What Do You Even Learn at a District Ct. Clerkship? Forum

[feugueltsi]

New T14 grad (c/o '24). I'm working in biglaw this year, and next year (2025-2026) I'm clerking on a competitive COA. My long term plans are either to make partner or pivot to tech in-house. I'm wondering whether it's worth clerking on a district court in 2026 (or even 2027).

People tell me district court clerkships teach you more about litigation than appellate clerkships. When I push them and ask what specifically they learned, the response is usually something like "You just learn what chambers is like." Once I inquired further and a former clerk told me they learned things that, in my opinion, one doesn't need to clerk for a year at a district court to learn. Another time, a former district court clerk said they learned where to file a certain kind of motion that they wouldn't have known without clerking. So I guess my questions are:

(A) what skills does one get from clerking at a district court (please give specific examples if you can),
(B) how are they different from a COA,
(C) how much of that depends on the specific court/judge, and
(D) couldn't one learn the same skills as a third-year associate at a biglaw firm?

Thank you for your time.

[Anonymous User]

I did district court and court of appeals clerkships and here are my observations of what a district court clerkship gives you that other positions don't.

In a district court clerkship, you are exposed to tons of different types and levels of advocacy in a wide variety of areas of law and procedural postures. Not so as a third-year associate in biglaw and less so in a COA clerkship. As a district court clerk, you have to resolve legal issues that can be thorny and complicated and, unlike in a COA clerkship, you have to roll up your sleeves and delve into the record to decide issues in the first instance, interact with the parties and litigants more directly, and frequently make credibility determinations. The pace in district court is faster than COA, so you don't have the luxury of taking your time or being super duper meticulous about every little thing. Also, in COA clerkships, the judges are usually substantially limited by the standard of review and the dynamics of the panel. District judges have a lot more power in that they don't have to achieve consensus with anyone before ruling on an issue. Also, COA is easier in that the briefing frequently identifies the issues for you, but in the district court, you're wading through a complicated morass trying to figure out all that stuff on your own. Also, in a district court clerkship, you will probably be working on one to two trials at least. No trials in COA.

As a third-year associate in biglaw, you will almost certainly not get as much writing and research experience as you do in a district court clerkship. The variety of issues and areas of law you'll be exposed to is greater in a district court clerkship than in biglaw. And in biglaw, you have elaborate hierarchies of senior associates, counsel, and partners all telling you what to do. In a district court clerkship, you just have one real boss: the judge. That can be good or bad depending on how much you get along with your judge, but it's definitely different. Also, most district court clerkships tend to have more reasonable hours compared to biglaw. There are no clients demanding things and no partners eager to please those clients.

[Anonymous User]

New T14 grad (c/o '24). I'm working in biglaw this year, and next year (2025-2026) I'm clerking on a competitive COA. My long term plans are either to make partner or pivot to tech in-house. I'm wondering whether it's worth clerking on a district court in 2026 (or even 2027).

People tell me district court clerkships teach you more about litigation than appellate clerkships. When I push them and ask what specifically they learned, the response is usually something like "You just learn what chambers is like." Once I inquired further and a former clerk told me they learned things that, in my opinion, one doesn't need to clerk for a year at a district court to learn. Another time, a former district court clerk said they learned where to file a certain kind of motion that they wouldn't have known without clerking. So I guess my questions are:

(A) what skills does one get from clerking at a district court (please give specific examples if you can),
(B) how are they different from a COA,
(C) how much of that depends on the specific court/judge, and
(D) couldn't one learn the same skills as a third-year associate at a biglaw firm?

Thank you for your time.

(A) - you see how a judge responds to two sides of an argument at once, and what they value. It’s just a different perspective than is possible when you’re advocating for one side or the other. Yes, this can vary by judge, but there are elements of it that are common across judges. You see first hand what a judge finds convincing (which is again hard to see from inside a case). You see the soup to nuts of how cases are filed and progress. You see a lot (or a decent amount) of argument in court. You should see trials (this is a little bit the luck of the draw; I know someone who never had a trial go during their term, but most people will).

It’s hard to identify specific skills, but generally it gives you exposure to the nuts and bolts of litigation in a much more concentrated, higher volume way than when you’re an associate working on discrete assignments doled out to you by seniors who may vary in their ability/willingness to communicate the big picture of the case. But things like picking a jury and putting together jury instructions are pretty concrete skills. Another one is handling motions for summary judgment - you may well be a better civ pro savant than I was, but I got a much better understanding of what all the abstract rules about summary judgment actually meant by figuring out the right result for multiple of them in a year than by sitting through civ pro. And, again, seeing two different sides of the same issue, when I wasn’t advocating for either side, was really helpful.

(B) It’s different from a COA because you’re seeing trial litigation on the ground, not just reading about it in the record after the fact. COA tends to make you a better researcher and writer; DCt tends to make you better at knowing how cases fit together in practice. An appeal of a motion for summary judgment is about whether the judge got the law right, and is limited to the issues that the parties raise. Actually ruling on one on the ground is just a different kind of experience.

(C) Eh, a lot of this takes place in any court with any judge. Even podunk piddly cases teach a lot of the same things as complex sophisticated work, because on one level litigation is litigation.

(D) I can’t answer this from person knowledge b/c I’ve never been a 3rd yr associate at a firm. I think it’s hard to learn the kind of judicial perspective without having been in chambers. Otherwise, yeah, you probably learn most of this stuff eventually, but I think you learn it earlier and more quickly by clerking.

But it sounds like you don’t really want to do a DCt clerkship. That’s fine, you certainly don’t have to. I think it’s much more different from law school and pertinent to practice than COA is (I did both), but it’s not mandatory. I also clerked before starting to practice at all, so I get it’s kind of more annoying to interrupt your practice experience or have to move around and take pay cuts after you start.

[Anonymous User]

If you want to make partner or pivot to in house in tech i don't think you need a district court clerkship. FWIW I also am just doing COA and I was wondering the same thing. But what do I know, maybe there is some sort of magic sauce I'm not aware of.

[Anonymous User]

what are you talking about? im doing a district court clerkship after a similarly "competitive" COA clerkship. I have learned much more about the practice of being a litigator through my district court clerkship than through my "competitive" COA clerkship. The OBVIOUS thing is seeing how trials work--actually helping a judge rule on evidentiary motions, watching opening and closing statements, and lawyers examine witnesses. If you want to be a trial lawyer, the district court clerkship is much closer to what you'll be doing in work. The other obvious thing is the sentencing stage where as you know district judges have basically complete discretion.

As a civil litigator, unless you work purely in the appellate group, much of your work will be in the pretrial stage of litigation. Do you even know what that entails? I dont even know what you are talking about when you say what skills would you learn that differ from a COA clerkship...like do you mean something other than just more writing opinions?

[Wild Card]

How did you land a circuit court clerkship without knowing what a district court clerk does? Is this a flamebaiting topic?

At the very least, you prepare the first draft of opinions and orders for your judge. All that this entails.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. With respect to the last two questions, I don’t really know how to respond. I never said I didn’t know what district court clerks did. A simple Google search would’ve done just fine for that. I wanted to hear specifics and had more nuanced questions. In fact I spelled out those more nuanced questions in a list A through D, none of which one can readily find answers to online.

“At the very least, you prepare the first draft of opinions and orders for your judge. All that this entails.”

Not what I asked. Reread the questions conveniently listed A-D for you.

[Anonymous User]

what are you talking about? im doing a district court clerkship after a similarly "competitive" COA clerkship. I have learned much more about the practice of being a litigator through my district court clerkship than through my "competitive" COA clerkship. The OBVIOUS thing is seeing how trials work--actually helping a judge rule on evidentiary motions, watching opening and closing statements, and lawyers examine witnesses. If you want to be a trial lawyer, the district court clerkship is much closer to what you'll be doing in work. The other obvious thing is the sentencing stage where as you know district judges have basically complete discretion.

As a civil litigator, unless you work purely in the appellate group, much of your work will be in the pretrial stage of litigation. Do you even know what that entails? I dont even know what you are talking about when you say what skills would you learn that differ from a COA clerkship...like do you mean something other than just more writing opinions?

I was also a double clerk and I agree 100%. I went into criminal practice, and I think a district court clerkship is even more important there. (For example, I don’t recall ever seeing speedy trial issues on appeal, but it was a constant issue in district court.)

The takeaway for civil litigators is precisely what you said about seeing how it actually works up close—especially for credibility and testimony. There’s a reason why, on appeal, credibility determinations are ironclad. In my experience, the process for getting a favorable/unfavorable credibility determination was intensive and difficult to appreciate when relying on a cold record/video recording.

[Anonymous User]

The answers above are good. Any double clerk you’ll talk to will tell you that the district court is much more valuable experience. You learn how dockets and case management work, how criminal and civil procedure actually work on the ground, see how facts turn into records and thenceforth into opinions, and resolve tons and tons of dispositive motions—far more than you would do at a firm in a year. You spend a lot of time in courtroom sessions that are nothing like oral arguments (evidence law makes much more sense after you see trials and hearings). You’re doing everything from scratch, unlike appeals, where you’re dealing with much narrower records that the district court built. I don’t use my COA clerkship experience all that much tbh. I use my district court experience all the time. That said, I think ideally a district court clerk should have a year of private practice under their belt both to be a better clerk and to get the most out of the experience. I did not.

However, you absolutely don’t have to clerk twice if you don’t want to. But it’s just not the case that there isn’t actually a trade-off.

(This is all from the civil practitioner’s perspective. On the criminal side, I think the district court experience actually is pretty irreplaceable if you can get it, but it sounds like that’s not your goal. Criminal appeals are overall not very useful experience for criminal law practice.)

[Anonymous User]

Again I think we gotta address OP's stated goals here. He says he wants to be partner at biglaw or pivot to tech in house in which case I don't think a district court clerkship is all that helpful.

[Anonymous User]

I didn’t look at the others but - I worked big law at four years then earned a district court clerkship with the Chief Judge in my region and then clerk on COA.

A) what skills does one get from clerking at a district court (please give specific examples if you can):

- I was a fantastic legal writer and got better on District Court. Did not get better at CoA.

- became a better researcher at District Court - at COA standard of review and whether trial court made a factual determination is crucial; so COA I did not feel that I was making a significant legal research contribution.

- at district court (depending on your judge) you can lay out the law in a persuasive/ fun way. COA you usually just state what the law is in 1-2 sentences. There is a difference.

- at district court you learn about how a case proceeds and what works

- at district court you learn how to really calendar deadlines and what you need to do every day;

- at district court you learn or anticipate what the clerk/ judge wish to accomplish at each hearing and then you are better able to shape the litigation / advocate

- at district court (if you clerk in your region for the Chief) you develop key relationships with judges and their career clerks or career staff

(B) how are they different from a COA,

- you focus on standard of review;
- depending on chambers you learn how the sausage is made (hint: not that exacting and just makes you sad)


(C) how much of that depends on the specific court/judge, and

- yes a ton of this matters on your judges - I had great relationships with my CoA and Dist Ct. judge.

- Bosses are key; and if you have a great district Ct judge, then you will learn a ton and have a life long mentor. If you have a great COA judge (as a boss and not prestige) maybe you will have more fun and get more opportunities to write? But again, standard of review carries the day (typically)

(D) couldn't one learn the same skills as a third-year associate at a biglaw firm

- No. I’m proof and I got a ton of skills.

- but the calendaring and learning to anticipate what judge / clerks typically care about at a hearing; during the calendar year (think 6 month list) is crucial

- also you get much more comfortable being in federal court if you clerk at a district court for 1-2 years or more.

- you learn by clerking to ask for more hearings; put on evidence ; and anticipate what judges/clerks want out of the hearing or at a certain stage.

Good luck to you. Careers are long and mentors are want you are trying to earn at your level not prestige or the $$$. That will come.

[Anonymous User]

Oh yea and at district court you get valuable discovery experience.

- what objections work;
- golden rule letters;
- to ask for a hearing asap;
- and when you can’t find something explain in excruciating detail why (how long you searched; what you searched: when you searched; who you asked for help finding the docs and when; you are trying to show the burden here…)

[Anonymous User]

OP here. With respect to the last two questions, I don’t really know how to respond. I never said I didn’t know what district court clerks did. A simple Google search would’ve done just fine for that. I wanted to hear specifics and had more nuanced questions. In fact I spelled out those more nuanced questions in a list A through D, none of which one can readily find answers to online.

“At the very least, you prepare the first draft of opinions and orders for your judge. All that this entails.”

Not what I asked. Reread the questions conveniently listed A-D for you.

People have given you extensive, thoughtful answers--most of which are consonant with my own experience clerking on both D. Ct. and COA--and you feel the need to respond with snark. Are you asking these questions in good faith, or are you just looking for someone to confirm for you that you don't need to pursue a district court clerkship?

[Anonymous User]

OP does not know ball

[Phillygirl19004]

In addition to all everything above, you learn what works/doesn't in discovery -- when reading depo transcripts to determine if there really is a material disputed fact as a d.ct. clerk, you see how the attorney pursued lines of questions to get what they needed (or not), how the defending attorney protected the witness. More broadly, in motion practice, you see what works/doesn't and how the decision maker responds to different types of arguments.

[Anonymous User]

I find OP obnoxious. If you don’t want to do a d ct clerkship after your “competitive” COA one, don’t do it. Your career goals don’t seem particularly well formed, as it’s super different being a big law partner and “tech in house”. It’s not obvious OP even wants to be a litigation partner? If he does, then a d ct clerkship is 100% invaluable, particular in a major district for commercial litigation (SDNY and the like). But it’s probably too late to get that for him and his post makes me think he wouldn’t get it anyway.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Thank you to everyone who responded to my questions. This was helpful for me, and I hope others who want to learn more about district clerkships.

The thread could have done without the following (unhelpful) jabs:

“I find OP obnoxious.”

“I dont even know what you are talking about when you say what skills would you learn that differ from a COA clerkship...like do you mean something other than just more writing opinions?”

“How did you land a circuit court clerkship without knowing what a district court clerk does?”

“Are you asking these questions in good faith, or are you just looking for someone to confirm for you that you don't need to pursue a district court clerkship?”

[Anonymous User]

Op you’re a scrub bro.

[Anonymous User]

- I was a fantastic legal writer and got better on District Court. Did not get better at CoA.
- became a better researcher at District Court - at COA standard of review and whether trial court made a factual determination is crucial; so COA I did not feel that I was making a significant legal research contribution.

I posted already as a double clerk and agree with almost everything you said, but I think the above can depend a lot on your judge and which court you do first. I did an appellate clerkship first with a judge who taught an appellate writing CLE every year, and learned SO much about writing and research. We went through at least 2 drafts of every opinion (many more for bigger cases) and my judge loved nothing more than to sit down and go through it all and talk about the reasoning and how the writing could be better and why they’d made the edits they did (which they were also willing to reconsider if I had a reason to think they should).

Then I did a DCt clerkship with a judge who basically relied wholly on me for the writing and the research. It was still a great experience and I learned a lot from that judge, especially all the practical things people have already mentioned, and the research process is just kind of different at a DCt, so you learn how to research in a different way. But unlike the poster above, I became a much better writer/researcher on the appellate court and didn’t change much on the DCt.

(Not that this makes a material difference to why doing two is valuable, just wanted to throw it out there.)

The thread could have done without the following (unhelpful) jabs:

OP, I didn’t make any of those “jabs” (I’m the poster who said if you don’t want to do a DCt, you don’t have to). But I’m not surprised others did and it might be worth thinking about how you come across in writing, because you probably didn’t mean this, but your first post did come across as if you thought a DCt clerkship would be a waste of your time and that people who said it taught you more about litigation were idiots. Like even the title - there’s a big difference between “what do you learn at a DCt” and “what do you even learn at a DCt.”

[Anonymous User]

OP I'll provide the counter thing. You certainly learn something at a district court clerkship but its not necessary to being a good lawyer. The most important thing is having a federal clerkship, which you already have. If you don't want to clerk again no one will care or think less of you. I think the push back you're getting is because you are sort of implying it is useless, which I don't think it is. Even if you get stuck with a judge who doesn't teach you much (which is more common then you think), drafting orders and just being there teaches you something. But again, circuit clerkship + biglaw is a great position to be in. Probably wouldn't clerk on the district if it is far out (think like circuit + 2 years + district)—don't want to break that momentum if you want to be partner.

[Anonymous User]

OP, one reason you're also receiving snark is that you're (likely) not barred, haven't practiced or clerked, and have fairly vague career plans (relative to what's typical of more experienced attorneys), but you're responding in a way that comes off as condescending/demanding/rude to a bunch of midlevel-plus former double-clerks. That's generally not the way to win friends and influence people.