Regretting Clerkship Forum

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, like is it theoretically possible to eventually end up in a major USAO, trial boutique, or appeals group without a clerkship? Yeah. With the right connections and experience anything is possible. Is it likely? No. The people hiring for these positions all clerked and will view “I didn’t want to clerk because I wanted money/was afraid of judges/think litigation is repetitive” as a feeble excuse, if not a separate red flag.

Wrong answer. It sounds like you're thinking extremely short term. Beyond a five-year time span, none of the factors mentioned here matter at all. I did not clerk for a judge and am a senior AUSA. Some of my colleagues at my level are former clerks and some are not.

Perhaps the list is overinclusive. Major USAOs maybe do not require a clerkship, though I do not have enough information. Trial boutiques or appeal groups, though? Absolutely.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, like is it theoretically possible to eventually end up in a major USAO, trial boutique, or appeals group without a clerkship? Yeah. With the right connections and experience anything is possible. Is it likely? No. The people hiring for these positions all clerked and will view “I didn’t want to clerk because I wanted money/was afraid of judges/think litigation is repetitive” as a feeble excuse, if not a separate red flag.

Wrong answer. It sounds like you're thinking extremely short term. Beyond a five-year time span, none of the factors mentioned here matter at all. I did not clerk for a judge and am a senior AUSA. Some of my colleagues at my level are former clerks and some are not.

I'm guessing the person you responded to meant "if you want to do this sooner rather than later" which a lot of people do

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, like is it theoretically possible to eventually end up in a major USAO, trial boutique, or appeals group without a clerkship? Yeah. With the right connections and experience anything is possible. Is it likely? No. The people hiring for these positions all clerked and will view “I didn’t want to clerk because I wanted money/was afraid of judges/think litigation is repetitive” as a feeble excuse, if not a separate red flag.

Wrong answer. It sounds like you're thinking extremely short term. Beyond a five-year time span, none of the factors mentioned here matter at all. I did not clerk for a judge and am a senior AUSA. Some of my colleagues at my level are former clerks and some are not.

Perhaps the list is overinclusive. Major USAOs maybe do not require a clerkship, though I do not have enough information. Trial boutiques or appeal groups, though? Absolutely.

Almost no one formally requires a clerkship, but I know enough people who hire for these types of positions and it's abundantly clear that a clerkship is nearly a de facto requirement for junior attorneys without significant litigation experience, like actually trying cases or arguing appeals.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, like is it theoretically possible to eventually end up in a major USAO, trial boutique, or appeals group without a clerkship? Yeah. With the right connections and experience anything is possible. Is it likely? No. The people hiring for these positions all clerked and will view “I didn’t want to clerk because I wanted money/was afraid of judges/think litigation is repetitive” as a feeble excuse, if not a separate red flag.

Wrong answer. It sounds like you're thinking extremely short term. Beyond a five-year time span, none of the factors mentioned here matter at all. I did not clerk for a judge and am a senior AUSA. Some of my colleagues at my level are former clerks and some are not.

I'm guessing the person you responded to meant "if you want to do this sooner rather than later" which a lot of people do

I agree with this entirely. IME everyone who comes to the USAO out of biglaw these days has clerked, but they’ve also made the switch relatively early in their career. Does that mean it’s impossible to make the switch down the road as a senior biglaw type who has a lot of firm experience but didn’t clerk? No, but I just haven’t really seen it happen (mostly because I don’t see a lot of biglaw senior types angling for the USAO).

Now, I have seen lots of state prosecutors move to the USAO, some earlier in their career and many later, without clerking. But they did that through getting lots of relevant trial experience, and I think most people posting here about federal clerkships aren’t heading to state prosecution after (though some may of course).

So no, the USAO doesn’t literally require you to have clerked (unless you get in through the honors program, in which case it does literally require a clerkship). And yes, the further you get in your career, the more it’s about who you know and what you’ve done and all that good stuff.

I don’t think that changes the fact that if a 3L or new grad is asking me how to get into a USAO I’m going to tell them to clerk if they can. Doesn’t mean things can’t work out down the road, but most people asking about this at this point don’t want to wait years. (I’d also say that 5 years is too short a timeline - IME it’s more like 7-10 that your practical experience is going to outweigh this kind of thing.)

Finishing with the caveat of course that every office is different, so I’m generalizing based on my own experience and recognize there are always exceptions.

[Anonymous User]

Purely for moral support, I am currently a federal appellate clerk and absolutely hate my clerkship. Wasn't a K-JD, and had a terrible, soul-sucking job before law school. Some people just don't like clerking even though they're qualified and want to litigate. Some judges are simply terrible bosses.

For me, I feel like I'm mainly attending to my boss's ego and my actual job is secondary to that. Someone will say "that's what law practice is like," but truthfully, I'd quit a lawyer job that was like this.

I liked my other (district) clerkship and am very fond of my old boss. This one just isn't working for me. Anyway, just wanted to chime in lest people think they're alone.

[Anonymous User]

Purely for moral support, I am currently a federal appellate clerk and absolutely hate my clerkship. Wasn't a K-JD, and had a terrible, soul-sucking job before law school. Some people just don't like clerking even though they're qualified and want to litigate. Some judges are simply terrible bosses.

For me, I feel like I'm mainly attending to my boss's ego and my actual job is secondary to that. Someone will say "that's what law practice is like," but truthfully, I'd quit a lawyer job that was like this.

I liked my other (district) clerkship and am very fond of my old boss. This one just isn't working for me. Anyway, just wanted to chime in lest people think they're alone.

Had you heard anything positive or negative about your appellate boss beforehand? Basically, what I am asking is were you floored by the poor work environment or is it something you expected.

[Anonymous User]

Purely for moral support, I am currently a federal appellate clerk and absolutely hate my clerkship. Wasn't a K-JD, and had a terrible, soul-sucking job before law school. Some people just don't like clerking even though they're qualified and want to litigate. Some judges are simply terrible bosses.

For me, I feel like I'm mainly attending to my boss's ego and my actual job is secondary to that. Someone will say "that's what law practice is like," but truthfully, I'd quit a lawyer job that was like this.

I liked my other (district) clerkship and am very fond of my old boss. This one just isn't working for me. Anyway, just wanted to chime in lest people think they're alone.

Had you heard anything positive or negative about your appellate boss beforehand? Basically, what I am asking is were you floored by the poor work environment or is it something you expected.

I'd heard universally positive, glowing feedback. So I suppose this is a caveat emptor that most clerks will only give positive feedback, and clerks who hated their clerkships will vent anonymously on online forums.

[Anonymous User]

Purely for moral support, I am currently a federal appellate clerk and absolutely hate my clerkship. Wasn't a K-JD, and had a terrible, soul-sucking job before law school. Some people just don't like clerking even though they're qualified and want to litigate. Some judges are simply terrible bosses.

For me, I feel like I'm mainly attending to my boss's ego and my actual job is secondary to that. Someone will say "that's what law practice is like," but truthfully, I'd quit a lawyer job that was like this.

I liked my other (district) clerkship and am very fond of my old boss. This one just isn't working for me. Anyway, just wanted to chime in lest people think they're alone.

Had you heard anything positive or negative about your appellate boss beforehand? Basically, what I am asking is were you floored by the poor work environment or is it something you expected.

I'd heard universally positive, glowing feedback. So I suppose this is a caveat emptor that most clerks will only give positive feedback, and clerks who hated their clerkships will vent anonymously on online forums.

Man that sucks to hear. I know I'm just a random anon in the internet, but I am truly very sorry you are having a bad time.

[Anonymous User]

Purely for moral support, I am currently a federal appellate clerk and absolutely hate my clerkship. Wasn't a K-JD, and had a terrible, soul-sucking job before law school. Some people just don't like clerking even though they're qualified and want to litigate. Some judges are simply terrible bosses.

For me, I feel like I'm mainly attending to my boss's ego and my actual job is secondary to that. Someone will say "that's what law practice is like," but truthfully, I'd quit a lawyer job that was like this.

I liked my other (district) clerkship and am very fond of my old boss. This one just isn't working for me. Anyway, just wanted to chime in lest people think they're alone.

I was yammering at length about all the different factors earlier, but to be clear, there are definitely bad bosses, and some clerkships are objectively bad experiences. I'm sorry you're having to slog through this one.

[Anonymous User]

Bumping this. I am a state appellate clerk (not state supreme) who worked at a biglaw firm in a different state and left because I really wanted to clerk. Work is fine, nothing amazing, but I really should have stayed. I am also worried if this will be a stain on an otherwise decent resume (cum laude at T14 etc.) especially since no one who clerked in my practice group did so for any state judges. Curious if this is all in my head or if I did actually make a major mistake. Thankfully I have some leads on a federal circuit clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

Bumping this. I am a state appellate clerk (not state supreme) who worked at a biglaw firm in a different state and left because I really wanted to clerk. Work is fine, nothing amazing, but I really should have stayed. I am also worried if this will be a stain on an otherwise decent resume (cum laude at T14 etc.) especially since no one who clerked in my practice group did so for any state judges. Curious if this is all in my head or if I did actually make a major mistake. Thankfully I have some leads on a federal circuit clerkship.

I think the idea that a state intermediate court of appeals clerkship is a *stain* on a resume is, well, pretty elitist (even in an elitist profession).

That said, I acknowledge that it's less common for people in biglaw to take this route, and I know not all firms give clerkship bonuses or keep offers open for state intermediate clerkships; a friend of mine got offered such a clerkship - without applying, they knew the judge - and turned it down b/c their firm wouldn't hold their offer open (still don't think that means it's a stain, though; it's just not as relevant to some firms, and my friend was going into IP. I've also seen people go to biglaw from a state COA so it can't be too much of stain).

It sounds like you don't have an offer to go back to your previous firm? If so, I can't say how your job search will actually go, if that's what you're asking - it depends on things like where you're looking and what experience you had before clerking and what the market is doing. I feel pretty confident that you haven't damaged your resume, but you've taken a slightly different path than most, so, you know, hard to say exactly how things will go.

[Anonymous User]

Bumping this. I am a state appellate clerk (not state supreme) who worked at a biglaw firm in a different state and left because I really wanted to clerk. Work is fine, nothing amazing, but I really should have stayed. I am also worried if this will be a stain on an otherwise decent resume (cum laude at T14 etc.) especially since no one who clerked in my practice group did so for any state judges. Curious if this is all in my head or if I did actually make a major mistake. Thankfully I have some leads on a federal circuit clerkship.

I think the idea that a state intermediate court of appeals clerkship is a *stain* on a resume is, well, pretty elitist (even in an elitist profession).

That said, I acknowledge that it's less common for people in biglaw to take this route, and I know not all firms give clerkship bonuses or keep offers open for state intermediate clerkships; a friend of mine got offered such a clerkship - without applying, they knew the judge - and turned it down b/c their firm wouldn't hold their offer open (still don't think that means it's a stain, though; it's just not as relevant to some firms, and my friend was going into IP. I've also seen people go to biglaw from a state COA so it can't be too much of stain).

It sounds like you don't have an offer to go back to your previous firm? If so, I can't say how your job search will actually go, if that's what you're asking - it depends on things like where you're looking and what experience you had before clerking and what the market is doing. I feel pretty confident that you haven't damaged your resume, but you've taken a slightly different path than most, so, you know, hard to say exactly how things will go.

How would things look if paired with a federal circuit or federal district? Maybe i should blanket clerkship apps.

[Anonymous User]

Bumping this. I am a state appellate clerk (not state supreme) who worked at a biglaw firm in a different state and left because I really wanted to clerk. Work is fine, nothing amazing, but I really should have stayed. I am also worried if this will be a stain on an otherwise decent resume (cum laude at T14 etc.) especially since no one who clerked in my practice group did so for any state judges. Curious if this is all in my head or if I did actually make a major mistake. Thankfully I have some leads on a federal circuit clerkship.

I think the idea that a state intermediate court of appeals clerkship is a *stain* on a resume is, well, pretty elitist (even in an elitist profession).

That said, I acknowledge that it's less common for people in biglaw to take this route, and I know not all firms give clerkship bonuses or keep offers open for state intermediate clerkships; a friend of mine got offered such a clerkship - without applying, they knew the judge - and turned it down b/c their firm wouldn't hold their offer open (still don't think that means it's a stain, though; it's just not as relevant to some firms, and my friend was going into IP. I've also seen people go to biglaw from a state COA so it can't be too much of stain).

It sounds like you don't have an offer to go back to your previous firm? If so, I can't say how your job search will actually go, if that's what you're asking - it depends on things like where you're looking and what experience you had before clerking and what the market is doing. I feel pretty confident that you haven't damaged your resume, but you've taken a slightly different path than most, so, you know, hard to say exactly how things will go.

How would things look if paired with a federal circuit or federal district? Maybe i should blanket clerkship apps.

Then I think you're back on the "standard" post-clerkship track.

[Anonymous User]

Bumping this. I am a state appellate clerk (not state supreme) who worked at a biglaw firm in a different state and left because I really wanted to clerk. Work is fine, nothing amazing, but I really should have stayed. I am also worried if this will be a stain on an otherwise decent resume (cum laude at T14 etc.) especially since no one who clerked in my practice group did so for any state judges. Curious if this is all in my head or if I did actually make a major mistake. Thankfully I have some leads on a federal circuit clerkship.

I think the idea that a state intermediate court of appeals clerkship is a *stain* on a resume is, well, pretty elitist (even in an elitist profession).

That said, I acknowledge that it's less common for people in biglaw to take this route, and I know not all firms give clerkship bonuses or keep offers open for state intermediate clerkships; a friend of mine got offered such a clerkship - without applying, they knew the judge - and turned it down b/c their firm wouldn't hold their offer open (still don't think that means it's a stain, though; it's just not as relevant to some firms, and my friend was going into IP. I've also seen people go to biglaw from a state COA so it can't be too much of stain).

It sounds like you don't have an offer to go back to your previous firm? If so, I can't say how your job search will actually go, if that's what you're asking - it depends on things like where you're looking and what experience you had before clerking and what the market is doing. I feel pretty confident that you haven't damaged your resume, but you've taken a slightly different path than most, so, you know, hard to say exactly how things will go.

How would things look if paired with a federal circuit or federal district? Maybe i should blanket clerkship apps.

Then I think you're back on the "standard" post-clerkship track.

I feel dumb asking this... but the state intermediate appellate wouldn't "detract" from the federal one?

[Anonymous User]

I feel dumb asking this... but the state intermediate appellate wouldn't "detract" from the federal one?

No. It's not a scarlet letter.

[jotarokujo]

I feel dumb asking this... but the state intermediate appellate wouldn't "detract" from the federal one?

No. It's not a scarlet letter.

Law schools really doing a number on folks if it's making people afraid that certain clerks subtract from their resume. It's not something that's stands out or is inconsistent with a resume of someone who is cum laude at T14. Maybe it's not law schools causing this fear but whatever it is, it's gotta be corrected. state appellate clerkship might not help you with susman and kellogg, but it still helps you stand out at a simpson thatcher or milbank

[Anonymous User]

I feel dumb asking this... but the state intermediate appellate wouldn't "detract" from the federal one?

No. It's not a scarlet letter.

Agreed. This is all in your head - if you're competitive for a job based on school/grades/experience/etc., nobody is going to toss your app in the trash because you clerked on a state appellate court.

[Anonymous User]

I feel dumb asking this... but the state intermediate appellate wouldn't "detract" from the federal one?

No. It's not a scarlet letter.

Law schools really doing a number on folks if it's making people afraid that certain clerks subtract from their resume. It's not something that's stands out or is inconsistent with a resume of someone who is cum laude at T14. Maybe it's not law schools causing this fear but whatever it is, it's gotta be corrected. state appellate clerkship might not help you with susman and kellogg, but it still helps you stand out at a simpson thatcher or milbank

In all fairness I tend to be a super anxious insecure type who overthinks things. I am doing my best to work on it though, but I just wanted to ask to confirm my feelings were incorrect.

[Anonymous User]

To be fair, my judge is old as hell and while there is precedent, I only ever use an empty “memo and order” template. Case law (and briefing) does an exceptional job of providing precedent for standards. So… I wouldn’t blame speed of getting a dispositive motion out on precedent.

Yeah clerking for a new trial judge is always a more intense experience—they don’t have tons of templates, are dealing with cases, procedures, and areas of law they’re unfamiliar with, they often get dumped with other judges’ worst cases, etc.

Wish my new trial judge could read this comment. No Judge, we are not turning around cases as quickly as the 15-year-veteran in the chambers next door, and that's because unlike him, we don't have 15 years of work product to copy-and-paste in, not because we're slow.

[Anonymous User]

Perfect illustration of how bad lawyers are with math. Though I do take your point that clerking isn’t a requirement literally, that clerks aren’t exceptions to your office underscores how valued a clerkship is, given that the vast majority of lawyers (and thus, legal employers) don’t clerk at all, much less A3.

Yeah, like is it theoretically possible to eventually end up in a major USAO, trial boutique, or appeals group without a clerkship? Yeah. With the right connections and experience anything is possible. Is it likely? No. The people hiring for these positions all clerked and will view “I didn’t want to clerk because I wanted money/was afraid of judges/think litigation is repetitive” as a feeble excuse, if not a separate red flag.

Wrong answer. It sounds like you're thinking extremely short term. Beyond a five-year time span, none of the factors mentioned here matter at all. I did not clerk for a judge and am a senior AUSA. Some of my colleagues at my level are former clerks and some are not.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone feel like they’re not learning anything useful in their clerkship? I went to COA after D. Ct. and feel like I haven’t made any real improvements in my writing, analytical reasoning/approach, etc. I am sure I am most at fault for feeling like I am not improving but I feel like it’s also because my boss is completely hands off. Like zero feedback or guidance on how to approach cases (and surprisingly, I’ve heard of judges doing this before at this level, but still.) My co-clerks provide solid feedback, but we all complain that it feels like we are shooting in the dark about how to approach our cases.

This is worthwhile just for the experience/resume line, but I feel like I got ripped off when I picked what feels like a year of stagnation at best over other clerkships. Is my worry about this overblown? Are there other COA clerks that feel like they haven’t had this “substantive” experience that former clerks love to prattle on about?

[Anonymous User]

I know people who've had that experience as well - they drafted opinions, gave them to their judge, and heard nothing more until the opinion issued. Sometimes it looked like what they'd written, sometimes it didn't, but they never knew why things had changed or what their judge was really looking for. It was superfrustrating for them and I'm sure it must be for you as well.

I will say that I doubt you're actually stagnating - just going through the year and seeing the cases, working through the law, and ultimately seeing the decisions is useful experience. Plus I don't think most judges are actually providing the kind of in-depth mentorship in research/writing/analysis that gets talked up as the ideal (one of my judges gave almost no feedback on research/writing, mostly because they thought mine was good already. But tbf they were much more interested in talking about strategy and analysis, at least, for more substantive stuff). So it sounds like your expectations might have been a tiny bit high? Some judges do just see the clerks as there to help the judge, and expect them to learn by doing that rather than through active mentoring.

But no feedback/guidance at all is absolutely well below what you should be able to expect. And yes, if you turned down other clerkships for this one, they might have been better experiences. But there's nothing you can do about that part of things now.

[Anonymous User]

I know people who've had that experience as well - they drafted opinions, gave them to their judge, and heard nothing more until the opinion issued. Sometimes it looked like what they'd written, sometimes it didn't, but they never knew why things had changed or what their judge was really looking for. It was superfrustrating for them and I'm sure it must be for you as well.

I will say that I doubt you're actually stagnating - just going through the year and seeing the cases, working through the law, and ultimately seeing the decisions is useful experience. Plus I don't think most judges are actually providing the kind of in-depth mentorship in research/writing/analysis that gets talked up as the ideal (one of my judges gave almost no feedback on research/writing, mostly because they thought mine was good already. But tbf they were much more interested in talking about strategy and analysis, at least, for more substantive stuff). So it sounds like your expectations might have been a tiny bit high? Some judges do just see the clerks as there to help the judge, and expect them to learn by doing that rather than through active mentoring.

But no feedback/guidance at all is absolutely well below what you should be able to expect. And yes, if you turned down other clerkships for this one, they might have been better experiences. But there's nothing you can do about that part of things now.

I think I will chock a lot of it up to having high expectations. A lot of my mentors gassed this up as if it would be an enlightening experience, but it feels like more of the same. I know the judge is satisfied with my work, so that’s a plus, and I will credit that to some improvement over time. They are also an incredibly kind person and my hours are fantastic. So, even if I passed up other clerkships, they could have been miserable experiences without all these benefits.

[lavarman84]

I know people who've had that experience as well - they drafted opinions, gave them to their judge, and heard nothing more until the opinion issued. Sometimes it looked like what they'd written, sometimes it didn't, but they never knew why things had changed or what their judge was really looking for. It was superfrustrating for them and I'm sure it must be for you as well.

I will say that I doubt you're actually stagnating - just going through the year and seeing the cases, working through the law, and ultimately seeing the decisions is useful experience. Plus I don't think most judges are actually providing the kind of in-depth mentorship in research/writing/analysis that gets talked up as the ideal (one of my judges gave almost no feedback on research/writing, mostly because they thought mine was good already. But tbf they were much more interested in talking about strategy and analysis, at least, for more substantive stuff). So it sounds like your expectations might have been a tiny bit high? Some judges do just see the clerks as there to help the judge, and expect them to learn by doing that rather than through active mentoring.

But no feedback/guidance at all is absolutely well below what you should be able to expect. And yes, if you turned down other clerkships for this one, they might have been better experiences. But there's nothing you can do about that part of things now.

I think I will chock a lot of it up to having high expectations. A lot of my mentors gassed this up as if it would be an enlightening experience, but it feels like more of the same. I know the judge is satisfied with my work, so that’s a plus, and I will credit that to some improvement over time. They are also an incredibly kind person and my hours are fantastic. So, even if I passed up other clerkships, they could have been miserable experiences without all these benefits.

I'll also add that one benefit you might not be thinking about right now that becomes more apparent when you practice is understanding what works and what doesn't when it comes to writing for judges and their clerks. You'd be surprised at how many brilliant lawyers aren't great at that.

[Anonymous User]

I know people who've had that experience as well - they drafted opinions, gave them to their judge, and heard nothing more until the opinion issued. Sometimes it looked like what they'd written, sometimes it didn't, but they never knew why things had changed or what their judge was really looking for. It was superfrustrating for them and I'm sure it must be for you as well.

I will say that I doubt you're actually stagnating - just going through the year and seeing the cases, working through the law, and ultimately seeing the decisions is useful experience. Plus I don't think most judges are actually providing the kind of in-depth mentorship in research/writing/analysis that gets talked up as the ideal (one of my judges gave almost no feedback on research/writing, mostly because they thought mine was good already. But tbf they were much more interested in talking about strategy and analysis, at least, for more substantive stuff). So it sounds like your expectations might have been a tiny bit high? Some judges do just see the clerks as there to help the judge, and expect them to learn by doing that rather than through active mentoring.

But no feedback/guidance at all is absolutely well below what you should be able to expect. And yes, if you turned down other clerkships for this one, they might have been better experiences. But there's nothing you can do about that part of things now.

I think I will chock a lot of it up to having high expectations. A lot of my mentors gassed this up as if it would be an enlightening experience, but it feels like more of the same. I know the judge is satisfied with my work, so that’s a plus, and I will credit that to some improvement over time. They are also an incredibly kind person and my hours are fantastic. So, even if I passed up other clerkships, they could have been miserable experiences without all these benefits.

I'll also add that one benefit you might not be thinking about right now that becomes more apparent when you practice is understanding what works and what doesn't when it comes to writing for judges and their clerks. You'd be surprised at how many brilliant lawyers aren't great at that.

Very true. I’ve had a lot of opportunities to see how poor briefing makes it a nightmare to slog through a case. And how attorneys can totally miss an important issue but utterly fail to argue or preserve it. So that’s another firsthand experience that makes it worthwhile.