Struck Out On Plan—State Supreme Court? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Wait, why can't you do a year of biglaw and reapply?

[Anonymous User]

I did a federal clerkship and a SSC clerkship. I think it makes most sense to do SSC in or around where you want to practice in the sense that they are seen as less portable (not sure that’s true but it’s how some people think). Otherwise, both experiences were fantastic. I never got the sense that anyone looked down on my SSC clerkship, and I worked hard in both. Both judges were fantastic. A SSC clerkship made most sense for my lifestyle (didn’t want to move, frankly). It was very valuable.

[jotarokujo]

y'all saying "why not wait and only do federal" are not actually looking at OP's preferences. they want to do a state supreme court clerkship but are asking is there any harm professionally in doing so. the answer is a resounding no. OP if you want to go to a firm, most firms will give the same credit and bonus for state supreme court clerkships

I second the alaska suggestion and think it's very clearly on tier 2 in the 3 tier setup they had. plenty of YS students go there and it's not like the YS students who did poorly grade-wise

[Anonymous User]

Is OP even necessarily "quasi-guaranteed" to get a SSC clerkship for 2023 even if non-competitive areas. Don't they tend to require ties and a lot have already done hiring. Not like OP is an "incredible" candidate given that he struck out on plan while applying broadly.

[Anonymous User]

Is OP even necessarily "quasi-guaranteed" to get a SSC clerkship for 2023 even if non-competitive areas. Don't they tend to require ties and a lot have already done hiring. Not like OP is an "incredible" candidate given that he struck out on plan while applying broadly.

No, they're not guaranteed, for the reasons you give, but they're a perfectly plausible candidate for places that still have openings. Not sure why you're putting quasi-guaranteed or incredible in quotes b/c I don't think anyone said those things.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Got an SSC clerkship with a judge in a pretty good state. Excited about it. Guess I should now update all my other applications with it on it.

Was also an interesting experience insofar as I got A LOT of bites. Interviewed with NY, TX, MA, and NJ SSCs within days/a week of my app. Makes me wonder even more why I did so poorly on the plan with fed clerks.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Got an SSC clerkship with a judge in a pretty good state. Excited about it. Guess I should now update all my other applications with it on it.

Was also an interesting experience insofar as I got A LOT of bites. Interviewed with NY, TX, MA, and NJ SSCs within days/a week of my app. Makes me wonder even more why I did so poorly on the plan with fed clerks.

Congrats! Glad to hear it worked out for you.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Got an SSC clerkship with a judge in a pretty good state. Excited about it. Guess I should now update all my other applications with it on it.

Was also an interesting experience insofar as I got A LOT of bites. Interviewed with NY, TX, MA, and NJ SSCs within days/a week of my app. Makes me wonder even more why I did so poorly on the plan with fed clerks.

I think federal hiring is just more idiosyncratic due to the plan—it forces chambers to cut a lot of corners in hiring.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Got an SSC clerkship with a judge in a pretty good state. Excited about it. Guess I should now update all my other applications with it on it.

Was also an interesting experience insofar as I got A LOT of bites. Interviewed with NY, TX, MA, and NJ SSCs within days/a week of my app. Makes me wonder even more why I did so poorly on the plan with fed clerks.

I think federal hiring is just more idiosyncratic due to the plan—it forces chambers to cut a lot of corners in hiring.

Yeah, hopefully my SSC experience bodes well for applying to fed clerkships off the plan... we'll see I guess..

[Anonymous User]

Former SSC clerk here. Mine was one of the "top" state SSCs. Like any clerkship your experience will vary based on the judge. Just because your judge wasn't picked by the president to sit for life on a federal court, it does not mean the judge is not a great jurist. It also does not guarantee your judge was not picked by uniformed voters because he or she has the best ballot name either. I recommend researching the individual judge in a state you want to practice in, learning their reputation, and learning about the court generally. I think that is more helpful than just picking CA, TX, or MA courts, etc.

Also, because judges are often elected, many are very politically connected, if that's your thing. (Especially in Texas, where SCOTX is often a stepping stone. E.g., Abbott, Cornyn, Doggett, Gonzalez, etc.) Some federal judges are too, but most SSC judges must remain so, whereas a federal judge's connections to current politics can decrease over time.

[Anonymous User]

Former SSC clerk here. Mine was one of the "top" state SSCs. Like any clerkship your experience will vary based on the judge. Just because your judge wasn't picked by the president to sit for life on a federal court, it does not mean the judge is not a great jurist. It also does not guarantee your judge was not picked by uniformed voters because he or she has the best ballot name either. I recommend researching the individual judge in a state you want to practice in, learning their reputation, and learning about the court generally. I think that is more helpful than just picking CA, TX, or MA courts, etc.

Also, because judges are often elected, many are very politically connected, if that's your thing. (Especially in Texas, where SCOTX is often a stepping stone. E.g., Abbott, Cornyn, Doggett, Gonzalez, etc.) Some federal judges are too, but most SSC judges must remain so, whereas a federal judge's connections to current politics can decrease over time.

How did your SSC clerkship help (if it did) with other applications to federal clerkships or firms outside of the SSC immediate range. I assume the SSC is more regional but is a TX/MA/NJ/other non CA prestigious SSC still worth something decent outside the state's immediate range? Not OP, but I got an offer from SCOTX and want to know if I can leverage a clerkship there to a fed clerkship somewhere outside of Texas. Have the credentials for circuit/district somewhere else, but wondering if this will give me a decent boost.

[Anonymous User]

Former SSC clerk here. Mine was one of the "top" state SSCs. Like any clerkship your experience will vary based on the judge. Just because your judge wasn't picked by the president to sit for life on a federal court, it does not mean the judge is not a great jurist. It also does not guarantee your judge was not picked by uniformed voters because he or she has the best ballot name either. I recommend researching the individual judge in a state you want to practice in, learning their reputation, and learning about the court generally. I think that is more helpful than just picking CA, TX, or MA courts, etc.

Also, because judges are often elected, many are very politically connected, if that's your thing. (Especially in Texas, where SCOTX is often a stepping stone. E.g., Abbott, Cornyn, Doggett, Gonzalez, etc.) Some federal judges are too, but most SSC judges must remain so, whereas a federal judge's connections to current politics can decrease over time.

How did your SSC clerkship help (if it did) with other applications to federal clerkships or firms outside of the SSC immediate range. I assume the SSC is more regional but is a TX/MA/NJ/other non CA prestigious SSC still worth something decent outside the state's immediate range? Not OP, but I got an offer from SCOTX and want to know if I can leverage a clerkship there to a fed clerkship somewhere outside of Texas. Have the credentials for circuit/district somewhere else, but wondering if this will give me a decent boost.

I wanted to work in the same state as my SSC, so I don't have any direct experience with your question.

A few of the other clerks at the court clerked for federal circuit court judges in the circuit my state was in afterwards, even if not in the same state. At least one went to a federal district court across the country. Most wanted to stay in the same state, so not a great sample or not a lot of insight.

[Anonymous User]

Former SSC clerk here. Mine was one of the "top" state SSCs. Like any clerkship your experience will vary based on the judge. Just because your judge wasn't picked by the president to sit for life on a federal court, it does not mean the judge is not a great jurist. It also does not guarantee your judge was not picked by uniformed voters because he or she has the best ballot name either. I recommend researching the individual judge in a state you want to practice in, learning their reputation, and learning about the court generally. I think that is more helpful than just picking CA, TX, or MA courts, etc.

Also, because judges are often elected, many are very politically connected, if that's your thing. (Especially in Texas, where SCOTX is often a stepping stone. E.g., Abbott, Cornyn, Doggett, Gonzalez, etc.) Some federal judges are too, but most SSC judges must remain so, whereas a federal judge's connections to current politics can decrease over time.

How did your SSC clerkship help (if it did) with other applications to federal clerkships or firms outside of the SSC immediate range. I assume the SSC is more regional but is a TX/MA/NJ/other non CA prestigious SSC still worth something decent outside the state's immediate range? Not OP, but I got an offer from SCOTX and want to know if I can leverage a clerkship there to a fed clerkship somewhere outside of Texas. Have the credentials for circuit/district somewhere else, but wondering if this will give me a decent boost.

I wanted to work in the same state as my SSC, so I don't have any direct experience with your question.

A few of the other clerks at the court clerked for federal circuit court judges in the circuit my state was in afterwards, even if not in the same state. At least one went to a federal district court across the country. Most wanted to stay in the same state, so not a great sample or not a lot of insight.

What do you mean by the bolded?

[Anonymous User]

Former SSC clerk here. Mine was one of the "top" state SSCs. Like any clerkship your experience will vary based on the judge. Just because your judge wasn't picked by the president to sit for life on a federal court, it does not mean the judge is not a great jurist. It also does not guarantee your judge was not picked by uniformed voters because he or she has the best ballot name either. I recommend researching the individual judge in a state you want to practice in, learning their reputation, and learning about the court generally. I think that is more helpful than just picking CA, TX, or MA courts, etc.

Also, because judges are often elected, many are very politically connected, if that's your thing. (Especially in Texas, where SCOTX is often a stepping stone. E.g., Abbott, Cornyn, Doggett, Gonzalez, etc.) Some federal judges are too, but most SSC judges must remain so, whereas a federal judge's connections to current politics can decrease over time.

How did your SSC clerkship help (if it did) with other applications to federal clerkships or firms outside of the SSC immediate range. I assume the SSC is more regional but is a TX/MA/NJ/other non CA prestigious SSC still worth something decent outside the state's immediate range? Not OP, but I got an offer from SCOTX and want to know if I can leverage a clerkship there to a fed clerkship somewhere outside of Texas. Have the credentials for circuit/district somewhere else, but wondering if this will give me a decent boost.

I wanted to work in the same state as my SSC, so I don't have any direct experience with your question.

A few of the other clerks at the court clerked for federal circuit court judges in the circuit my state was in afterwards, even if not in the same state. At least one went to a federal district court across the country. Most wanted to stay in the same state, so not a great sample or not a lot of insight.

What do you mean by the bolded?

If state is CA, some clerked on 9th in CA and some clerked on the 9th in Nevada.

If state is TX, some clerked on 5th in TX, some in LA, etc.

[Anonymous User]

Former SSC clerk here. Mine was one of the "top" state SSCs. Like any clerkship your experience will vary based on the judge. Just because your judge wasn't picked by the president to sit for life on a federal court, it does not mean the judge is not a great jurist. It also does not guarantee your judge was not picked by uniformed voters because he or she has the best ballot name either. I recommend researching the individual judge in a state you want to practice in, learning their reputation, and learning about the court generally. I think that is more helpful than just picking CA, TX, or MA courts, etc.

Also, because judges are often elected, many are very politically connected, if that's your thing. (Especially in Texas, where SCOTX is often a stepping stone. E.g., Abbott, Cornyn, Doggett, Gonzalez, etc.) Some federal judges are too, but most SSC judges must remain so, whereas a federal judge's connections to current politics can decrease over time.

How did your SSC clerkship help (if it did) with other applications to federal clerkships or firms outside of the SSC immediate range. I assume the SSC is more regional but is a TX/MA/NJ/other non CA prestigious SSC still worth something decent outside the state's immediate range? Not OP, but I got an offer from SCOTX and want to know if I can leverage a clerkship there to a fed clerkship somewhere outside of Texas. Have the credentials for circuit/district somewhere else, but wondering if this will give me a decent boost.

I wanted to work in the same state as my SSC, so I don't have any direct experience with your question.

A few of the other clerks at the court clerked for federal circuit court judges in the circuit my state was in afterwards, even if not in the same state. At least one went to a federal district court across the country. Most wanted to stay in the same state, so not a great sample or not a lot of insight.

What do you mean by the bolded?

If state is CA, some clerked on 9th in CA and some clerked on the 9th in Nevada.

If state is TX, some clerked on 5th in TX, some in LA, etc.

So if I wanted to clerk on the east coast in a federal court, I probably shouldn't take this SCOTEX position it seems like?

[Anonymous User]

At least one went to a federal district court across the country. Most wanted to stay in the same state, so not a great sample or not a lot of insight.

So if I wanted to clerk on the east coast in a federal court, I probably shouldn't take this SCOTEX position it seems like?

I'm starting to feel trolled.

Take the SSC position if you want to do an appellate clerkship and if you want to have a resume item that will likely open some doors. It isn't going to make you a worse applicant anywhere. Or hold out. But if you didn't get offers from NY, MA, or NJ, maybe take the bird in the hand.

[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.

At my HYS I was definitely given the impression that the only SSC on par with a federal clerkship was CA. This seemed wrong to me, and still seems wrong to me, like most of what my clerkship office told me. However, I've had this confirmed by multiple highly renowned attorneys outside academia.

I still think a SSC clerkship in many states would be way more interesting than a random district clerkship, but apparently not for the prestige whore, and I am that.

[Anonymous User]

At least one went to a federal district court across the country. Most wanted to stay in the same state, so not a great sample or not a lot of insight.

So if I wanted to clerk on the east coast in a federal court, I probably shouldn't take this SCOTEX position it seems like?

I'm starting to feel trolled.

Take the SSC position if you want to do an appellate clerkship and if you want to have a resume item that will likely open some doors. It isn't going to make you a worse applicant anywhere. Or hold out. But if you didn't get offers from NY, MA, or NJ, maybe take the bird in the hand.

Sorry not trolling you haha, just bad at internet reading comp I guess. You're prob right. Even if it is below a federal district, it's still probably helpful.

[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.

At my HYS I was definitely given the impression that the only SSC on par with a federal clerkship was CA. This seemed wrong to me, and still seems wrong to me, like most of what my clerkship office told me. However, I've had this confirmed by multiple highly renowned attorneys outside academia.

I still think a SSC clerkship in many states would be way more interesting than a random district clerkship, but apparently not for the prestige whore, and I am that.

My T6 regularly sent a few to SSCs each year. Maybe 2-3. Most of the time it was to a judge held in regard as at least federal district court quality. But it’s really important you look at the specific judge, not the court as a whole.

Top judges nationwide would be like Lee and Kruger. Those are like federal appellate tier.

Under that are some like Blacklock, Busby, & Hecht in TX, for instance. They regularly send people to federal appellate courts. (Young will probably be there soon if not already.) They are at least as competitive to clerk for as any district court judge in their state or region.

Then there are the top SSCs generally.

Then there are SSCs that are not the CA/TX/DE/NY/NJ/MA/Alaska type. Those are probably good clerkships for many who cannot land federal.

And all but the Lee, Kruger-type clerkships are going to be best in that state or region. I imagine most don’t carry much weight outside of their locations.

[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.

At my HYS I was definitely given the impression that the only SSC on par with a federal clerkship was CA. This seemed wrong to me, and still seems wrong to me, like most of what my clerkship office told me. However, I've had this confirmed by multiple highly renowned attorneys outside academia.

I still think a SSC clerkship in many states would be way more interesting than a random district clerkship, but apparently not for the prestige whore, and I am that.

My T6 regularly sent a few to SSCs each year. Maybe 2-3. Most of the time it was to a judge held in regard as at least federal district court quality. But it’s really important you look at the specific judge, not the court as a whole.

Top judges nationwide would be like Lee and Kruger. Those are like federal appellate tier.

Also, so many of the fifth circuit republican appointees are former SCOTEX, so at the very least I have to imagine that catches their eye on a resume.

Under that are some like Blacklock, Busby, & Hecht in TX, for instance. They regularly send people to federal appellate courts. (Young will probably be there soon if not already.) They are at least as competitive to clerk for as any district court judge in their state or region.

Then there are the top SSCs generally.

Then there are SSCs that are not the CA/TX/DE/NY/NJ/MA/Alaska type. Those are probably good clerkships for many who cannot land federal.

And all but the Lee, Kruger-type clerkships are going to be best in that state or region. I imagine most don’t carry much weight outside of their locations.

Even the non-Busby/Hecht SCOTEX Justices all look pretty well connected though after a brief wikipedia perusing. I guess you have to be for that kind of court.

[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.

At my HYS I was definitely given the impression that the only SSC on par with a federal clerkship was CA. This seemed wrong to me, and still seems wrong to me, like most of what my clerkship office told me. However, I've had this confirmed by multiple highly renowned attorneys outside academia.

I still think a SSC clerkship in many states would be way more interesting than a random district clerkship, but apparently not for the prestige whore, and I am that.

My T6 regularly sent a few to SSCs each year. Maybe 2-3. Most of the time it was to a judge held in regard as at least federal district court quality. But it’s really important you look at the specific judge, not the court as a whole.

Top judges nationwide would be like Lee and Kruger. Those are like federal appellate tier.

Under that are some like Blacklock, Busby, & Hecht in TX, for instance. They regularly send people to federal appellate courts. (Young will probably be there soon if not already.) They are at least as competitive to clerk for as any district court judge in their state or region.

Then there are the top SSCs generally.

Then there are SSCs that are not the CA/TX/DE/NY/NJ/MA/Alaska type. Those are probably good clerkships for many who cannot land federal.

And all but the Lee, Kruger-type clerkships are going to be best in that state or region. I imagine most don’t carry much weight outside of their locations.

Which judge are you talking about when you say "Lee"

[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.

At my HYS I was definitely given the impression that the only SSC on par with a federal clerkship was CA. This seemed wrong to me, and still seems wrong to me, like most of what my clerkship office told me. However, I've had this confirmed by multiple highly renowned attorneys outside academia.

I still think a SSC clerkship in many states would be way more interesting than a random district clerkship, but apparently not for the prestige whore, and I am that.

My T6 regularly sent a few to SSCs each year. Maybe 2-3. Most of the time it was to a judge held in regard as at least federal district court quality. But it’s really important you look at the specific judge, not the court as a whole.

Top judges nationwide would be like Lee and Kruger. Those are like federal appellate tier.

Under that are some like Blacklock, Busby, & Hecht in TX, for instance. They regularly send people to federal appellate courts. (Young will probably be there soon if not already.) They are at least as competitive to clerk for as any district court judge in their state or region.

Then there are the top SSCs generally.

Then there are SSCs that are not the CA/TX/DE/NY/NJ/MA/Alaska type. Those are probably good clerkships for many who cannot land federal.

And all but the Lee, Kruger-type clerkships are going to be best in that state or region. I imagine most don’t carry much weight outside of their locations.

Which judge are you talking about when you say "Lee"

(Not the commenter in question) I imagine they mean Utah's Lee

[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.

At my HYS I was definitely given the impression that the only SSC on par with a federal clerkship was CA. This seemed wrong to me, and still seems wrong to me, like most of what my clerkship office told me. However, I've had this confirmed by multiple highly renowned attorneys outside academia.

I still think a SSC clerkship in many states would be way more interesting than a random district clerkship, but apparently not for the prestige whore, and I am that.

My T6 regularly sent a few to SSCs each year. Maybe 2-3. Most of the time it was to a judge held in regard as at least federal district court quality. But it’s really important you look at the specific judge, not the court as a whole.

Top judges nationwide would be like Lee and Kruger. Those are like federal appellate tier.

Under that are some like Blacklock, Busby, & Hecht in TX, for instance. They regularly send people to federal appellate courts. (Young will probably be there soon if not already.) They are at least as competitive to clerk for as any district court judge in their state or region.

Then there are the top SSCs generally.

Then there are SSCs that are not the CA/TX/DE/NY/NJ/MA/Alaska type. Those are probably good clerkships for many who cannot land federal.

And all but the Lee, Kruger-type clerkships are going to be best in that state or region. I imagine most don’t carry much weight outside of their locations.

Which judge are you talking about when you say "Lee"

UT Justice Tom Lee

[Anonymous User]

I went to a school that sent way more people to state clerkships than federal. Many people who clerked for the local SSC (not "top tier," but I think reasonably well respected) did go on to federal clerkships. Most were in-district or in-circuit (I did this, I went from state COA to federal district in the same circuit but in a different state), but I don't think you can say that therefore doing SCOTEX is a bad idea if you want to clerk on the east coast.

Some of it is self-selection. A ton of my law school classmates went to our school b/c they wanted to practice in that state and weren't interested in moving across the country for a clerkship and moving back.

Now, some of it is also that the state judges are most connected to local federal judges rather than federal judges across the country, so that is who they have the most pull with. Even if the federal judge doesn't know the SSC justice personally, they're probably going to have a much better sense of the local SSC justice's reputation than a federal judge across the country will.

But I don't think any of this means that doing SCOTEX is a *bad* idea if you want to be on the east coast. It's not going to *hurt* you, it just may not help you quite as much as a SSC on the east coast would. The question is what your alternatives are. Sure, if you can get a SSC on the east coast, that would probably help a little more, but if that didn't work out, it didn't work out. Being able to to put a year of SSC clerkship on your resume will still help. You have good qualifications to start with, if you clerk for a year you'll be attractive to judges who like experienced clerks. And frankly I don't know any federal judge who's going to look down on a SSC justice in a vacuum (barring of course the specific judge being notoriously terrible or such).

I'd also take a year with a great judge in a location I didn't want to be long-term over a year with a horrible judge in a location I did want to be long-term, in case that's at all relevant.

[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.

At my HYS I was definitely given the impression that the only SSC on par with a federal clerkship was CA. This seemed wrong to me, and still seems wrong to me, like most of what my clerkship office told me. However, I've had this confirmed by multiple highly renowned attorneys outside academia.

I still think a SSC clerkship in many states would be way more interesting than a random district clerkship, but apparently not for the prestige whore, and I am that.

My T6 regularly sent a few to SSCs each year. Maybe 2-3. Most of the time it was to a judge held in regard as at least federal district court quality. But it’s really important you look at the specific judge, not the court as a whole.

Top judges nationwide would be like Lee and Kruger. Those are like federal appellate tier.

Under that are some like Blacklock, Busby, & Hecht in TX, for instance. They regularly send people to federal appellate courts. (Young will probably be there soon if not already.) They are at least as competitive to clerk for as any district court judge in their state or region.

Then there are the top SSCs generally.

Then there are SSCs that are not the CA/TX/DE/NY/NJ/MA/Alaska type. Those are probably good clerkships for many who cannot land federal.

And all but the Lee, Kruger-type clerkships are going to be best in that state or region. I imagine most don’t carry much weight outside of their locations.

Which judge are you talking about when you say "Lee"

UT Justice Tom Lee

He's no longer a member of the Court. He stepped down this summer to start his own boutique.