Yes. Biglaw values federal clerkships because of the experience you gain and how much you learn. It doesn’t matter if your firm is big or small, or if you litigate primarily in federal or state court. Clerkships teach you how to research, analyze, and write. They also teach you how a judge makes decisions and analyzes cases.
Long story short, any litigator would be well served by clerking, if they can land a clerkship.
I had a federal clerkship and now I’m in-house doing transactional work. I think it is a great experience, and I’d recommend it for anyone who can do it to do so. I recognize there is some self-selection type bias here.
I have a different view. I did a federal clerkship at an appellate court and was a patent litigator. I went in-house as a product counsel and I don’t think clerkship really adds much for my job. And nobody seems to care that I clerked.
I’m founder of a boutique trial firm with only 15 lawyers. We strongly favor hiring people with clerkships — it’s not just BigLaw that values them. We have found a year or two of clerking gives you a four to five year jump on associates who did not clerk.
(Of our attorneys who did not clerk, one worked for the DOJ and two were federal PDs; they were in court almost daily, and had heavy writing responsibilities, which compensates somewhat for the lack of a clerkship.)
Another advantage is the close relationship many judges develop with their clerks, which can continue throughout your career. It can have far-reaching benefits.
Litigators who clerked generally say yes, and those who didn’t generally say no. If you don’t plan on working in big law, then clerkships start to matter less. I will say, as a litigator who didn’t clerk because I was eager to get my career started, the financial handcuffs of being a lawyer start to kick in such that if you later decide you want to clerk, the pay cut weighs on your decision.
I had a federal clerkship, went to Big Law and got my clerkship bonus, then lateraled to a small firm, which I'm still at. I agree with what's been said about the value of a federal clerkship. I will add that it's also valuable for making connections. When you clerk, you instantly have a relationship with all of your judge's clerks that came before you or after you. You also will build lifelong friendships with your fellow clerks. All of which is great for rainmaking as a small firm lawyer.
I agree with most who think it is valuable -- and would note that just because it might not pay dividends now doesn't mean it won't in the future -- but I'd also just add it isn't always the greatest job ever. Mine was fine. It absolutely opened doors in terms of jobs but I also didn't really enjoy it nor did I have any real connection with my judge. No life long mentorship or anything even close.
Aside from political views (which are valid), I would not selectively apply to judges who you “don’t think [you] can relate to.” First, clerkship hiring is a numbers game, and you need to cast a wide net if you want to land one. Second, you never know what common ground you may have with a particular judge until you meet them. Resumes and careers don’t tell someone’s whole story. And sometimes not relating to someone is important to broaden the way you think (which is an important skill for a litigator).
Yes! I did a full time federal judicial externship for a semester and learned so much! I can’t imagine how much one would learn doing an actual clerkship. I wish I had and highly recommend it.
Yes!!! It ALWAYS makes sense. 1. You’ll learn how judges make decisions, avoiding much of the superstitions that attorneys who don’t have that experience make; 2. You never know what your future may bring — “If you want to make God laugh, make plans”; and 3. You’ll gain a life-long mentor.
My hunch is that it would matter even more if you want to go small - these networks would matter even more to you (since you would not have a large firm to back you) in finding clients and convincing them to hire you. Also, it would be great practical training - by lawyers who are not constantly trying to bill.
It is for sure a good move, but so is taking a position where you hit the ground running. Big law is a farce. I started at a small firm where they basically let me run with a case list with court appearances literally the day I got my bar license. Like the paralegal administered the oath, faxed in the paperwork, and I was on my way to court hours later. It was rough, but in a year I learned more than a tenth year big law senior associate had.
Anything that keeps you away from being sidelined, jump into it with both feet after law school. Clerkship, prosecutor, public defender, work for a small firm or with a sole practitioner. You’ll thank yourself 3 years from now when you’re a real lawyer.
Yes. Biglaw values federal clerkships because of the experience you gain and how much you learn. It doesn’t matter if your firm is big or small, or if you litigate primarily in federal or state court. Clerkships teach you how to research, analyze, and write. They also teach you how a judge makes decisions and analyzes cases.
Long story short, any litigator would be well served by clerking, if they can land a clerkship.
Thank you!
My clerkship was and will forever be the best part of my career, regardless of the weight it held going forward
I feel this way too. I wouldn't go back and do it again because I'm 10 years out now, but I learned so much and had so much fun doing it
I had a federal clerkship and now I’m in-house doing transactional work. I think it is a great experience, and I’d recommend it for anyone who can do it to do so. I recognize there is some self-selection type bias here.
I have a different view. I did a federal clerkship at an appellate court and was a patent litigator. I went in-house as a product counsel and I don’t think clerkship really adds much for my job. And nobody seems to care that I clerked.
I’m founder of a boutique trial firm with only 15 lawyers. We strongly favor hiring people with clerkships — it’s not just BigLaw that values them. We have found a year or two of clerking gives you a four to five year jump on associates who did not clerk.
(Of our attorneys who did not clerk, one worked for the DOJ and two were federal PDs; they were in court almost daily, and had heavy writing responsibilities, which compensates somewhat for the lack of a clerkship.)
Another advantage is the close relationship many judges develop with their clerks, which can continue throughout your career. It can have far-reaching benefits.
Thank you!!
Litigators who clerked generally say yes, and those who didn’t generally say no. If you don’t plan on working in big law, then clerkships start to matter less. I will say, as a litigator who didn’t clerk because I was eager to get my career started, the financial handcuffs of being a lawyer start to kick in such that if you later decide you want to clerk, the pay cut weighs on your decision.
a clerkship has real value
10000% if you have the opportunity to do a federal clerkship, do it.
I had a federal clerkship, went to Big Law and got my clerkship bonus, then lateraled to a small firm, which I'm still at. I agree with what's been said about the value of a federal clerkship. I will add that it's also valuable for making connections. When you clerk, you instantly have a relationship with all of your judge's clerks that came before you or after you. You also will build lifelong friendships with your fellow clerks. All of which is great for rainmaking as a small firm lawyer.
I agree with most who think it is valuable -- and would note that just because it might not pay dividends now doesn't mean it won't in the future -- but I'd also just add it isn't always the greatest job ever. Mine was fine. It absolutely opened doors in terms of jobs but I also didn't really enjoy it nor did I have any real connection with my judge. No life long mentorship or anything even close.
Aside from political views (which are valid), I would not selectively apply to judges who you “don’t think [you] can relate to.” First, clerkship hiring is a numbers game, and you need to cast a wide net if you want to land one. Second, you never know what common ground you may have with a particular judge until you meet them. Resumes and careers don’t tell someone’s whole story. And sometimes not relating to someone is important to broaden the way you think (which is an important skill for a litigator).
Yes! I did a full time federal judicial externship for a semester and learned so much! I can’t imagine how much one would learn doing an actual clerkship. I wish I had and highly recommend it.
Yes!!! It ALWAYS makes sense. 1. You’ll learn how judges make decisions, avoiding much of the superstitions that attorneys who don’t have that experience make; 2. You never know what your future may bring — “If you want to make God laugh, make plans”; and 3. You’ll gain a life-long mentor.
Very true!
My hunch is that it would matter even more if you want to go small - these networks would matter even more to you (since you would not have a large firm to back you) in finding clients and convincing them to hire you. Also, it would be great practical training - by lawyers who are not constantly trying to bill.
Love this perspective ! Thank you!
Thank you all so much!
It is for sure a good move, but so is taking a position where you hit the ground running. Big law is a farce. I started at a small firm where they basically let me run with a case list with court appearances literally the day I got my bar license. Like the paralegal administered the oath, faxed in the paperwork, and I was on my way to court hours later. It was rough, but in a year I learned more than a tenth year big law senior associate had.
Anything that keeps you away from being sidelined, jump into it with both feet after law school. Clerkship, prosecutor, public defender, work for a small firm or with a sole practitioner. You’ll thank yourself 3 years from now when you’re a real lawyer.