SSC v. Fed Mag Forum

(Seek and share information about clerkship applications, clerkship hiring timelines, and post-clerkship employment opportunities)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about clerkship applications and clerkship hiring. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
username5101520

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:18 pm

SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by username5101520 » Wed Dec 07, 2022 4:42 pm

I've seen this question from time to time on TLS, presumably because the credentials needed to get an SSC or Fed Mag clerkship are quite similar. It seems like the TLS consensus is that SSC > Fed Mag prestige-wise, with exceptions for geography (e.g. SDNY Fed Mag >> random flyover SSC). Last year I clerked on an average SSC, and now clerk for a Fed Mag in a prestigious district. I want to offer my two cents for those deciding between the two: do the Fed Mag. My experience has been that biglaw, biggov, etc. recruit Fed Mag clerks aggressively, whereas no one but the local law firms care about SSCs. Also, just as far as law, Fed Mag clerks review SSC decisions in criminal cases, on habeas, so you're essentially 'higher up the chain' as a Fed Mag clerk.

jotarokujo

Bronze
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 5:23 pm

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by jotarokujo » Wed Dec 07, 2022 7:50 pm

username5101520 wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 4:42 pm
I've seen this question from time to time on TLS, presumably because the credentials needed to get an SSC or Fed Mag clerkship are quite similar. It seems like the TLS consensus is that SSC > Fed Mag prestige-wise, with exceptions for geography (e.g. SDNY Fed Mag >> random flyover SSC). Last year I clerked on an average SSC, and now clerk for a Fed Mag in a prestigious district. I want to offer my two cents for those deciding between the two: do the Fed Mag. My experience has been that biglaw, biggov, etc. recruit Fed Mag clerks aggressively, whereas no one but the local law firms care about SSCs. Also, just as far as law, Fed Mag clerks review SSC decisions in criminal cases, on habeas, so you're essentially 'higher up the chain' as a Fed Mag clerk.
I think this is mostly in line with what i've seen. Barring extreme outliers (e.g. Goodwin liu), magistrate clerkship seems to usually come out ahead of supreme court clerkship in the same state if we're talking about going to an out-of-state market. thanks for sharing your experience

User avatar
Yeti

New
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 10:17 pm

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by Yeti » Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:53 pm

I think target market needs to be emphasized. For instance if I knew I wanted to practice in Texas, dealing state law issues, I would take a SCOTX clerkship over any federal magistrate clerkship.

username5101520

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:18 pm

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by username5101520 » Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:00 pm

Yeti wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:53 pm
I think target market needs to be emphasized. For instance if I knew I wanted to practice in Texas, dealing state law issues, I would take a SCOTX clerkship over any federal magistrate clerkship.
100% spot on. My experience clerking for a SSC bore this out. Within that state, the SSC clerkship will be very very respected and coveted. I thiiiiink on average an MJ in that state would still be marginally more helpful on the job market in that state, but I think that will depend.

There's also a question of what kind of law you want to do. Biglaw firms that litigate more in federal court will have a preference for federal clerks. In every state, however, there are a handful of smaller firms, that only have offices in that state, and that are very well regarded in that state, but that are not particularly known outside of that state. They tend to litigate more in state court. If you want to work for one of those firms, SSC is probably more helpful. I don't mean to come off like I'm denigrating that at all, by the way. Excellent lawyers work at these firms. My read on TLS people is that typically Biglaw is more desired, is all.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:00 pm

Yeti wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:53 pm
I think target market needs to be emphasized. For instance if I knew I wanted to practice in Texas, dealing state law issues, I would take a SCOTX clerkship over any federal magistrate clerkship.
Yeah, can't speak for others, but down here in Texas the biglaw firms recruit fairly heavily at SCOTX and not as much for any of the fed mags in the Texas districts.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


username5101520

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:18 pm

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by username5101520 » Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:18 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:00 pm
Yeti wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:53 pm
I think target market needs to be emphasized. For instance if I knew I wanted to practice in Texas, dealing state law issues, I would take a SCOTX clerkship over any federal magistrate clerkship.
Yeah, can't speak for others, but down here in Texas the biglaw firms recruit fairly heavily at SCOTX and not as much for any of the fed mags in the Texas districts.
That's very interesting. In the state I did my SSC, the biglaw firms still probably more preferred the Magi clerks. It was a state with one federal district though. I think there's some logic to the phenomena you've described. (1) Texas is a big enough state to have multiple federal districts, so the SCOTX clerkship covers more people, basically, and so arguably a bigger deal. (2) SCOTX clerkship is one of those known for being a more-prestigious-than-average SSC clerkship, likely more on par with your garden variety DCt clerkship. Also, from what I know about Texas (went to college but not law school there), it's a uniquely insular place and legal market. I had a lawyer tell me "if you want to practice law in Texas, you're better off going to UT Law than Yale!"

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:32 pm

Yes in my state SSC > fed mag. This’ll depend on the specific judges and target markets in question. As far as your experience goes it seems very relevant that your MJ clerkship is in your target market and your SSC is not. (my clerkships were A3 so I have no dog in this fight.)

I also question anyone who thinks MJs are higher up the chain than SSCs because habeas exists. Even accepting the premise that habeas is akin to an appeal, which it isn’t, (1) 2254(d) makes SSC decisions on the merits effectively unreviewable and (2) MJ habeas decisions are reviewable de novo by a DJ.

Though the huge difference in work style between a limited-jurisdiction trial judge vs. an appellate court that controls its docket surely should be more relevant than marginal differences in prestige to those considering this choice.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

objctnyrhnr

Moderator
Posts: 1521
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:44 am

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by objctnyrhnr » Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:34 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:32 pm
Yes in my state SSC > fed mag. This’ll depend on the specific judges and target markets in question. (my clerkships were A3 so I have no dog in this fight.)

I also question anyone who thinks MJs are higher up the chain than SSCs because habeas exists. Even accepting the premise that habeas is akin to an appeal, which it isn’t, (1) 2254(d) makes SSC decisions on the merits effectively unreviewable and (2) MJ habeas decisions are reviewable de novo by a DJ.

Though the huge difference in work style between a limited-jurisdiction trial judge vs. an appellate court that controls its docket surely should be more relevant than marginal differences in prestige to those considering this choice.
Seconded. I found this particular comment strange as well.

username5101520

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:18 pm

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by username5101520 » Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:05 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:32 pm
Yes in my state SSC > fed mag. This’ll depend on the specific judges and target markets in question. As far as your experience goes it seems very relevant that your MJ clerkship is in your target market and your SSC is not. (my clerkships were A3 so I have no dog in this fight.)

I also question anyone who thinks MJs are higher up the chain than SSCs because habeas exists. Even accepting the premise that habeas is akin to an appeal, which it isn’t, (1) 2254(d) makes SSC decisions on the merits effectively unreviewable and (2) MJ habeas decisions are reviewable de novo by a DJ.

Though the huge difference in work style between a limited-jurisdiction trial judge vs. an appellate court that controls its docket surely should be more relevant than marginal differences in prestige to those considering this choice.
Mmmm, I mean debating law on the internet never a good idea, but why do you think those standards of review make habeas not a de facto appeal?

My MJ clerkship is not in my personal target market. It IS in what would be considered a relatively good district (one of CDCA, NDCA, DE). It's not an apples to apples comparison though because the state for my SSC would be considered more of a garden variety state. That said, it's been pretty night and day between the recruiting in my current job compared to the previous one. I don't think the huge difference is only attributable to the geographic difference.

I'm talking on average though. I totally agree that some SSCs will be better than some MJ. I think overall this discussion demonstrates the closeness of the call though.
Last edited by username5101520 on Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


username5101520

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:18 pm

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by username5101520 » Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:09 pm

Yeti wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:53 pm
I think target market needs to be emphasized. For instance if I knew I wanted to practice in Texas, dealing state law issues, I would take a SCOTX clerkship over any federal magistrate clerkship.
I definitely agree and would go further and say that, by the time you're at the point in your life that you're choosing clerkships, you should be passed chasing only prestige. Prestige, which I take to be synonymous with "resume value," is a consideration, but just one of. If you know you'll be happier in one particular state, particularly practicing for one of the smaller but elite firms in that state, then definitely do an SSC. You might, might even choose that over a DCt (maybe?).

I'll also note, as I think I said in another comment, SCOTX is a particularly prestigious SSC court. My original comment was talking about the average clerkship. Certainly, particular clerkships can be far more prestigious than the normal for that level. See, e.g., Delaware Chancery, far more prestigious than your average state trial court clerkship.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:31 pm

If I was considering the two, I wouldn't base it on prestige (there's not much difference, outside TX and CA). I'd base it on which sounded like a better job. And state supreme sounds like way more fun.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:30 pm

If you think habeas is anything like a direct appeal, you do not understand federal habeas law well enough yet to be assessing habeas petitions imo

Also state courts also have collateral review, so by that logic, a state trial court entertaining a collateral attack could be hearing an appeal from its own SSC. Or a federal trial court hearing a 2255 petition could be hearing an appeal from SCOTUS.

you can call collateral attacks appeals if you want to I guess, but it would only be in a gimmicky sense that does not imply superior prestige or authority
Last edited by Anonymous User on Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Yeti

New
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 10:17 pm

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by Yeti » Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:32 pm

username5101520 wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:09 pm
Yeti wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:53 pm
I think target market needs to be emphasized. For instance if I knew I wanted to practice in Texas, dealing state law issues, I would take a SCOTX clerkship over any federal magistrate clerkship.
I definitely agree and would go further and say that, by the time you're at the point in your life that you're choosing clerkships, you should be passed chasing only prestige. Prestige, which I take to be synonymous with "resume value," is a consideration, but just one of. If you know you'll be happier in one particular state, particularly practicing for one of the smaller but elite firms in that state, then definitely do an SSC. You might, might even choose that over a DCt (maybe?).
I agree with everything you say here.
username5101520 wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:18 pm
Also, from what I know about Texas (went to college but not law school there), it's a uniquely insular place and legal market. I had a lawyer tell me "if you want to practice law in Texas, you're better off going to UT Law than Yale!"
I will add only that I really don’t think the T14 schools hold nearly as much weight outside of the East Coast as people on the East Coast – or this forum – would have you believe. You are almost certainly better off going to UT Law over Yale if you want to practice in Texas. Most definitely so when it comes to law schools such as Columbia, NYU, or Penn (even though they are technically “higher ranked” schools than UT according to USNWR).

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


username5101520

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:18 pm

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by username5101520 » Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:40 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:30 pm
If you think habeas is anything like a direct appeal, you do not understand federal habeas law well enough yet to be assessing habeas petitions imo

Also state courts also have collateral review, so by that logic, a state trial court entertaining a collateral attack could be hearing an appeal from its own SSC. Or a federal trial court hearing a 2255 petition could be hearing an appeal from SCOTUS.

you can call collateral attacks appeals if you want to I guess, but it would only be in a gimmicky sense that does not imply superior prestige or authority
Hey there, we can have a discussion without getting personal. I think YOU do not perfectly understand habeas law, but I'm not going to say "you do not have understand it well enough yet to be assessing habeas petitions." My judge thinks I understand it well enough to assess habeas petitions, so, there's that. She has also characterized it as a de facto appeal. I suppose you'd say she's negligent for letting me review habeas petitions, and herself is not qualified to review habeas petitions. That's absurd. Anyways, ad hominens are logical fallacies, and generally easily shown to be such. Let's stick to the law rather than the person.

On habeas review, the federal court reviews the SSC's decision, or other last reasoned decision, on the issues raised. It cannot entertain an issue not fairly presented to the SSC. When a state trial court entertains collateral review, it would not review its SSC's decision. Indeed, it generally could only entertain collateral review on a previously un-raised issue (typically, ineffective assistance or new evidence of actual innocence). That's the key difference. The same is true of a federal trial court hearing a 2255. It does not review the SCOTUS decision. Indeed, it cannot re-pass on that issue once SCOTUS has decided it.

Originally, though, you said that because an MJ reviews a SSC's decision with heavy deference, and the MJs decision is then reviewed de novo by the DJ (theoretically, though realistically and statistically with heavy deference), that makes it not a de facto appeal. I'm interested to know why you think that procedural setup makes it not a de facto appeal?
Last edited by username5101520 on Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:08 am, edited 4 times in total.

username5101520

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:18 pm

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by username5101520 » Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:41 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:31 pm
If I was considering the two, I wouldn't base it on prestige (there's not much difference, outside TX and CA). I'd base it on which sounded like a better job. And state supreme sounds like way more fun.
Very valid and not at all a wrong choice. But there are those who do care about prestige and about what doors the clerkship will open. That was why I made my original post, to share what my experience has been.
Last edited by username5101520 on Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

username5101520

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:18 pm

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by username5101520 » Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:56 am

Yeti wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:32 pm
username5101520 wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:09 pm
Yeti wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:53 pm
I think target market needs to be emphasized. For instance if I knew I wanted to practice in Texas, dealing state law issues, I would take a SCOTX clerkship over any federal magistrate clerkship.
I definitely agree and would go further and say that, by the time you're at the point in your life that you're choosing clerkships, you should be passed chasing only prestige. Prestige, which I take to be synonymous with "resume value," is a consideration, but just one of. If you know you'll be happier in one particular state, particularly practicing for one of the smaller but elite firms in that state, then definitely do an SSC. You might, might even choose that over a DCt (maybe?).
I agree with everything you say here.
username5101520 wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:18 pm
Also, from what I know about Texas (went to college but not law school there), it's a uniquely insular place and legal market. I had a lawyer tell me "if you want to practice law in Texas, you're better off going to UT Law than Yale!"
I will add only that I really don’t think the T14 schools hold nearly as much weight outside of the East Coast as people on the East Coast – or this forum – would have you believe. You are almost certainly better off going to UT Law over Yale if you want to practice in Texas. Most definitely so when it comes to law schools such as Columbia, NYU, or Penn (even though they are technically “higher ranked” schools than UT according to USNWR).
Totally agree.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Dec 08, 2022 7:57 am

Habeas petitions may be sort of “de facto” appeals in a literal kind of way, but that doesn’t make handling them particularly like handling actual appeals, and it doesn’t change the value of a mag clerkship in relation to a SSC by making the mag clerkship into some pseudo-appellate experience.

I agree that both have value and that which one a person should do depends on the judges in question, the jdx, and that person’s goals. But trying to sell habeas work as analogous to state Supreme Court appeals isn’t very convincing.

(Re: recruitment by biglaw - I think that’s very very jdx specific. I did a DCt clerkship outside the major coastal hubs and there was very very little recruitment, but from the way you’ve framed this DCt would definitely be more prestigious than mag. So I’m not sure biglaw direct recruitment is a simple measure of value here.)

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:32 am

Moderately senior DOJ lawyer here.

As far as prestige is concerned--which granted is kind of stupid for all of us to care about it but since we do, it matters--SSC prevails over federal magistrate. This isn't that much of a competition IMO. I won't wade into the merits further. That's just my opinion.

But I will say this in favor of federal magistrates: because you're doing more real world lawyering/judging in the trenches at that level, you're getting a much better real world education on how to become a good lawyer. Appellate clerkships are next to useless in that regard. They are almost entirely all about prestige. The two best types of clerkships to actually learn how to practice law are federal magistrates and federal district courts.

username5101520

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:18 pm

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by username5101520 » Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:24 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 7:57 am
Habeas petitions may be sort of “de facto” appeals in a literal kind of way, but that doesn’t make handling them particularly like handling actual appeals, and it doesn’t change the value of a mag clerkship in relation to a SSC by making the mag clerkship into some pseudo-appellate experience.

I agree that both have value and that which one a person should do depends on the judges in question, the jdx, and that person’s goals. But trying to sell habeas work as analogous to state Supreme Court appeals isn’t very convincing.

(Re: recruitment by biglaw - I think that’s very very jdx specific. I did a DCt clerkship outside the major coastal hubs and there was very very little recruitment, but from the way you’ve framed this DCt would definitely be more prestigious than mag. So I’m not sure biglaw direct recruitment is a simple measure of value here.)
I'm glad you agree with me now that it's a de facto appeal in a literal way. Where did I say MJ clerking was a pseudo-appellate experience?

Yes, I'm at one of CDCA/NDCA/EDNY/DE (trying to keep it vague). Your experience is very interesting. That honestly may disprove my hypothesis, and, instead, prove that the geography factor is more powerful than I've thought.
Last edited by username5101520 on Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

username5101520

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:18 pm

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by username5101520 » Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:29 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:32 am
Moderately senior DOJ lawyer here.

As far as prestige is concerned--which granted is kind of stupid for all of us to care about it but since we do, it matters--SSC prevails over federal magistrate. This isn't that much of a competition IMO. I won't wade into the merits further. That's just my opinion.

But I will say this in favor of federal magistrates: because you're doing more real world lawyering/judging in the trenches at that level, you're getting a much better real world education on how to become a good lawyer. Appellate clerkships are next to useless in that regard. They are almost entirely all about prestige. The two best types of clerkships to actually learn how to practice law are federal magistrates and federal district courts.
Yeah I mean, I understand that the general consensus is something like:
State trial->State intermediate->Fed Mag->SSC->DCt->COA->SCOTUS

I was trying to offer my two cents that it's seemed to me that MJ adds way more resume value (which I take as synonymous with prestige). And, like I said, I think it may be a common choice because the qualifications necessary to get either are pretty similar. Although the consensus is SSC, I would advise someone facing that choice and just concerned with resume value to take MJ. My experience has come from law firm recruiting and the local AUSA/AFPD officers. I assume you're at main justice?

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:42 am

AUSA/AFPD here and former BL. I'll say in my market, the SSC would trump the MJ clerkship. But, I think the AUSA/AFPD office here would view them as equal, and maybe even slightly prefer the MJ clerk due to actually knowledge and practice, but BL would prefer the SSC clerk.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


username5101520

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:18 pm

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by username5101520 » Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:52 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:42 am
AUSA/AFPD here and former BL. I'll say in my market, the SSC would trump the MJ clerkship. But, I think the AUSA/AFPD office here would view them as equal, and maybe even slightly prefer the MJ clerk due to actually knowledge and practice, but BL would prefer the SSC clerk.
That's interesting. Perhaps this and other feedback shows that my experience doesn't speak to the general trend I thought it might, and that the better statement is the two are close and one needs to pay close attention to the jdx and their personal goals.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:17 pm

username5101520 wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:24 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 7:57 am
Habeas petitions may be sort of “de facto” appeals in a literal kind of way, but that doesn’t make handling them particularly like handling actual appeals, and it doesn’t change the value of a mag clerkship in relation to a SSC by making the mag clerkship into some pseudo-appellate experience.

I agree that both have value and that which one a person should do depends on the judges in question, the jdx, and that person’s goals. But trying to sell habeas work as analogous to state Supreme Court appeals isn’t very convincing.

(Re: recruitment by biglaw - I think that’s very very jdx specific. I did a DCt clerkship outside the major coastal hubs and there was very very little recruitment, but from the way you’ve framed this DCt would definitely be more prestigious than mag. So I’m not sure biglaw direct recruitment is a simple measure of value here.)
I'm glad you agree with me now that it's a de facto appeal in a literal way. Where did I say MJ clerking was a pseudo-appellate experience?

Yes, I'm at one of CDCA/NDCA/EDNY/DE (trying to keep it vague). Your experience is very interesting. That honestly may disprove my hypothesis, and, instead, prove that the geography factor is more powerful than I've thought.
I didn’t not agree with you before - I hadn’t weighed in before the post above. And I guess I don’t know why you’d talk about habeas work as a kind of appeal without trying to sell the mag clerkship as in some way pseudo-appellate.

Looking back at your original post, I don’t really agree that because mag clerks handle habeas work, that makes them “higher up the chain” than SSC clerks. They’re 2 different chains. Criminal defendants may jump from one to the other but that’s not really the same thing.

None of this is trying to devalue your mag clerkship - I agree with the poster above that it’s way more practical in terms of learning how to litigate. There are also probably some people who knee jerk ascribe greater prestige to anything federal over anything state.

I will say that in my law school market, there was quite a lot of overlap between who clerked for the SSC and who worked in local biglaw, but that’s again market dependent. It was a small market and there’s just not a lot of biglaw at all compared to major coastal markets. I do know some SSC clerks who went off to biglaw in those markets, but many had gone to T14s in other markets, had biglaw offers to return to, and wanted to hang out in my law school market for a year. I feel like the mag clerks were less visible, but I think could have been a function of the magistrates having a lot of career clerks and people going on to other clerkships after the magistrates.

username5101520

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:18 pm

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by username5101520 » Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:17 pm
username5101520 wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:24 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 7:57 am
Habeas petitions may be sort of “de facto” appeals in a literal kind of way, but that doesn’t make handling them particularly like handling actual appeals, and it doesn’t change the value of a mag clerkship in relation to a SSC by making the mag clerkship into some pseudo-appellate experience.

I agree that both have value and that which one a person should do depends on the judges in question, the jdx, and that person’s goals. But trying to sell habeas work as analogous to state Supreme Court appeals isn’t very convincing.

(Re: recruitment by biglaw - I think that’s very very jdx specific. I did a DCt clerkship outside the major coastal hubs and there was very very little recruitment, but from the way you’ve framed this DCt would definitely be more prestigious than mag. So I’m not sure biglaw direct recruitment is a simple measure of value here.)
I'm glad you agree with me now that it's a de facto appeal in a literal way. Where did I say MJ clerking was a pseudo-appellate experience?

Yes, I'm at one of CDCA/NDCA/EDNY/DE (trying to keep it vague). Your experience is very interesting. That honestly may disprove my hypothesis, and, instead, prove that the geography factor is more powerful than I've thought.
I didn’t not agree with you before - I hadn’t weighed in before the post above. And I guess I don’t know why you’d talk about habeas work as a kind of appeal without trying to sell the mag clerkship as in some way pseudo-appellate.

Looking back at your original post, I don’t really agree that because mag clerks handle habeas work, that makes them “higher up the chain” than SSC clerks. They’re 2 different chains. Criminal defendants may jump from one to the other but that’s not really the same thing.

Yes you did. You attacked me personally by saying "you don't understand habeas well enough to be reviewing habeas petitions."

Why do you see it as two different chains?

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SSC v. Fed Mag

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:46 pm

username5101520 wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:26 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:17 pm
username5101520 wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:24 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 7:57 am
Habeas petitions may be sort of “de facto” appeals in a literal kind of way, but that doesn’t make handling them particularly like handling actual appeals, and it doesn’t change the value of a mag clerkship in relation to a SSC by making the mag clerkship into some pseudo-appellate experience.

I agree that both have value and that which one a person should do depends on the judges in question, the jdx, and that person’s goals. But trying to sell habeas work as analogous to state Supreme Court appeals isn’t very convincing.

(Re: recruitment by biglaw - I think that’s very very jdx specific. I did a DCt clerkship outside the major coastal hubs and there was very very little recruitment, but from the way you’ve framed this DCt would definitely be more prestigious than mag. So I’m not sure biglaw direct recruitment is a simple measure of value here.)
I'm glad you agree with me now that it's a de facto appeal in a literal way. Where did I say MJ clerking was a pseudo-appellate experience?

Yes, I'm at one of CDCA/NDCA/EDNY/DE (trying to keep it vague). Your experience is very interesting. That honestly may disprove my hypothesis, and, instead, prove that the geography factor is more powerful than I've thought.
I didn’t not agree with you before - I hadn’t weighed in before the post above. And I guess I don’t know why you’d talk about habeas work as a kind of appeal without trying to sell the mag clerkship as in some way pseudo-appellate.

Looking back at your original post, I don’t really agree that because mag clerks handle habeas work, that makes them “higher up the chain” than SSC clerks. They’re 2 different chains. Criminal defendants may jump from one to the other but that’s not really the same thing.

Yes you did. You attacked me personally by saying "you don't understand habeas well enough to be reviewing habeas petitions."

Why do you see it as two different chains?
Um, I didn’t say that. You get that multiple different people can post as “Anonymous User” here, right? (To be clearer, when I said “post above,” I meant the one you were quoting.)

And I see them as two separate chains because state law and federal law are separate creatures.

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Judicial Clerkships”