2022-2023 Post-Clerkship Hiring Forum

[Anonymous User]

Paul, Weiss ding no interview

[Anonymous User]

Paul Weiss New York rejection here. YS grad, article III clerkship

forgot to mention no interview

[Anonymous User]

Paul Weiss New York rejection here. YS grad, article III clerkship

Jeez. The market seems absolutely BRUTAL this year.

[Anonymous User]

Quinn Emanuel dong.

When did you apply? Haven’t heard much movement from them

December.

Which office/offices?

[Anonymous User]

Paul Weiss New York rejection here. YS grad, article III clerkship

Jeez. The market seems absolutely BRUTAL this year.

Same. PW, Skadden, DPW, Latham, all NYC dings. YS grad. Two fed clerkships.

[Anonymous User]

Paul Weiss New York rejection here. YS grad, article III clerkship

Jeez. The market seems absolutely BRUTAL this year.

Same. PW, Skadden, DPW, Latham, all NYC dings. YS grad. Two fed clerkships.

Exact same as above--no interviews at all, but add Milbank and MoloLamken in NYC. Order of the Coif, T20, LR, FDC clerkship,etc. Not the most competitive resume, but I didn't think it would be this tough.

[Anonymous User]

Paul Weiss New York rejection here. YS grad, article III clerkship

Jeez. The market seems absolutely BRUTAL this year.

Same. PW, Skadden, DPW, Latham, all NYC dings. YS grad. Two fed clerkships.

Exact same as above--no interviews at all, but add Milibank and MoloLamken in NYC. Order of the Coif, T20, LR, FDC clerkship,etc. Not the most competitive resume, but I didn't think it would be this tough.

[Anonymous User]

Paul Weiss New York rejection here. YS grad, article III clerkship

Jeez. The market seems absolutely BRUTAL this year.

Same. PW, Skadden, DPW, Latham, all NYC dings. YS grad. Two fed clerkships.

Exact same as above--no interviews at all, but add Milibank and MoloLamken in NYC. Order of the Coif, T20, LR, FDC clerkship,etc. Not the most competitive resume, but I didn't think it would be this tough.

LOL ^. You competitive bro.

[Anonymous User]

Paul Weiss New York rejection here. YS grad, article III clerkship

Jeez. The market seems absolutely BRUTAL this year.

Same. PW, Skadden, DPW, Latham, all NYC dings. YS grad. Two fed clerkships.

Exact same as above--no interviews at all, but add Milibank and MoloLamken in NYC. Order of the Coif, T20, LR, FDC clerkship,etc. Not the most competitive resume, but I didn't think it would be this tough.

LOL ^. You competitive bro.

I mean in normal times, for sure. I didn't expect traction at like Cravath or anything, but I thought a Paul Weiss or a Skadden would take me. Anyone know anything about Arnold and Porter or Fried Frank this cycle?

[Anonymous User]

had a few boutique interviews but none for biglaw yet. double clerk, T6. could it be that biglaw firms just aren't looking for clerks? Clerks are expensive and the biglaw lit model doesn't really need that many nor the kind of skillset or talent that clerks bring

[Anonymous User]

had a few boutique interviews but none for biglaw yet. double clerk, T6. could it be that biglaw firms just aren't looking for clerks? Clerks are expensive and the biglaw lit model doesn't really need that many nor the kind of skillset or talent that clerks bring

It could be. Though our COA chambers received recruiting letters from Skadden's and Mayer Brown's SCOTUS/appellate groups.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone hear from MTO LA?

[Anonymous User]

had a few boutique interviews but none for biglaw yet. double clerk, T6. could it be that biglaw firms just aren't looking for clerks? Clerks are expensive and the biglaw lit model doesn't really need that many nor the kind of skillset or talent that clerks bring

It could be. Though our COA chambers received recruiting letters from Skadden's and Mayer Brown's SCOTUS/appellate groups.

Don't think recruiting letters mean anything. Our backwater d-court got them from Susman.

[Anonymous User]

had a few boutique interviews but none for biglaw yet. double clerk, T6. could it be that biglaw firms just aren't looking for clerks? Clerks are expensive and the biglaw lit model doesn't really need that many nor the kind of skillset or talent that clerks bring

It could be. Though our COA chambers received recruiting letters from Skadden's and Mayer Brown's SCOTUS/appellate groups.

Don't think recruiting letters mean anything. Our backwater d-court got them from Susman.

Think its market dependent too. Seems like NYC is taking it harder than DC. Ex: got a letter at COA for Skadden in DC, then applied and was immediately rejected by Skadden NYC

[Anonymous User]

had a few boutique interviews but none for biglaw yet. double clerk, T6. could it be that biglaw firms just aren't looking for clerks? Clerks are expensive and the biglaw lit model doesn't really need that many nor the kind of skillset or talent that clerks bring

what do you mean by this? My experience has been that big firms tend to appreciate/actively recruit clerks in lit?

[Anonymous User]

had a few boutique interviews but none for biglaw yet. double clerk, T6. could it be that biglaw firms just aren't looking for clerks? Clerks are expensive and the biglaw lit model doesn't really need that many nor the kind of skillset or talent that clerks bring

what do you mean by this? My experience has been that big firms tend to appreciate/actively recruit clerks in lit?

Not OP but their original point that clerks are not as attractive to big law firms is correct. While firms like Susman and Quinn have raised clerkship bonuses big law clerkship bonuses have remained stagnant. The majority of profitable big law litigation is white collar and you certainly don't need a clerkship to be a good government investigations attorney (in fact I'd argue that associates that leave to clerk for a year are more are stunted compared to white collar associates that stayed at the firm). In a down market, existing litigation associates are usually safe but they have an obvious incentive to not expand loss leader groups like appellate.

[Anonymous User]

had a few boutique interviews but none for biglaw yet. double clerk, T6. could it be that biglaw firms just aren't looking for clerks? Clerks are expensive and the biglaw lit model doesn't really need that many nor the kind of skillset or talent that clerks bring

It could be. Though our COA chambers received recruiting letters from Skadden's and Mayer Brown's SCOTUS/appellate groups.

Don't think recruiting letters mean anything. Our backwater d-court got them from Susman.

Ehh, I think it means that they're recruiting? I mean what's the point of having the head partner of the Skadden SCOTUS group writing about how it's an exciting time to join them, or Mayer Brown hosting clerk events to try and recruit them?

[Anonymous User]

had a few boutique interviews but none for biglaw yet. double clerk, T6. could it be that biglaw firms just aren't looking for clerks? Clerks are expensive and the biglaw lit model doesn't really need that many nor the kind of skillset or talent that clerks bring

what do you mean by this? My experience has been that big firms tend to appreciate/actively recruit clerks in lit?

Not OP but their original point that clerks are not as attractive to big law firms is correct. While firms like Susman and Quinn have raised clerkship bonuses big law clerkship bonuses have remained stagnant. The majority of profitable big law litigation is white collar and you certainly don't need a clerkship to be a good government investigations attorney (in fact I'd argue that associates that leave to clerk for a year are more are stunted compared to white collar associates that stayed at the firm). In a down market, existing litigation associates are usually safe but they have an obvious incentive to not expand loss leader groups like appellate.

I'd challenge that premise--at least in NYC. It seems like top firms have fairly robust M&A lit, SHD, MDL, employment, and anti-trust practices. Of course, investigations are a major portion of litigation profits even at top places. Still, I'd think insofar as firms like Cravath have diverse litigation practices and many of the best law students who want to do litigation also do clerkships, there would be an appetite for at least federal clerks (absent confounding market factors). A 50K clerkship bonus (and one less year of base pay) sure is a hell of a lot less expensive than firing and re-hiring worse associates. Not suggesting you have to do a clerkship to be qualified, but I don't buy that clerks aren't attractive to big firms.

[Anonymous User]

had a few boutique interviews but none for biglaw yet. double clerk, T6. could it be that biglaw firms just aren't looking for clerks? Clerks are expensive and the biglaw lit model doesn't really need that many nor the kind of skillset or talent that clerks bring

what do you mean by this? My experience has been that big firms tend to appreciate/actively recruit clerks in lit?

Not OP but their original point that clerks are not as attractive to big law firms is correct. While firms like Susman and Quinn have raised clerkship bonuses big law clerkship bonuses have remained stagnant. The majority of profitable big law litigation is white collar and you certainly don't need a clerkship to be a good government investigations attorney (in fact I'd argue that associates that leave to clerk for a year are more are stunted compared to white collar associates that stayed at the firm). In a down market, existing litigation associates are usually safe but they have an obvious incentive to not expand loss leader groups like appellate.

I'd challenge that premise--at least in NYC. It seems like top firms have larger M&A litigation, SHD suits, MDL, employment groups, and anti-trust practices. Of course, investigations are a major portion of litigation profits. Still, I'd think insofar as places like S&C and Cravath have diverse litigation practices and many of the best law students who want to practice litigation do clerkships, there would be an appetite for clerks (absent confounding market factors). A 50K clerkship bonuses sure is a hell of a lot less expensive than firing and re-hiring lesser qualified associates.

I should have given the caveat that I practiced in DC. However, I also think you're assuming that associates who clerk are better associates than those who didn't clerk. I don't think that's the case and I also think associates who clerked are much more likely to leave the firm after collecting a bonus for a government gig.

[Anonymous User]

had a few boutique interviews but none for biglaw yet. double clerk, T6. could it be that biglaw firms just aren't looking for clerks? Clerks are expensive and the biglaw lit model doesn't really need that many nor the kind of skillset or talent that clerks bring

what do you mean by this? My experience has been that big firms tend to appreciate/actively recruit clerks in lit?

Not OP but their original point that clerks are not as attractive to big law firms is correct. While firms like Susman and Quinn have raised clerkship bonuses big law clerkship bonuses have remained stagnant. The majority of profitable big law litigation is white collar and you certainly don't need a clerkship to be a good government investigations attorney (in fact I'd argue that associates that leave to clerk for a year are more are stunted compared to white collar associates that stayed at the firm). In a down market, existing litigation associates are usually safe but they have an obvious incentive to not expand loss leader groups like appellate.

I'd challenge that premise--at least in NYC. It seems like top firms have larger M&A litigation, SHD suits, MDL, employment groups, and anti-trust practices. Of course, investigations are a major portion of litigation profits. Still, I'd think insofar as places like S&C and Cravath have diverse litigation practices and many of the best law students who want to practice litigation do clerkships, there would be an appetite for clerks (absent confounding market factors). A 50K clerkship bonuses sure is a hell of a lot less expensive than firing and re-hiring lesser qualified associates.

I should have given the caveat that I practiced in DC. However, I also think you're assuming that associates who clerk are better associates than those who didn't clerk. I don't think that's the case and I also think associates who clerked are much more likely to leave the firm after collecting a bonus for a government gig.

I edited my original post to correct that implication, which I agree suggested that non-clerks weren't as good. Of course, clerks aren't necessarily better. I just meant to suggest that many federal clerks are capable of being/are qualified to be excellent associates. I see your point re: gov work for SCOTUS/COA clerks, but I am not sure that your average FDC clerk is any more likely to leave for DOJ than a non-clerk.

[Anonymous User]

had a few boutique interviews but none for biglaw yet. double clerk, T6. could it be that biglaw firms just aren't looking for clerks? Clerks are expensive and the biglaw lit model doesn't really need that many nor the kind of skillset or talent that clerks bring

what do you mean by this? My experience has been that big firms tend to appreciate/actively recruit clerks in lit?

Not OP but their original point that clerks are not as attractive to big law firms is correct. While firms like Susman and Quinn have raised clerkship bonuses big law clerkship bonuses have remained stagnant. The majority of profitable big law litigation is white collar and you certainly don't need a clerkship to be a good government investigations attorney (in fact I'd argue that associates that leave to clerk for a year are more are stunted compared to white collar associates that stayed at the firm). In a down market, existing litigation associates are usually safe but they have an obvious incentive to not expand loss leader groups like appellate.

Nobody who does a decent clerkship wants to do investigations, people who want to do criminal law want to do actual criminal work that can get them into AUSA/FPD positions

It also just isn’t true that white collar is the most profitable lit specialty (what?)

[Anonymous User]

Scheduled an interview with Quinn. Is it typical to go straight to a two-hour interview (no screener) for clerk hiring?

[Anonymous User]

Scheduled an interview with Quinn. Is it typical to go straight to a two-hour interview (no screener) for clerk hiring?

Which "office?"

[Anonymous User]

Scheduled an interview with Quinn. Is it typical to go straight to a two-hour interview (no screener) for clerk hiring?

Which "office?"

DC

[Anonymous User]

Scheduled an interview with Quinn. Is it typical to go straight to a two-hour interview (no screener) for clerk hiring?

Which "office?"

DC

Yes. At least 4 me.