Benefits of a second (probably district) clerkship? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hey all. I have a COA clerkship lined up for the year after I graduate. I can either go to a big firm the year out, or get a district court clerkship. I'm interested in litigation and a lot of people tell me clerking for a district court judge is a good experience for someone with my career goals. That said, I also like the firm I'm going to and would prefer to avoid a 2-year gap there. Any thoughts?

[lavarman84]

Either is a defensible choice. I learned more about litigation in my district court clerkship than my COA, but you'll make a lot more money in biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

I've got a COA immediately out of school, and an equity partner well-known in their field told me not to sully it with a district clerkship afterward. If all else is equal, there may be something to that idea. Hard to imagine it matters a lot, but there may be certain jobs where it could move the needle, or could exert a gentle force on your career trajectory that adds up over time.

You'll learn more and get an additional judge/clerk network by doing a district clerkship, and it might help put the COA work in context. On the other hand, your year at the firm will probably be low-key, in that you'll be ramping down for a few months before you clerk. It could be a more enjoyable year than most years in biglaw, and could give you more time to network within your firm. Also consider this thread re: dynamics of being a "3rd year" without having worked in a firm.

[Anonymous User]

I've got a COA immediately out of school, and an equity partner well-known in their field told me not to sully it with a district clerkship afterward. If all else is equal, there may be something to that idea. Hard to imagine it matters a lot, but there may be certain jobs where it could move the needle, or could exert a gentle force on your career trajectory that adds up over time.

You'll learn more and get an additional judge/clerk network by doing a district clerkship, and it might help put the COA work in context. On the other hand, your year at the firm will probably be low-key, in that you'll be ramping down for a few months before you clerk. It could be a more enjoyable year than most years in biglaw, and could give you more time to network within your firm. Also consider this thread re: dynamics of being a "3rd year" without having worked in a firm.

Lmao what. The only way I can think of a district court clerkship "sullying" a COA clerkship is if you clerk for a feeder judge and then go to like a random flyover district with a non-feeder/no-name judge. I truly cannot comprehend someone viewing an even remotely prestigous district or judge like EDNY/SDNY/DDC/EDVA/EDPA/DDC/DNJ/NDIll/NDCAl/CDCal etc... as sullying a court of appeals clerkship. Sure maybe there is something to the idea that there is diminishing returns and you need the time to network, but I don't think it will make the COA less valuable.

[nixy]

I've got a COA immediately out of school, and an equity partner well-known in their field told me not to sully it with a district clerkship afterward. If all else is equal, there may be something to that idea. Hard to imagine it matters a lot, but there may be certain jobs where it could move the needle, or could exert a gentle force on your career trajectory that adds up over time.

You'll learn more and get an additional judge/clerk network by doing a district clerkship, and it might help put the COA work in context. On the other hand, your year at the firm will probably be low-key, in that you'll be ramping down for a few months before you clerk. It could be a more enjoyable year than most years in biglaw, and could give you more time to network within your firm. Also consider this thread re: dynamics of being a "3rd year" without having worked in a firm.

Lmao what. The only way I can think of a district court clerkship "sullying" a COA clerkship is if you clerk for a feeder judge and then go to like a random flyover district with a non-feeder/no-name judge. I truly cannot comprehend someone viewing an even remotely prestigous district or judge like EDNY/SDNY/DDC/EDVA/EDPA/DDC/DNJ/NDIll/NDCAl/CDCal etc... as sullying a court of appeals clerkship. Sure maybe there is something to the idea that there is diminishing returns and you need the time to network, but I don't think it will make the COA less valuable.

Yeah, that bolded statement is just ridiculous. Just because someone's an equity partner well-known in their field doesn't mean they can't still be an idiot.

Whether doing a district court clerkship is good for your goals depends entirely on what they are, which you haven't stated. If you're laser focused at making partner at your current firm and your firm is filled with partners who didn't clerk or only clerked at a COA, and/or you want to do appellate work, and/or your firm frowns on two-year gaps, or even if you just want to get the biglaw experience (and money) first, maybe a district court clerkship isn't worth it. If you want do trial work, or if you don't plan to stay in biglaw long term, or you're just not certain what you want to do, I think the district court clerkship is worth it.

But as others have said, either is defensible.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, that bolded statement is just ridiculous. Just because someone's an equity partner well-known in their field doesn't mean they can't still be an idiot.

Point is only that there are people with this attitude in positions to influence your career path. Most of us here agree that the field's concern with prestige is ridiculous, but it exists.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, that bolded statement is just ridiculous. Just because someone's an equity partner well-known in their field doesn't mean they can't still be an idiot.

Point is only that there are people with this attitude in positions to influence your career path. Most of us here agree that the field's concern with prestige is ridiculous, but it exists.

Doesn’t make sense though bc a combo with a good district clerkship is now seen as probably more prestigious than just a COA. It’s pushed by law schools, preferred by SCOTUS and lit boutiques, popular at HYSC, etc. so it seems more like an out-of-touch partner than a preference for prestige.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, that bolded statement is just ridiculous. Just because someone's an equity partner well-known in their field doesn't mean they can't still be an idiot.

Point is only that there are people with this attitude in positions to influence your career path. Most of us here agree that the field's concern with prestige is ridiculous, but it exists.

Doesn’t make sense though bc a combo with a good district clerkship is now seen as probably more prestigious than just a COA. It’s pushed by law schools, preferred by SCOTUS and lit boutiques, popular at HYSC, etc. so it seems more like an out-of-touch partner than a preference for prestige.

Yeah this is correct. The real tough call right now for people in this group, at least those considering throwing their hat in the ring for SCOTUS, is whether it makes more sense to do a second COA or a prominent District court clerkship.

[nixy]

Yeah, that bolded statement is just ridiculous. Just because someone's an equity partner well-known in their field doesn't mean they can't still be an idiot.

Point is only that there are people with this attitude in positions to influence your career path. Most of us here agree that the field's concern with prestige is ridiculous, but it exists.

Doing a DCt clerkship is perfectly prestigious. There is one person who told you that. You can find random individual bad opinions anywhere.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, that bolded statement is just ridiculous. Just because someone's an equity partner well-known in their field doesn't mean they can't still be an idiot.

Point is only that there are people with this attitude in positions to influence your career path. Most of us here agree that the field's concern with prestige is ridiculous, but it exists.

Doesn’t make sense though bc a combo with a good district clerkship is now seen as probably more prestigious than just a COA. It’s pushed by law schools, preferred by SCOTUS and lit boutiques, popular at HYSC, etc. so it seems more like an out-of-touch partner than a preference for prestige.

Yeah this is correct. The real tough call right now for people in this group, at least those considering throwing their hat in the ring for SCOTUS, is whether it makes more sense to do a second COA or a prominent District court clerkship.

Not OP -- does anyone have advice on this last one, or at least how to approach it? It seems like there is a lot of conflicting advice re SCOTUS applicants going COA-COA vs COA-DCt. All things equal, is one of these a better approach than the other?

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, that bolded statement is just ridiculous. Just because someone's an equity partner well-known in their field doesn't mean they can't still be an idiot.

Point is only that there are people with this attitude in positions to influence your career path. Most of us here agree that the field's concern with prestige is ridiculous, but it exists.

Doesn’t make sense though bc a combo with a good district clerkship is now seen as probably more prestigious than just a COA. It’s pushed by law schools, preferred by SCOTUS and lit boutiques, popular at HYSC, etc. so it seems more like an out-of-touch partner than a preference for prestige.

Yeah this is correct. The real tough call right now for people in this group, at least those considering throwing their hat in the ring for SCOTUS, is whether it makes more sense to do a second COA or a prominent District court clerkship.

Not OP -- does anyone have advice on this last one, or at least how to approach it? It seems like there is a lot of conflicting advice re SCOTUS applicants going COA-COA vs COA-DCt. All things equal, is one of these a better approach than the other?

For SCOTUS applicants it's not the mix you want, but rather the mix of judges. You want to build a good repertoire and typically it is the COAs which are the feeders. The people doing double COA tend to (but not always) have a non-feed or not that powerful semi-feeder and then need to mix it up with Katsas or something. If you already have Katsas though, you have more flexibility on your second choice. Career-wise though I would prefer switching it up just to prepare for what happens if you don't end up getting SCOTUS—just better to have that mixed experience.

I know someone who also did a semi-feeder Fifth Circuit COA and then a state SSC for SCOTEX (I don't remember the order although I think SCOTEX came after) he later struck out on SCOTUS but, at least according to him, he felt that clerking for two different types of courts is a better experience and gives you more to talk about. In his position, he can talk about federalism and what not and also has a different form of appellate clerkship experience. Also apparently gives him some credentials insofar as Texas state proceedings go at his firm. Anyways same thing with COA/DC—they work complementary.

This is my long way of saying just do the COA/DC mix—double COA unless one of the COAs is DC Cir. feels like it may not make for the best professional experience in contrast to two different courts if you strike out.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, that bolded statement is just ridiculous. Just because someone's an equity partner well-known in their field doesn't mean they can't still be an idiot.

Point is only that there are people with this attitude in positions to influence your career path. Most of us here agree that the field's concern with prestige is ridiculous, but it exists.

Doesn’t make sense though bc a combo with a good district clerkship is now seen as probably more prestigious than just a COA. It’s pushed by law schools, preferred by SCOTUS and lit boutiques, popular at HYSC, etc. so it seems more like an out-of-touch partner than a preference for prestige.

Yeah this is correct. The real tough call right now for people in this group, at least those considering throwing their hat in the ring for SCOTUS, is whether it makes more sense to do a second COA or a prominent District court clerkship.

Not OP -- does anyone have advice on this last one, or at least how to approach it? It seems like there is a lot of conflicting advice re SCOTUS applicants going COA-COA vs COA-DCt. All things equal, is one of these a better approach than the other?

The mixed double is better for all purposes other than SCOTUS. It can also be the ideal for SCOTUS with the right judges—Boasberg and Friedrich feed virtually all of their clerks, several of the ED/SDNY/DDC judges also feed. The place where double appellate makes sense is when the second judge is a huge feeder, like a Thapar or Katsas. I don’t know that doubling semi-feeders really makes sense and know people who have regretted it even though it should theoretically increase SCOTUS odds. (You see double appellate less on the left usually, and I expect that will only be reinforced now that Srinivasan is the only big feeder, as he generally doesn’t do double appellate.)

Your judge may also have a preference; even on the right, some strongly discourage double appellate. Bress prefers his clerks to double with district judges like Cronan or McFadden for example.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, that bolded statement is just ridiculous. Just because someone's an equity partner well-known in their field doesn't mean they can't still be an idiot.

Point is only that there are people with this attitude in positions to influence your career path. Most of us here agree that the field's concern with prestige is ridiculous, but it exists.

Doesn’t make sense though bc a combo with a good district clerkship is now seen as probably more prestigious than just a COA. It’s pushed by law schools, preferred by SCOTUS and lit boutiques, popular at HYSC, etc. so it seems more like an out-of-touch partner than a preference for prestige.

Yeah this is correct. The real tough call right now for people in this group, at least those considering throwing their hat in the ring for SCOTUS, is whether it makes more sense to do a second COA or a prominent District court clerkship.

Not OP -- does anyone have advice on this last one, or at least how to approach it? It seems like there is a lot of conflicting advice re SCOTUS applicants going COA-COA vs COA-DCt. All things equal, is one of these a better approach than the other?

I'm the commenter you responded to. My personal take is that it would make sense to apply to the 3-4 top feeders at the COA level, but otherwise shoot for a competitive district with a judge who has fed before.