Class Credit for Two Year Clerkships Forum

[Anonymous User]

Do firms typically award two years of class credit for a two-year clerkship with the same judge? I'm guessing that you will only get one clerkship bonus, but hoping I could start as a third year.

[Anonymous User]

Do firms typically award two years of class credit for a two-year clerkship with the same judge? I'm guessing that you will only get one clerkship bonus, but hoping I could start as a third year.

Yes, because the relevant metric is the year you graduated from law school.

[Anonymous User]

I was offered only 50k and 1 year of credit for my two year clerkship.

but I got only one offer. if you get more, you might be able to negotiate.

[Anonymous User]

Probably depends on the clerkship and how strong a candidate you are. Two year fed district clerk should get treated like a third year. Bankruptcy clerk might get treated like a first year.

[Pneumonia]

Unless you *know* you will be at the firm for, say, three years or fewer, it is better from a career perspective to take only a single class-year year bump. It extends your runway at the firm. It allows you to be billed as a junior associate for longer. It gives you more time to establish yourself and get workflows with good partners. It gives you more time to make partner, if you want that. The salary/bonus part is worse only in the short term. Every other factor favors taking only a single year bump.

[Anonymous User]

Unless you *know* you will be at the firm for, say, three years or fewer, it is better from a career perspective to take only a single class-year year bump. It extends your runway at the firm. It allows you to be billed as a junior associate for longer. It gives you more time to establish yourself and get workflows with good partners. It gives you more time to make partner, if you want that. The salary/bonus part is worse only in the short term. Every other factor favors taking only a single year bump.

I'm not sure this ever made sense, but it makes even less sense when up or out is less of a thing and salary increases in midlevel are as high as they are.

[VirginiaFan]

Unless you *know* you will be at the firm for, say, three years or fewer, it is better from a career perspective to take only a single class-year year bump. It extends your runway at the firm. It allows you to be billed as a junior associate for longer. It gives you more time to establish yourself and get workflows with good partners. It gives you more time to make partner, if you want that. The salary/bonus part is worse only in the short term. Every other factor favors taking only a single year bump.

But, like, shouldn't we ALL expect to only last 2-3 years? I'm coming off a COA and a DCt, and was planning on just accepting my third year status, since the salary and bonus jumps are huge.

[Anonymous User]

Unless you *know* you will be at the firm for, say, three years or fewer, it is better from a career perspective to take only a single class-year year bump. It extends your runway at the firm. It allows you to be billed as a junior associate for longer. It gives you more time to establish yourself and get workflows with good partners. It gives you more time to make partner, if you want that. The salary/bonus part is worse only in the short term. Every other factor favors taking only a single year bump.

But, like, shouldn't we ALL expect to only last 2-3 years? I'm coming off a COA and a DCt, and was planning on just accepting my third year status, since the salary and bonus jumps are huge.

Plus if you're coming off prestigious clerkship, your path to partner is probably AUSA then back to a firm.

[Pneumonia]

I'm not sure this ever made sense, but it makes even less sense when up or out is less of a thing and salary increases in midlevel are as high as they are.

Agree to disagree then I guess.

Even if the current lull in the up-or-out model proves permanent, biglaw associates are still evaluated in comparison to their class-year peers. The higher you go, the more those evaluations get tied to things like compensation, promotion, and mentor recommendations (e.g., for AUSA, good in house gigs, etc.). The short-term financial consequences of taking only a one-year bump are obvious. But if you choose to take it, or have no choice but to take it, you should be aware of the potential for long-term, although possibly minor, negative impacts.

Partners are going to think of you as a first year no matter what. But the firm will bill you out as a third year. That alone will preclude you from some cases and matters, as partners will recognize that the skills you possess are not worth the rate that the firm requires them to charge for you. Because clients are stingy but also demanding, cheap yet smart associates are treasured at all law firms. This always works to your advantage (if you are smart), but especially in hard-to-get areas like appellate, antitrust, white collar, etc. Admittedly, you will also be excluded from a lot of doc review (but even that can be a negative, since having some doc review work is often a good way to cram hours). And as you get further from the V10, firms are evaluating associates for business-development potential earlier and earlier. Better to be only a year behind for that, too.

Think of it this way. You will be pushed "out" at a certain point. Even if not out of the firm, then out of partnership contention: hanging around as a permanent case manager, or super-senior associate, or e-discovery counsel, etc. Getting to stay at a firm indefinitley is not the same thing as having an indefinite time to make partner, or as having an indefinite window in which to continue advancing your career. In most instances, firms will judge your fitness for being pushed out based on your class year, not on how long you've been at the firm. Because of that dynamic, I think it is better to join as a second year than as a third-year in almost every instance if your goal is to maximize your chances at partner or at a successful private practice in general.

But, like, shouldn't we ALL expect to only last 2-3 years? I'm coming off a COA and a DCt, and was planning on just accepting my third year status, since the salary and bonus jumps are huge.

If that is what the firm offers, then yeah you should accept it. If they gave you a choice, I would argue for taking only a one year bump. My post aimed more a dissuading someone from trying to negotiate *up* when the firm offers only one year.

Plus if you're coming off prestigious clerkship, your path to partner is probably AUSA then back to a firm.

I mean in some cases, sure, that is a path. Hard to plan for it though. And it isn't anywhere near the most common. Sticking around for 10+ years is by far the most common route.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland was only offering one class credit for two year district court clerkship FYI. Interested to hear what other firms do.

[Anonymous User]

It's firm by firm. Cravath and DPW specifically say on their websites that they give full credit and bonus for a two-year clerkship. Other firms like Covington don't state this directly but are clear that the relevant metric is years clerked and not whether you did one or two clerkships.

[Anonymous User]

I got one year class credit for partner track purposes for 2 year district court clerkship, but get paid with my class year and I'm in my class year associate group lists and such. Honestly think it's best of both worlds, especially because with my clerkship I would have come in as a fifth year with only two years of big law under my belt. But only got normal, one-year bonus.