What do most SCOTUS clerks end up doing? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I went down a wiki rabbit hole not too long ago, and I decided to track what type of careers SCOTUS clerks fell into like 6-10 years after their clerkships ended. A small percentage will go into academia or high-level public service (judiciary, BigFed, etc.). A similarly small percentage will go into elite litigation boutiques (or even start their own such boutiques). But, somewhat depressingly, it seems like the majority ends up in BigLaw. Does that track? If so, that's kind of a letdown---to grind that hard for prestige only to end up in the same place as so many others.

[Anonymous User]

I went down a wiki rabbit hole not too long ago, and I decided to track what type of careers SCOTUS clerks fell into like 6-10 years after their clerkships ended. A small percentage will go into academia or high-level public service (judiciary, BigFed, etc.). A similarly small percentage will go into elite litigation boutiques (or even start their own such boutiques). But, somewhat depressingly, it seems like the majority ends up in BigLaw. Does that track? If so, that's kind of a letdown---to grind that hard for prestige only to end up in the same place as so many others.

I have no way of knowing this for sure, only anecdotes.
But the experience of a former supreme court clerk at biglaw is usually better than your average t14 grad grinding away in commercial litigation. Again. Just based on literally two convos. So, what do I know.

[Anonymous User]

I only know 3 younger SCOTUS clerks (under 50), so take what I say with a huge grain of salt. Two are pretty far up in the state AG offices (one is the SG of a state, and the other the head of a department). The third went to BL, then DOJ, and then general counsel for an agency, and is now a prof (she's the oldest one of these 3).

[Anonymous User]

David Lat puts out articles on this semi-regularly if you’re interested. Academia used to be very common but due to changes in the academic job market it’s become rare. Now the vast majority do biglaw or government (a mix of big fed and state SG’s offices, with a few AUSAs). Pretty much the same things feeder clerks do, but tilted towards Jones Day because of how cushy its I&A group is.

[Anonymous User]

David Lat puts out articles on this semi-regularly if you’re interested. Academia used to be very common but due to changes in the academic job market it’s become rare. Now the vast majority do biglaw or government (a mix of big fed and state SG’s offices, with a few AUSAs). Pretty much the same things feeder clerks do, but tilted towards Jones Day because of how cushy its I&A group is.

Hate to derail. but I'm curious. What changes do you mean specifically in the academic job market?

[Anonymous User]

David Lat puts out articles on this semi-regularly if you’re interested. Academia used to be very common but due to changes in the academic job market it’s become rare. Now the vast majority do biglaw or government (a mix of big fed and state SG’s offices, with a few AUSAs). Pretty much the same things feeder clerks do, but tilted towards Jones Day because of how cushy its I&A group is.

Hate to derail. but I'm curious. What changes do you mean specifically in the academic job market?

It's becoming far more common for entry level tenure-track applicants to have a Ph.D--and in many cases not any legal or clerking experience. I'm not sure if they're crowding out the traditional JD-only/SCOTUS clerk applicant. But schools seem much more interested in taking new faculty with some proven research track record and/or an "interdisciplinary" pitch.

More generally, in my anecdotal observation there has been a bit of a shift toward more empirical work and away from the purely "legal" scholarship among younger scholars. It's hard to say what exactly is causing this, but it might create a positive feedback loop as the "mold" of a young academic hotshot begins to look less like a SCOTUS clerk with a JD that they received magna/summa and more like a generic top-school graduate with with a PhD from a top program.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have a sense for what makes the Jones Day I&A group so attractive for SCOTUS clerks relative to other firms? I know they pay market bonuses, but that can't be the full story

[Anonymous User]

David Lat puts out articles on this semi-regularly if you’re interested. Academia used to be very common but due to changes in the academic job market it’s become rare. Now the vast majority do biglaw or government (a mix of big fed and state SG’s offices, with a few AUSAs). Pretty much the same things feeder clerks do, but tilted towards Jones Day because of how cushy its I&A group is.

Hate to derail. but I'm curious. What changes do you mean specifically in the academic job market?

Less focus on clerkships and more focus on publishing.

[Anonymous User]

David Lat puts out articles on this semi-regularly if you’re interested. Academia used to be very common but due to changes in the academic job market it’s become rare. Now the vast majority do biglaw or government (a mix of big fed and state SG’s offices, with a few AUSAs). Pretty much the same things feeder clerks do, but tilted towards Jones Day because of how cushy its I&A group is.

Hate to derail. but I'm curious. What changes do you mean specifically in the academic job market?

Less focus on clerkships and more focus on publishing.

I'd bet that this goes along with the increased emphasis on additional advanced degrees in legal academia - not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg, whether people do the degrees to have more time/opportunity to publish, or if publishing more is just a side effect of more people having advanced degrees, but I think they're related. And If you're combining the JD with another degree, the timing (and incentive) for something like clerking for SCOTUS gets more complicated.

[Anonymous User]

In ye olden days law professors were straight out of SCOTUS clerkships, which used to hire straight out of law school without even a COA clerkship. Since that time both the SCOTUS path and the academia path have lengthened considerably, especially the latter, to the degree that they’re pretty incompatible. Nobody wants the SCOTUS clerk with a year or two in an appellate shop anymore, they want the less good law student with a lot of pubs and a PhD. If you go the biglaw path, you need publications while working biglaw, which is really hard, so you basically have to do a fellowship, which means a poorly-paid move across the country with uncertain job prospects. Much easier to just make partner at Jones Day and keep some intellectual interests on the side.

[Anonymous User]

I went down a wiki rabbit hole not too long ago, and I decided to track what type of careers SCOTUS clerks fell into like 6-10 years after their clerkships ended. A small percentage will go into academia or high-level public service (judiciary, BigFed, etc.). A similarly small percentage will go into elite litigation boutiques (or even start their own such boutiques). But, somewhat depressingly, it seems like the majority ends up in BigLaw. Does that track? If so, that's kind of a letdown---to grind that hard for prestige only to end up in the same place as so many others.

I have no way of knowing this for sure, only anecdotes.
But the experience of a former supreme court clerk at biglaw is usually better than your average t14 grad grinding away in commercial litigation. Again. Just based on literally two convos. So, what do I know.

How so? Easier path to partnership? Lower expectations of client development? Opportunity to work exclusively on high-level appellate litigation (assuming the firm has a group like that)?

[Anonymous User]

I went down a wiki rabbit hole not too long ago, and I decided to track what type of careers SCOTUS clerks fell into like 6-10 years after their clerkships ended. A small percentage will go into academia or high-level public service (judiciary, BigFed, etc.). A similarly small percentage will go into elite litigation boutiques (or even start their own such boutiques). But, somewhat depressingly, it seems like the majority ends up in BigLaw. Does that track? If so, that's kind of a letdown---to grind that hard for prestige only to end up in the same place as so many others.

I have no way of knowing this for sure, only anecdotes.
But the experience of a former supreme court clerk at biglaw is usually better than your average t14 grad grinding away in commercial litigation. Again. Just based on literally two convos. So, what do I know.

How so? Easier path to partnership? Lower expectations of client development? Opportunity to work exclusively on high-level appellate litigation (assuming the firm has a group like that)?

All the above. The clear acumen of such practitioners attracts clients (and associates tbh) per se, even if those clients aren’t going to use those lawyers in particular. Plus, the obvious range of choices they have encourages better-than-normal internal treatment.

[Anonymous User]

I went down a wiki rabbit hole not too long ago, and I decided to track what type of careers SCOTUS clerks fell into like 6-10 years after their clerkships ended. A small percentage will go into academia or high-level public service (judiciary, BigFed, etc.). A similarly small percentage will go into elite litigation boutiques (or even start their own such boutiques). But, somewhat depressingly, it seems like the majority ends up in BigLaw. Does that track? If so, that's kind of a letdown---to grind that hard for prestige only to end up in the same place as so many others.

I have no way of knowing this for sure, only anecdotes.
But the experience of a former supreme court clerk at biglaw is usually better than your average t14 grad grinding away in commercial litigation. Again. Just based on literally two convos. So, what do I know.

How so? Easier path to partnership? Lower expectations of client development? Opportunity to work exclusively on high-level appellate litigation (assuming the firm has a group like that)?

All the above. The clear acumen of such practitioners attracts clients (and associates tbh) per se, even if those clients aren’t going to use those lawyers in particular. Plus, the obvious range of choices they have encourages better-than-normal internal treatment.

Does this better QOL and attracting clients and associates extend even a little bit to Circuit clerks or clerks for mega feeders (who didn't end up on SCOTUS) or is this really just a uniquely SCOTUS clerk thing.

[Anonymous User]

I went down a wiki rabbit hole not too long ago, and I decided to track what type of careers SCOTUS clerks fell into like 6-10 years after their clerkships ended. A small percentage will go into academia or high-level public service (judiciary, BigFed, etc.). A similarly small percentage will go into elite litigation boutiques (or even start their own such boutiques). But, somewhat depressingly, it seems like the majority ends up in BigLaw. Does that track? If so, that's kind of a letdown---to grind that hard for prestige only to end up in the same place as so many others.

I have no way of knowing this for sure, only anecdotes.
But the experience of a former supreme court clerk at biglaw is usually better than your average t14 grad grinding away in commercial litigation. Again. Just based on literally two convos. So, what do I know.

How so? Easier path to partnership? Lower expectations of client development? Opportunity to work exclusively on high-level appellate litigation (assuming the firm has a group like that)?

All the above. The clear acumen of such practitioners attracts clients (and associates tbh) per se, even if those clients aren’t going to use those lawyers in particular. Plus, the obvious range of choices they have encourages better-than-normal internal treatment.

Does this better QOL and attracting clients and associates extend even a little bit to Circuit clerks or clerks for mega feeders (who didn't end up on SCOTUS) or is this really just a uniquely SCOTUS clerk thing.

Clients have no idea what a "mega-feeder" is, so having a name like "Katsas" or "Srinivasan" on the firm's website won't bring in any business. If you're gunning for a position in a top appellate/SCOTUS practice group, then clerking for a prominent judge obviously will help. And if you ultimately get such a job, your work may be more interesting than the stuff normal associates get.

[Anonymous User]

I went down a wiki rabbit hole not too long ago, and I decided to track what type of careers SCOTUS clerks fell into like 6-10 years after their clerkships ended. A small percentage will go into academia or high-level public service (judiciary, BigFed, etc.). A similarly small percentage will go into elite litigation boutiques (or even start their own such boutiques). But, somewhat depressingly, it seems like the majority ends up in BigLaw. Does that track? If so, that's kind of a letdown---to grind that hard for prestige only to end up in the same place as so many others.

I have no way of knowing this for sure, only anecdotes.
But the experience of a former supreme court clerk at biglaw is usually better than your average t14 grad grinding away in commercial litigation. Again. Just based on literally two convos. So, what do I know.

How so? Easier path to partnership? Lower expectations of client development? Opportunity to work exclusively on high-level appellate litigation (assuming the firm has a group like that)?

All the above. The clear acumen of such practitioners attracts clients (and associates tbh) per se, even if those clients aren’t going to use those lawyers in particular. Plus, the obvious range of choices they have encourages better-than-normal internal treatment.

Does this better QOL and attracting clients and associates extend even a little bit to Circuit clerks or clerks for mega feeders (who didn't end up on SCOTUS) or is this really just a uniquely SCOTUS clerk thing.

IME it can, though like all things it depends and is easier if you went to YSH. But specialized biglaw appellate practices tend to avoid quite a bit of the grind, and a SCOTUS clerkship is not mandatory for those. Beyond that, the clerkship per se might not get you the plum assignments and away from doc review at a V5 firm, but you’ll be offered opportunities to prove yourself relative to your peers, and once people know you as a good writing/motions type, that can stick and do you a lot of favors.

[davidjfeder]

As others have noted, David Lat (and Derek Muller before him) have looked at SCOTUS clerk classes 10 years after they clerks. Based on that data, it seems like a plurality or majority SCOTUS clerks do indeed go into biglaw although there are many others doing very interesting non-biglaw jobs.

My rough sense of my clerk class is consistent with that. It seems like most are in biglaw, but there are quite a few people doing very interesting non-biglaw jobs (OSG, state SG, DOJ civil appellate, state court judges, academia, non-profits, etc.).

I personally think that the SCOTUS clerkship itself was so interesting and such an incredible experience that it was easily worth the work it took in law school to make myself competitive, etc. But of course it may not be worth it for everyone depending on your goals/personal situation.

[Anonymous User]

David Lat puts out articles on this semi-regularly if you’re interested. Academia used to be very common but due to changes in the academic job market it’s become rare. Now the vast majority do biglaw or government (a mix of big fed and state SG’s offices, with a few AUSAs). Pretty much the same things feeder clerks do, but tilted towards Jones Day because of how cushy its I&A group is.

Hate to derail. but I'm curious. What changes do you mean specifically in the academic job market?

Less focus on clerkships and more focus on publishing.

I'd bet that this goes along with the increased emphasis on additional advanced degrees in legal academia - not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg, whether people do the degrees to have more time/opportunity to publish, or if publishing more is just a side effect of more people having advanced degrees, but I think they're related. And If you're combining the JD with another degree, the timing (and incentive) for something like clerking for SCOTUS gets more complicated.

I'm interested in academia. Why do law schools prefer candidates with phds? Is it because they have more time to publish? And why is there such a significance on publishing? I thought publishing didn't count towards rankings anymore.

Frankly, all the best professors I've had in terms of career help and clarity of teaching were ones who were SCOTUS clerks or clerked for a big time feeder judge.

[Anonymous User]

David Lat puts out articles on this semi-regularly if you’re interested. Academia used to be very common but due to changes in the academic job market it’s become rare. Now the vast majority do biglaw or government (a mix of big fed and state SG’s offices, with a few AUSAs). Pretty much the same things feeder clerks do, but tilted towards Jones Day because of how cushy its I&A group is.

Hate to derail. but I'm curious. What changes do you mean specifically in the academic job market?

Less focus on clerkships and more focus on publishing.

I'd bet that this goes along with the increased emphasis on additional advanced degrees in legal academia - not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg, whether people do the degrees to have more time/opportunity to publish, or if publishing more is just a side effect of more people having advanced degrees, but I think they're related. And If you're combining the JD with another degree, the timing (and incentive) for something like clerking for SCOTUS gets more complicated.

I'm interested in academia. Why do law schools prefer candidates with phds? Is it because they have more time to publish? And why is there such a significance on publishing? I thought publishing didn't count towards rankings anymore.

Frankly, all the best professors I've had in terms of career help and clarity of teaching were ones who were SCOTUS clerks or clerked for a big time feeder judge.

You misunderstand the point of legal academia (from the legal academic perspective). Teaching is something you put up with--if the students can't understand it, that's on them. Providing career help is for the career center. Your job is to publish, enrich the academic literature, and participate in the life of the mind with your colleagues.

[Anonymous User]

I'm interested in academia. Why do law schools prefer candidates with phds? Is it because they have more time to publish? And why is there such a significance on publishing? I thought publishing didn't count towards rankings anymore.

Frankly, all the best professors I've had in terms of career help and clarity of teaching were ones who were SCOTUS clerks or clerked for a big time feeder judge.

You misunderstand the point of legal academia (from the legal academic perspective). Teaching is something you put up with--if the students can't understand it, that's on them. Providing career help is for the career center. Your job is to publish, enrich the academic literature, and participate in the life of the mind with your colleagues.

Yeah, the above post pretty clearly disapproves, but they’re right. The point of academia, from the academic’s point of view, is publishing and making an intellectual name for themselves. That’s not just legal academia, it’s all of academia - it’s more that law isn’t exempt by virtue of being a professional degree. Clarity of teaching is nice, but from the point of view of administrators, all they really need is professors to be adequate enough that students don’t openly mutiny. Helping students get jobs is pretty valuable, but SCOTUS/feeder clerks will tend to have the kind of connections that make law schools happy.

As for publications, I don’t think law school rankings were ever expressly based on faculty publications? They used to consider number of volumes in the library (how quaint!), but that was never about how much the faculty published. Faculty publications (quality/quantity) are just something that holistically goes into the peer assessment score.

[lavarman84]

I'm interested in academia. Why do law schools prefer candidates with phds? Is it because they have more time to publish? And why is there such a significance on publishing? I thought publishing didn't count towards rankings anymore.

Frankly, all the best professors I've had in terms of career help and clarity of teaching were ones who were SCOTUS clerks or clerked for a big time feeder judge.

The lack of SCOTUS clerks is more an issue of self-selection. Orin Kerr reported on Twitter that only one SCOTUS clerk was in the FAR distribution this year. If SCOTUS clerks want to go into academia, it's an easy path.

Why do law schools like candidates with PhDs? They generally have publications, a developed research agenda, teaching experience, and bring specialized skills they've gained from their discipline.

That said, because the market is more candidate friendly right now, PhDs aren't remotely a prerequisite. The advice I've received is that publishing matters more than anything else. A lot of law schools hire primarily based on scholarly potential, regardless of what the rankings care about. Well, scholarly potential and the alignment of teaching interests and needs.

At this point, there are two well-worn tracks: (1) PhD (+ maybe a fellowship or VAP) or (2) clerkship + some practice + fellowship or VAP. Those aren't the only two tracks. But they're the ones most likely to lead to a tenure-track job.

[Anonymous User]

"The lack of SCOTUS clerks is more an issue of self-selection. . . . If SCOTUS clerks want to go into academia, it's an easy path."

This is completely false. A key reason why SCOTUS clerks aren't trying for academia is that it's no longer possible to get a job at a good or even decent school simply by having great grades and clerkships. Everywhere wants published work. I have spoken to multiple friends who were SCOTUS clerks who would've taken a job at any top 25 school, if offered, but that simply wasn't an option like it was in the old days because they hadn't published. They were all advised to do a 2-year fellowship/VAP or do a PHD, and determined that it wasn't worth all the hoops just for a chance at a good job.

[Anonymous User]

Regarding the point of SCOTUS clerks in Big Law, they usually do have more interesting/"plum" assignments than the typical Big Law associate. And they often have connections, so they path to partnership is slightly different than the path of non-SCOTUS big law associates. And the money these days is much, much, much better than anything comparable.

[Anonymous User]

"The lack of SCOTUS clerks is more an issue of self-selection. . . . If SCOTUS clerks want to go into academia, it's an easy path."

This is completely false. A key reason why SCOTUS clerks aren't trying for academia is that it's no longer possible to get a job at a good or even decent school simply by having great grades and clerkships. Everywhere wants published work. I have spoken to multiple friends who were SCOTUS clerks who would've taken a job at any top 25 school, if offered, but that simply wasn't an option like it was in the old days because they hadn't published. They were all advised to do a 2-year fellowship/VAP or do a PHD, and determined that it wasn't worth all the hoops just for a chance at a good job.

I totally get not doing a PhD if you hadn’t already wanted/planned to do one. It seems sort of silly not to go for a 2-yr fellowship/VAP if you want academia, since those are basically doing what you’d do in academia. It also seems silly to limit yourself to an arbitrary top-25 ranking school for your first job. Of course, I’m sure they have lots of other good options, which they’re obviously entitled to prefer to what the academic path requires. But I think there’s some degree of self-selection going on here.

[lavarman84]

"The lack of SCOTUS clerks is more an issue of self-selection. . . . If SCOTUS clerks want to go into academia, it's an easy path."

This is completely false. A key reason why SCOTUS clerks aren't trying for academia is that it's no longer possible to get a job at a good or even decent school simply by having great grades and clerkships. Everywhere wants published work. I have spoken to multiple friends who were SCOTUS clerks who would've taken a job at any top 25 school, if offered, but that simply wasn't an option like it was in the old days because they hadn't published. They were all advised to do a 2-year fellowship/VAP or do a PHD, and determined that it wasn't worth all the hoops just for a chance at a good job.

That's self-selection, bro. It would be insanely easy for them to practice for a year or two, make big bucks (or do something fulfilling), publish an article or two, and then seek an academic role. I am confident they could land one at a reputable institution, even if it's not a "top 25 school." (And if they keep publishing once they're in academia, odds are they eventually end up at a top law school.)

Alternatively, they'd have a great shot at landing a top fellowship or VAP if they have a research agenda. They do that for two years, publish a couple articles, and voila, they've got a tenure-track job at a good or great law school.

If a person genuinely wants academia, these aren't significant hoops to jump through. They're easy paths to get there. No, you can't just land a TT job at a good/great law school anymore simply by being a SCOTUS clerk. You actually have to put a little effort in. If your friends don't want to put that effort in, that's fine. But it's a choice. It's not because law schools don't value SCOTUS clerkships.

[Anonymous User]

I wouldn't discount the difficulty the fellowship adds given the point in life at which that fellowship occurs. The median SCOTUS clerk now is ~30 with multiple clerkships and some time practicing. To keep the bonus, you often have to practice for at least two years, pushing you out to 33. The Climenko or Bigelow are two years, putting you at 35 by the time you have a TT job, with likely at least 3 moves between law school and TT. That's a pretty brutal timeline logistically, especially (but not only) for women. Of course, people who want nothing but academia will do it--people do Ph.D.s in the humanities still with many of the same downsides and far far worse job prospects. But it's less attractive than it used to be. I don't think "SCOTUS clerks don't want academia any more" is a plausible explanation for going from tons of SCOTUS clerks pursuing academia to a small handful of them doing so.