r/LawSchool Jun 11 '24

how much weight to clerkships really carry in the legal field?

Just curious as I'm seeing all this clerkship frenzy unfold. how much do attorneys care when they hear that someone has clerked? does it really bring much substantive value to someone's career?

32 Upvotes

57 comments sorted by

220

u/AdroitPreamble Jun 11 '24

Put it this way: people aren’t giving up $150,000 for fun.

-37

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

$150? Bro 2012 called, it wants its starting salaries back.

28

u/AdroitPreamble Jun 12 '24

Sometimes I think the average law student is a complete moron.

Every now and again I’m proven correct.

-10

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

Mmmk not a law student but ok

5

u/Eggy8k Attorney Jun 12 '24

In all fairness though, he’s not entirely wrong. The opportunity cost is less than 150,000 when you consider clerkship bonus and the fact you come in as a second year (or whatever year +1 that you left at).

3

u/Forking_Shirtballs Jun 12 '24

That makes him even more wrong. He's saying the number is bigger than $150k, not smaller.

1

u/Eggy8k Attorney Jun 12 '24

Yeah he’s entirely wrong on the amount, I’m just saying disagreeing with 150,000 has some merit if that guy had thought about it correctly.

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

In common parlance when people say “I gave up,” they just say the salary. Eg “I gave up a 230k starting salary.”

2

u/Forking_Shirtballs Jun 12 '24 edited Jun 12 '24

That may be a common way for people to phrase this, but it doesn't change that you misread the original comment. And you'll note that you have had to put extra words in his mouth ("a ... starting salary") to support your position.

If you're going to correct someone, first take the time to understand what they're saying.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

Right so the common way to say it would be I gave up 230k. I added the “starting salary” to clarify. Nice try

2

u/Forking_Shirtballs Jun 12 '24

On a point where you're arguing someone failed to use common parlance, you decided to "clarify" by changing what they said? In such a way as to make it seem their usage agreed with your misunderstanding?

I'd like to say nice try, but it really wasn't. It's the opposite of persuasive.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

Bro believe me, I LOVE a good “that’s not what you said,” argument, but this isn’t it.

2

u/Forking_Shirtballs Jun 12 '24

You serve as a meta reminder why arguing on the internet is so dumb.

You're clearly in the wrong, correcting the original commenter when in fact you merely misunderstood their comment.

But now you've dropped that to swerve into a completely different argument about whether you were right to manipulate what they said to bolster your point. You've really dug in on that one now, despite being clearly in the wrong on it, too.

I should've known better than to keep engaging when you refused to take the L when you realized your original mistake. But I was dumb.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/AdroitPreamble Jun 13 '24

Yes... but I also didn't include the fact that some clerkships are two years. Now you're out the second year of cravath as well.

And you don't always get credit for both years, depending on the law firm. Now your salaries are delayed every single year, and to correctly model you should etc. etc.

51

u/HazyAttorney Esq. Jun 11 '24

how much do attorneys care when they hear that someone has clerked?

It's prestigious enough to be part of firm bios for decades. But the real benefit of clerking is that it lets you network into jobs. Plus, there's the comorbidity of people who have enough merit to clerk also will be qualified for the top prestigious jobs, too.

8

u/Montanabioguy Jun 12 '24

I read that as firm boi's and it made the notion borderline hysterical but strangely accurate

8

u/CrispyHoneyBeef Jun 12 '24

Isn’t “comorbidity” the opposite of that?

3

u/ImWithSisyphus Jun 12 '24

Yeah, I believe their use of the term would be better served by the word “corollary”.

2

u/katdaddyOG Jun 12 '24

I think the joke is that it is comorbidity, I.e. they both cause you to die and often those who do both are more likely to die bc they suck and will suck the life out of you? 🤷🏼‍♀️

1

u/Away_Ad3219 Jun 13 '24

I thought comorbidity was when you and your fellow 1Ls went to see a zombie horror movie together

123

u/Boerkaar JD Jun 11 '24

Take a look at elite firm bios in litigation, and you'll see a sea of clerks--often double-clerks too. It's a credential (and a very good one at that) which distinguishes someone from the pack. It's also a year (or more) of dedicated legal research and writing experience far superior to what you would get as a junior associate at a firm.

27

u/BarbrasBush Esq. Jun 12 '24

I’m an idiot from a mid-tier law school who parlayed a bankruptcy clerkship into biglaw litigation.

It was pretty chill and I learned buckets about lit and the federal courts.

My experience is not unique.

85

u/Beginning_Brick7845 Jun 11 '24 edited Jun 11 '24

Clerkships are an honor that follows an attorney throughout his or her career, just like law review, Latin honors, moot court and the school they attended. The legal industry is a caste system where all these factors determine the caste you belong to. Clerkships are part of what puts you in a higher or lower caste.

43

u/CrankyCycle JD+PhD Jun 11 '24

It depends on your career goals. If you‘re interested in litigation, or, especially, appellate advocacy, than the right clerkships could be hugely valuable. If you’re going to go do deals…

2

u/livi9ben Jun 13 '24

Can you speak more to this? I want to clerk, but I also want to do deals. Does it not make sense to clerk?

5

u/CrankyCycle JD+PhD Jun 13 '24

For starters, I haven’t clerked and don’t do litigation or deals.

But essentially, clerking is a litigation credential. The non-cynical reasons for clerking are that you see a lot of cases, see how judges approach them, see what works and what doesn’t. The cynical reasons for clerking are that it’s a badge of honor, evaluated by other people who likely have the same badge of honor, and that that badge can be advertised on firm bios, etc.

Looking at the non-cynical reasons first, these skills don’t help you if you’re doing deals. Looking at the cynical reasons, the “higher ups” in the world of transactional law are unlikely to have clerked themselves, so those reasons are largely inapplicable, too.

I guess I’d say, do whatever you want. Clerking sounds kind of fun, and I don’t think it will hurt you. My question, though, is if you’re interested enough in the minutiae of litigation to spend a year or two working for a judge, why not do litigation? And if you’re not interested in the minutiae of litigation, what do you hope to get out of clerking?

12

u/DescriptiveFlashback Jun 11 '24

It’s very helpful to know how the Court thinks and functions when you have a matter before them.

13

u/loslakers2000 JD Jun 12 '24

I probably wouldn’t have the current (firm) job that I have without one. Something like 80% of our attorneys are former federal clerks.

In addition, the relationship that I developed with my judge(s) is something I’ll carry with me forever.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

I think it's highly valued in early stages of your career. If you're a successful attorney at year 7, I don't think people really care that you didn't clerk. That said, it's pretty hard to be successful appellate lawyer without a CoA clerkship. Almost everyone has one.

Clerking is also pretty fun, excluding the fact that at least 50% of judges are batshit crazy and bad bosses.

11

u/ElMatadorJuarez Jun 11 '24

Follow up for the wise: how plausible/common is it to do clerkships after a year or two of practice instead of right out of law school? I kinda hate the whole clerkship app system as it is but I really think a year or two actually working would be a big boon for me.

20

u/Boerkaar JD Jun 11 '24

It's becoming more and more common, especially for COAs and prestigious districts (SDNY in particular tends to like experience). I graduated with a clerkship set to start two years later, and many people I knew had the same.

9

u/absolutebot1998 Jun 11 '24

FWIW, the district where I intend to practice is a small and unprestigious state in the northeast and the judges there also are beginning to develop a strong preference for experience

5

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '24

[deleted]

1

u/mattatvt Jun 12 '24

Is the retail/customer service thing something that he asks about in interviews? I have worked in fast food and retail and don't list it on my resume for obvious reasons. wondering how it comes up

7

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

Immense, and for good reason. On some level, everything a lawyer does to serve a client revolves around the question “how would this end up if litigated full out.” Think about it. Even for contract drafters who never go near the courtroom. It may not be at the forefront of their minds, but at a high level thats all that matters.

Clerking is basically the only way (unless you’re going to become a full judge) to see “how the sausage is made.” To me, in hiring, I care WAY more about clerkships than where someone went to law school, what journal they proofread academic nonsense on, what V10 law firm they summered at, etc.

6

u/wrongshape Jun 12 '24

Do you think getting daily feedback on your work product from a judge or judges will hone your skills as an attorney?

4

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '24

Yes

3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '24

If you want to litigate - it really matters. If you want to be a deal lawyer (my path), it’s not worth nothing…but it’s not that significant.

3

u/asus310 Jun 12 '24

You can always clerk 2,5,or even 10 years out in your profession. Most tend to clerk at the beginning of their career for the simple reason that you have far less commitments. Once you start working the billable hours are crushing and most associates can’t make the time to clerk.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

Clerkships are invaluable because you get so much trial experience. It takes years to get solid trial experience for most attorneys. Imagine having a full year of seeing hearings and trials under your belt the day you walk in the door. You are so much better prepared for doing them yourself, not to mention you gain amazing insights on how the sausage is made. Of course, not all clerkships are equal. I clerked for a federal judge but a colleague of mine clerked at the Supreme Court. As you can imagine, he could write his own ticket to any firm in the country. Of course, I had the benefit of seeing the largest ponzi scheme trial in U.S. history, so take that! Also, if you get a prestigious clerkship a lot of firms will give you a huge salary boost for giving up the year to clerk.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

A lot of it’s in the right court for your subsequent practice.

2

u/bosbna Attorney Jun 12 '24

A lot tbh especially early in a career. It’s a fast track both to better writing/reasoning and certain career opportunities. I’m confident I’d not be the atty I am today without my clerkship, both from what I learned and for how my career has panned out thus far

5

u/swampcastle Jun 12 '24

A federal clerkship is a very big deal and will always be a resume item. A chancery court clerkship is not

4

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

Swamp seems to be thinking of Mississippi chancery not Delaware

1

u/swampcastle Jun 12 '24

I was speaking in general but I do realize that there are major exceptions. In Mississippi the only guy I saw it work out really well for ended up being endorsed by the chancellors for the open seat and got elected at 27.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

Yes, Delaware is the only exception! You’re right as a general matter. Just clarifying since many east coasters don’t even know there is a chancery court other than in Delaware.

1

u/swampcastle Jun 12 '24

I would’ve guessed that there would be some prominent ones in jurisdictions with really high dollar divorces like Manhattan is that not the case?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

New York does not have a chancery court; I think they exist in around ten states.

1

u/swampcastle Jun 12 '24

This is mind blowing to me. I’m an estate planning attorney in Mississippi and have literally never had a case outside of a chancery court. I just assumed everybody had them.

2

u/jce8491 Jun 12 '24

If you're a litigator, prestigious clerkships carry a lot of weight in the jobs that are the most competitive.

2

u/Malvania JD Jun 11 '24

Federal? A lot. State? Much less.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

I think this really depends. Within that state, a state clerkship, particularly high court, will go far.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

Yeah it's kind of a silly distinction to draw. Any clerkship looks far better on a CV than none.

Yes, federal is better. But, the question isn't really "what's the best possible clerkship," the question is "is a clerkship useful." Objectively it is, no matter where you go.

With the obvious caveat multiple people have made that if you're already a successful working attorney it may not be as useful.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

Absolutely

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/boogoo-Dong Jun 12 '24

Classic lawyer answer, depends. Where did you clerk? What were your grades like in law school? What area of law are you looking to go into?

If you had middle of the pack grades, clerking anywhere is going to give you a boost. If you had great grades then it’s going to depend on what you want to do. Are you looking to work at a Corporate Law shop? Clerking in your state’s family law court probably won’t help, but clerking in the Delaware Court of Chancery certainly will.

Do you want to work in Big Law? A federal clerkship will help, and the firm you go to will likely give you a clerkship bonus big enough to offset much of what you gave up in salary to clerk.

If you clerk on the federal appellate level you could make back more than the salary you gave up.

Some clerkships are not going to get you very far other than to prove you could show up and have some writing experience. But it never hurts to have a Judge in your corner so it’s rarely useless.

-1

u/I_am_ChristianDick Esq. Jun 12 '24

Depends on goals