Top Law Schools

I just don't see the career benefits. People at my firm don't appear to be more advance because they clerked.

Desert Fox wrote:I just don't see the career benefits. People at my firm don't appear to be more advance because they clerked.

advance

advance

twenty wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:I just don't see the career benefits. People at my firm don't appear to be more advance because they clerked.

advance

advance

So it's useful to spellcheck my work?

Mocking DF's spelling/grammar is so 2009

Desert Fox wrote:I just don't see the career benefits. People at my firm don't appear to be more advance because they clerked.

Any career disadvantages, though, as a (semi-)paid vacation from biglaw?
Everyone I know clerking seems to love it, and they certainly have more free time than any other lawyers I know.

ymmv wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:I just don't see the career benefits. People at my firm don't appear to be more advance because they clerked.

Any career disadvantages, though, as a (semi-)paid vacation from biglaw?
Everyone I know clerking seems to love it, and they certainly have more free time than any other lawyers I know.

Think we all agree clerking is a good way to spend a year if you can, but DF is rightly wondering how big the benefits are outside of it being a cool experience that your firm is happy for you to do.

Basically, outside of giving you a real shot at AUSA/DOJ, it does seem pretty marginal. Sure, doing a feeder/D.C. Cir will give you a decent shot at being in an appellate group, which would be cool I guess if that's your thing (though hard to imagine how you make a whole career out if it). They can also get you the crazy pretigious, crazy sweatshop lit firms that pay more than market, give you better experience, and work you to death even more than normal firms. I can understand the attraction, but I'm not sure that's an objectively amazing outcome. SCOTUS clerkship probably has more benefits than that, especially if you're sufficiently badass/political/brilliant to be thinking about getting appointed to something someday, but my guess is even the SCOTUS thing is nearly as much correlated with hugely driven, successful people than the cause of success. And, of course, that's a tiny, tiny group.

If clerking opens up doors to non-biglaw legal jobs, and most people will either want or be forced into non-biglaw legal jobs, then the fact that clerking doesn't drastically increase partnership odds doesn't seem particularly important to me.

It depends on what judge you clerk for.

EijiMiyake wrote:If clerking opens up doors to non-biglaw legal jobs, and most people will either want or be forced into non-biglaw legal jobs, then the fact that clerking doesn't drastically increase partnership odds doesn't seem particularly important to me.

It's a pretty small universe of government lit jobs that it'll really matter for though. (I think...it's pretty hard to tell.)

EijiMiyake wrote:If clerking opens up doors to non-biglaw legal jobs, and most people will either want or be forced into non-biglaw legal jobs, then the fact that clerking doesn't drastically increase partnership odds doesn't seem particularly important to me.

I really doubt it (a significant amount of) opens doors.

not to mention the application process alone is such a bitch that plenty of potential candidates don't even go through with it; personally, I know I'd have to make an OSCAr account and start reaching out to profs (who have no idea who I am) like, right now, but we've been through so much and applying to another thing...idk...

jbagelboy wrote:not to mention the application process alone is such a bitch that plenty of potential candidates don't even go through with it; personally, I know I'd have to make an OSCAr account and start reaching out to profs (who have no idea who I am) like, right now, but we've been through so much and applying to another thing...idk...

Well, it's really not *that* bad, especially if you won't care too much if you don't get one and don't stress too much. If you don't want to do corporate, it's still probably worth doing. Everyone says it's the best legal job they ever had, and you get to skip your first year in BL, which sounds like the worst legal job you'll ever have.

Elston Gunn wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:not to mention the application process alone is such a bitch that plenty of potential candidates don't even go through with it; personally, I know I'd have to make an OSCAr account and start reaching out to profs (who have no idea who I am) like, right now, but we've been through so much and applying to another thing...idk...

Well, it's really not *that* bad, especially if you won't care too much if you don't get one and don't stress too much. If you don't want to do corporate, it's still probably worth doing. Everyone says it's the best legal job they ever had, and you get to skip your first year in BL, which sounds like the worst legal job you'll ever have.

I know, you are right (although I'm enjoying my firm right now). I guess I'm just so tired of it all. I'll get on it eventually.

You don't really skip your first year. Sure you called a "second year" but only on client bills. You still have to learn the ropes of big law, deal with all the stress, etc. etc. And from what I can tell you don't really get better work because you still don't know what you are doing.

The only benefit I see is that you age out of doc review in 2 years instead of 3.

Desert Fox wrote:You don't really skip your first year. Sure you called a "second year" but only on client bills. You still have to learn the ropes of big law, deal with all the stress, etc. etc. And from what I can tell you don't really get better work because you still don't know what you are doing.

The only benefit I see is that you age out of doc review in 2 years instead of 3.

I mean if people generally volitionally choose to leave biglaw because they no longer want to deal with it after a while, clerking would push that time further into the future and gain you money, no?

Desert Fox wrote:You don't really skip your first year. Sure you called a "second year" but only on client bills. You still have to learn the ropes of big law, deal with all the stress, etc. etc. And from what I can tell you don't really get better work because you still don't know what you are doing.

The only benefit I see is that you age out of doc review in 2 years instead of 3.

Given the terms in which people describe doc review around here, is that really a negligible benefit? Especially if someone gets one of those unicorn 2-year clerkships.

Desert Fox wrote:You don't really skip your first year. Sure you called a "second year" but only on client bills. You still have to learn the ropes of big law, deal with all the stress, etc. etc. And from what I can tell you don't really get better work because you still don't know what you are doing.

The only benefit I see is that you age out of doc review in 2 years instead of 3.

Yeah, poor phrasing (although the doc review thing is part of what I meant). I've heard it's actually like halfway in between that (i.e., you're expected to learn quicker, and are doing 2nd yearish stuff by the middle of the year), but you'd know better than me. I think of it more like, let's say you've got the constitution to last 4 years in BL. Assuming you're not pushed out (which doesn't seem to happen *that* often), it's nicer to have those 4 years be when you're making more money and get to exit as a 5th year. Though I know there are a lot more moving parts than that, and you may just end up with $50k less than you would have otherwise.

bk1 wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:You don't really skip your first year. Sure you called a "second year" but only on client bills. You still have to learn the ropes of big law, deal with all the stress, etc. etc. And from what I can tell you don't really get better work because you still don't know what you are doing.

The only benefit I see is that you age out of doc review in 2 years instead of 3.

I mean if people generally volitionally choose to leave biglaw because they no longer want to deal with it after a while, clerking would push that time further into the future and gain you money, no?

This makes sense only if your clerking salary + bonus is more than your exit option salary.

ymmv wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:You don't really skip your first year. Sure you called a "second year" but only on client bills. You still have to learn the ropes of big law, deal with all the stress, etc. etc. And from what I can tell you don't really get better work because you still don't know what you are doing.

The only benefit I see is that you age out of doc review in 2 years instead of 3.

Given the terms in which people describe doc review around here, is that really a negligible benefit? Especially if someone gets one of those unicorn 2-year clerkships.

They're not particularly unicorn. Most people don't want them--I bet they're a lot easier to get, actually. But the second year costs you a lot more money than the first. First one costs you about $50k pretax. 2nd one costs between $80 and $100k, depending on whether your firm gives the $70k bonus (seems like most in NY do, most in DC don't).

EDIT: It's actually a bit more than that, since I was including salary raises (base salary increase for 2nd year clerks is basically the same as 2nd year BL), but I wasn't counting the normal associate bonuses, which also rise. So it's more like $60k and $95-115k, if my math is right.

rpupkin wrote:

bk1 wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:You don't really skip your first year. Sure you called a "second year" but only on client bills. You still have to learn the ropes of big law, deal with all the stress, etc. etc. And from what I can tell you don't really get better work because you still don't know what you are doing.

The only benefit I see is that you age out of doc review in 2 years instead of 3.

I mean if people generally volitionally choose to leave biglaw because they no longer want to deal with it after a while, clerking would push that time further into the future and gain you money, no?

This makes sense only if your clerking salary + bonus is more than your exit option salary.

There's also a hope it improves the quality of exit options as you're exiting a class year later, though I can't really say if that counts for anything.

I've never understood it, either. Maybe it helps on the margins with a select few career paths, but for everyone else it doesn't really seem worth the trouble. And, in any case, it definitely doesn't live up to the hype given it by law students.

ymmv wrote: Given the terms in which people describe doc review around here, is that really a negligible benefit? Especially if someone gets one of those unicorn 2-year clerkships.

Just to reiterate what Elston wrote, 2-year clerkships aren't "unicorn" clerkships. For most folks, two-year clerkships are less desirable than one-year clerkships. Most of the more "prestigious" judges hire for one-year terms so that they can attract better clerkship talent.

But if you really want a 2-year clerkship (as some people do), all of this is good news because you'll face lighter competition.

rpupkin wrote:This makes sense only if your clerking salary + bonus is more than your exit option salary.

You're forgetting raises (essentially the differential between year 4 pay and year 1 pay):

Clerk+Bonus-->Year2-->Year3-->Year4-->Quit/Exit
Year1-->Year2-->Year3-->Quit/Exit-->Exit

But yea it's hard to figure out whether it's worth it in advance and probably not all that useful.

Probably good idea if you are recruited during school as possible SCOTUS clerk.

bk1 wrote:

rpupkin wrote:This makes sense only if your clerking salary + bonus is more than your exit option salary.

You're forgetting raises (essentially the differential between year 4 pay and year 1 pay):

Clerk+Bonus-->Year2-->Year3-->Year4-->Quit/Exit
Year1-->Year2-->Year3-->Quit/Exit-->Exit

But yea it's hard to figure out whether it's worth it in advance and probably not all that useful.

So is it fair to say that if clerking is something we think we'd enjoy doing and our firm's cool with it, we should go and do it, but it's probably not ultimately all that hurtful or helpful in the long-term?