some people may think it's not as prestigious as a federal clerkship, but who cares? You can always try for a federal clerkship, if you do want to clerk again, during your SSC clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

Wait, maybe I missed something-- why not just go to a firm for a year, make bank, and THEN do a COA or dct somewhere? There's no reason you have to clerk straight out.

I have a full ride at my school and I'll only approximately have about 30k in student loans after I graduate. At a summer associateship right now at my V5 and honestly not too thrilled about the firm. It is NY and I would prefer working in another city or at another firm. Of course not the end of the world if I go there for a year and then dip, but I'd honestly prefer clerking straight out.

On another note, as I have talked to career services and done research I also really, really think SSCs are cooler than I initially gave it credit for. Being completely honest with myself I think I somewhat immaturely dismissed SSCs as not being federal and therefore not being worth it, but on further reflection I think that an SSC clerkship might actually be the most enjoyable experience. As another commenter mentioned the ability to change the law and also the filtering effect of cert is something I foolishly dismissed.

My main concern was that doing an SSC in a non CA/NY would "trap" me there and be looked at suspicously on applications should I apply to federal clerkships or other firms. Thankfully it appears that was completely the wrong impression.

[Anonymous User]

Wait, maybe I missed something-- why not just go to a firm for a year, make bank, and THEN do a COA or dct somewhere? There's no reason you have to clerk straight out.

I have a full ride at my school and I'll only approximately have about 30k in student loans after I graduate. At a summer associateship right now at my V5 and honestly not too thrilled about the firm. It is NY and I would prefer working in another city or at another firm. Of course not the end of the world if I go there for a year and then dip, but I'd honestly prefer clerking straight out.

On another note, as I have talked to career services and done research I also really, really think SSCs are cooler than I initially gave it credit for. Being completely honest with myself I think I somewhat immaturely dismissed SSCs as not being federal and therefore not being worth it, but on further reflection I think that an SSC clerkship might actually be the most enjoyable experience. As another commenter mentioned the ability to change the law and also the filtering effect of cert is something I foolishly dismissed.

My main concern was that doing an SSC in a non CA/NY would "trap" me there and be looked at suspicously on applications should I apply to federal clerkships or other firms. Thankfully it appears that was completely the wrong impression.

I was the first anon that gave the alternative view of just going to a firm for a year. I really really wanted to clerk and junior work at a firm isn't the most interesting, but I still felt that if I could get the federal credential (and I believed I could--your stats look like you should too), then it would be better to wait a year and get that. I don't discount a SSC clerkship in any absolute sense. I've had friends do them and they do seem really interesting. I wondered though as an employer making quicker decisions about candidates, whether a SSC implies, even if only slightly, that you couldn't get a fed clerkship (a few exceptions aside). So that factors into the cost-benefit when you hit the market again. Lit is obsessed with prestige. Maybe I overly weighted that or calculated wrongly, I don't know. But you have great stats. Improve the rest of your app, or even just try again, and you should get something.

[Anonymous User]

I have to say that I am not impressed with the current NY COA work product. Lots of virtually unreasoned opinions. I know Mike Garcia is very well-regarded, especially if you want to be an AUSA, but the quality of the court seems otherwise poor rn.

There are some out-of-the-way SSCs that seemingly have some very well-qualified justices in addition to the obvious ones. If you're really open to anywhere, check out Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Utah, for example. One downside (or upside) is that smaller-state SSCs tend to be extremely integrated into the state's particular legal community compared to federal courts, which may make them more suspicious of outsiders.

[Chokenhauer]

I have to say that I am not impressed with the current NY COA work product. Lots of virtually unreasoned opinions. I know Mike Garcia is very well-regarded, especially if you want to be an AUSA, but the quality of the court seems otherwise poor rn.

There are some out-of-the-way SSCs that seemingly have some very well-qualified justices in addition to the obvious ones. If you're really open to anywhere, check out Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Utah, for example. One downside (or upside) is that smaller-state SSCs tend to be extremely integrated into the state's particular legal community compared to federal courts, which may make them more suspicious of outsiders.

Didn’t an Alabama SSC Justice feed to Thomas a few times over the past few cycles?

[Anonymous User]

Wait, maybe I missed something-- why not just go to a firm for a year, make bank, and THEN do a COA or dct somewhere? There's no reason you have to clerk straight out.

I have a full ride at my school and I'll only approximately have about 30k in student loans after I graduate. At a summer associateship right now at my V5 and honestly not too thrilled about the firm. It is NY and I would prefer working in another city or at another firm. Of course not the end of the world if I go there for a year and then dip, but I'd honestly prefer clerking straight out.

On another note, as I have talked to career services and done research I also really, really think SSCs are cooler than I initially gave it credit for. Being completely honest with myself I think I somewhat immaturely dismissed SSCs as not being federal and therefore not being worth it, but on further reflection I think that an SSC clerkship might actually be the most enjoyable experience. As another commenter mentioned the ability to change the law and also the filtering effect of cert is something I foolishly dismissed.

My main concern was that doing an SSC in a non CA/NY would "trap" me there and be looked at suspicously on applications should I apply to federal clerkships or other firms. Thankfully it appears that was completely the wrong impression.

I was the first anon that gave the alternative view of just going to a firm for a year. I really really wanted to clerk and junior work at a firm isn't the most interesting, but I still felt that if I could get the federal credential (and I believed I could--your stats look like you should too), then it would be better to wait a year and get that. I don't discount a SSC clerkship in any absolute sense. I've had friends do them and they do seem really interesting. I wondered though as an employer making quicker decisions about candidates, whether a SSC implies, even if only slightly, that you couldn't get a fed clerkship (a few exceptions aside). So that factors into the cost-benefit when you hit the market again. Lit is obsessed with prestige. Maybe I overly weighted that or calculated wrongly, I don't know. But you have great stats. Improve the rest of your app, or even just try again, and you should get something.

If you only want to do one year, sure, work for a year and try again for something federal (if you don’t end up with something this year). But if you’re interested in doing a SSC *and* something federal, I’ve never heard of anyone getting looked down on for a SSC because they “couldn’t get” a federal clerkship, since they went on to get a federal clerkship subsequently.

Also, a lot of federal judges like having someone who’s already clerked/done the kind of writing/research that a SSC clerk does. And it’s the kind of writing/research you can’t do in the federal system unless you get SCOTUS (good luck with that).

So I think the above post underestimates SSC positions slightly.

[Anonymous User]

Haven't seen New Jersey mentioned. I was under the impression they were on the tier below CA, but I'm also not very well versed so can someone else confirm or deny.

[dersh]

I did a clerkship in Alaska and it went ok. I was from Brooklyn so I thought there would be a big adjustment. There was. Generally speaking, things went smoothly. If you think people are different based on different areas of the USA, you're wrong. People are people and you will find the same issues, even in Alaska. Sarah Palin is from Alaska and she was a VP candidate, 2008. It is not as backward as you may think it is

[Pneumonia]

Didn’t an Alabama SSC Justice feed to Thomas a few times over the past few cycles?

Yes and no. He had three recent clerks who have been hired by Thomas, but all of those hires happened after the clerk in question had separately secured a clerkship with Pryor (or Thomas).