Is biglaw litigation dying out? Forum

[objctnyrhnr]

I have never understood why v50 and up pack their ranks with summer/first year associate’s such that they won’t have availability for post-clerkship hires (especially impressive ones). In other words, there are hundreds of fedclerks every year, many of whom are looking for new firms at the end of the clerkship. Would you rather have somebody with fedclerk credentials and possibly already a year or two of biglaw training or like 33%ile at wash u who summered with you?

Anyway I realize that’s slightly off topic, but just is something I’ve been thinking about.

[Anonymous User]

I have never understood why v50 and up pack their ranks with summer/first year associate’s such that they won’t have availability for post-clerkship hires (especially impressive ones). In other words, there are hundreds of fedclerks every year, many of whom are looking for new firms at the end of the clerkship. Would you rather have somebody with fedclerk credentials and possibly already a year or two of biglaw training or like 33%ile at wash u who summered with you?

Anyway I realize that’s slightly off topic, but just is something I’ve been thinking about.

Does this really happen anymore? At least at my firm we now take only 1-2 lit summers (preferably w clerk shops lined up already). The days of huge classes of lit summers seem gone (except maybe at a handful of V10 firms).

[objctnyrhnr]

I have never understood why v50 and up pack their ranks with summer/first year associate’s such that they won’t have availability for post-clerkship hires (especially impressive ones). In other words, there are hundreds of fedclerks every year, many of whom are looking for new firms at the end of the clerkship. Would you rather have somebody with fedclerk credentials and possibly already a year or two of biglaw training or like 33%ile at wash u who summered with you?

Anyway I realize that’s slightly off topic, but just is something I’ve been thinking about.

Does this really happen anymore? At least at my firm we now take only 1-2 lit summers (preferably w clerk shops lined up already). The days of huge classes of lit summers seem gone (except maybe at a handful of V10 firms).

You’re asking if there are firms whose lit departments (1) take multiple summers and give them offers and then (2) tell (otherwise very very qualified) applying fedclerks that they have no space? Yes of course. In fact, the only major firm who didn’t do this to my knowledge was Quinn (ie literally only poached feeclerks and had no summer class), but I think they recently started.

[nixy]

I have never understood why v50 and up pack their ranks with summer/first year associate’s such that they won’t have availability for post-clerkship hires (especially impressive ones). In other words, there are hundreds of fedclerks every year, many of whom are looking for new firms at the end of the clerkship. Would you rather have somebody with fedclerk credentials and possibly already a year or two of biglaw training or like 33%ile at wash u who summered with you?

Anyway I realize that’s slightly off topic, but just is something I’ve been thinking about.

Maybe the 33%ile from Wash U was actually an excellent summer? Plus if you're used to having a summer to vet someone, hiring based on one or maybe 2 interviews may seem disconcerting (because qualifiations =/= fit or even ability).

[objctnyrhnr]

I have never understood why v50 and up pack their ranks with summer/first year associate’s such that they won’t have availability for post-clerkship hires (especially impressive ones). In other words, there are hundreds of fedclerks every year, many of whom are looking for new firms at the end of the clerkship. Would you rather have somebody with fedclerk credentials and possibly already a year or two of biglaw training or like 33%ile at wash u who summered with you?

Anyway I realize that’s slightly off topic, but just is something I’ve been thinking about.

Maybe the 33%ile from Wash U was actually an excellent summer? Plus if you're used to having a summer to vet someone, hiring based on one or maybe 2 interviews may seem disconcerting (because qualifiations =/= fit or even ability).

I don’t think you understood my question. Let’s say you have 10 spots in your summer class and in a given year, a couple will be median t14, a few will be top third t20, and a few will be maybe top 10% of t30 and one or two will be top of a t2. So every year you fill your summer class with something like this makeup. They go onto be associates. But every year you also get fifty applications from fedclerks with very (more) competitive credentials who want interviews. Year after year you tell those fedclerks you don’t have any more space for a junior-ish associate in lit. That’s how the vast majority of firms seem to do it, but I’m wondering why.

Why not fill 8 of those 10 theoretically available spots every year, and then also plan on hiring 1-2 fedclerks regularly every single year? This proposal seems reasonable, but in my semi major market it is far from the norm...and it seems to be far from the norm elsewhere as well. That’s my point.

[nixy]

I guess I'm confused, then, because every year there are lots of clerks and many of them get jobs in firms (even if they had jobs lined up, I mean they apply and get new positions for after clerking). So I have no idea what "the vast majority of firms" means in this context.

[objctnyrhnr]

I guess I'm confused, then, because every year there are lots of clerks and many of them get jobs in firms (even if they had jobs lined up, I mean they apply and get new positions for after clerking). So I have no idea what "the vast majority of firms" means in this context.

Have you ever gone through the process of biglaw aps post-fedclerk? I have. The pickings are much slimmer than, in my opinion, they should be (with pickings in this context being defined as publicly-listed post-clerkship junior associate positions). That’s my whole point. Yeah some people succeed in landing biglaw and yeah there are some posted positions, but I do not understand why the market for this is not much bigger. There are only a few firms in my market that even actively try to recruit law clerks.

[LBJ's Hair]

Definitely not a sky is falling thing, but anecdotally I have friends with impeccable credentials (2d Cir., HYS, Law Review) going through post-clerkship hiring processes right now that have been told by V10 firms that they're not hiring clerks. Subtext was not enough hours to go around. And you do hear rumors of stealth layoffs at a couple of places that this board talks about as though they're "never-lays-people-off-except-for-performance" firms

There are obviously great lit jobs available, but does seem like the market is fragmenting no?

If YSHers with 2nd Cir. CoA clerkships are struggling to land V10 lit positions, that's certainly a very ominous sign. I don't think we should dismiss it lightly. Short of DC Cir./SCOTUS, these folks should be absolutely dominating post-clerkship hiring. If they're struggling, what of the T6 grad who's "merely" clerking on the 6th Circuit, or even "just" on a district court like, dare we say, DNJ?

"Fragmentation" has largely referred to the top of the market - V10/20/[insert your preferred number] - increasingly keeping all of the spoils, leaving firms toward the bottom of the V100/AmLaw 100 - and especially the AmLaw 200 - to struggle. If V10 lit is now hurting, that's more than "fragmentation." That's BigLit itself hitting the rocks.

Definitely. They're gonna get jobs at places they want to work paying market, just to be clear. But it seems like the places hiring are boutiques and V10/V20 BigLaw firms with more lit-first practices.

At least this year, the V10 law firms that make most of their money in public market M&A, capital markets, funds work, that we sort of assume have lit practices that are busy because the PP is high and are generically prestigious are...not busy. And/or are quietly pushing people out? Which frankly I was stunned to hear.

[PMan99]

I guess I'm confused, then, because every year there are lots of clerks and many of them get jobs in firms (even if they had jobs lined up, I mean they apply and get new positions for after clerking). So I have no idea what "the vast majority of firms" means in this context.

Have you ever gone through the process of biglaw aps post-fedclerk? I have. The pickings are much slimmer than, in my opinion, they should be (with pickings in this context being defined as publicly-listed post-clerkship junior associate positions). That’s my whole point. Yeah some people succeed in landing biglaw and yeah there are some posted positions, but I do not understand why the market for this is not much bigger. There are only a few firms in my market that even actively try to recruit law clerks.

Most of the firms that could reliably count on getting clerks trying to trade up are already filled with people who clerked or could have clerked, though. It's not like Cravath or Munger or whatever are filled with the top-third WUSTL types you mentioned. And I'm not sure your average Jones Day-type firm could count on getting enough people year in and year out trying to upgrade that it would make sense for them to leave spots open.

[objctnyrhnr]

I guess I'm confused, then, because every year there are lots of clerks and many of them get jobs in firms (even if they had jobs lined up, I mean they apply and get new positions for after clerking). So I have no idea what "the vast majority of firms" means in this context.

Have you ever gone through the process of biglaw aps post-fedclerk? I have. The pickings are much slimmer than, in my opinion, they should be (with pickings in this context being defined as publicly-listed post-clerkship junior associate positions). That’s my whole point. Yeah some people succeed in landing biglaw and yeah there are some posted positions, but I do not understand why the market for this is not much bigger. There are only a few firms in my market that even actively try to recruit law clerks.

Most of the firms that could reliably count on getting clerks trying to trade up are already filled with people who clerked or could have clerked, though. It's not like Cravath or Munger or whatever are filled with the top-third WUSTL types you mentioned. And I'm not sure your average Jones Day-type firm could count on getting enough people year in and year out trying to upgrade that it would make sense for them to leave spots open.

See this is where I disagree. I think Jones Day absolutely could bank on that. I mean have you seen the post clerkship hiring thread? Seems like there is a bit of a struggle. There are just so many clerks every year. These people already have sexy credentials. Maybe they jumped from their firm cause they didn’t like it for some reason and they’re looking for another v30 firm. The clerkship receptions I’ve been to have been full of people like that. Even though jones day wasn’t the firm throwing the reception, I’m fairly confident many of those people would be happy to go to jones day if jones day had space.

But maybe I’m wrong about all of this, and maybe you and the apparent current attitude of firms (visible through the evidence I described) are correct.

[Anonymous User]

I guess I'm confused, then, because every year there are lots of clerks and many of them get jobs in firms (even if they had jobs lined up, I mean they apply and get new positions for after clerking). So I have no idea what "the vast majority of firms" means in this context.

Have you ever gone through the process of biglaw aps post-fedclerk? I have. The pickings are much slimmer than, in my opinion, they should be (with pickings in this context being defined as publicly-listed post-clerkship junior associate positions). That’s my whole point. Yeah some people succeed in landing biglaw and yeah there are some posted positions, but I do not understand why the market for this is not much bigger. There are only a few firms in my market that even actively try to recruit law clerks.

Most of the firms that could reliably count on getting clerks trying to trade up are already filled with people who clerked or could have clerked, though. It's not like Cravath or Munger or whatever are filled with the top-third WUSTL types you mentioned. And I'm not sure your average Jones Day-type firm could count on getting enough people year in and year out trying to upgrade that it would make sense for them to leave spots open.

See this is where I disagree. I think Jones Day absolutely could bank on that. I mean have you seen the post clerkship hiring thread? Seems like there is a bit of a struggle. There are just so many clerks every year. These people already have sexy credentials. Maybe they jumped from their firm cause they didn’t like it for some reason and they’re looking for another v30 firm. The clerkship receptions I’ve been to have been full of people like that. Even though jones day wasn’t the firm throwing the reception, I’m fairly confident many of those people would be happy to go to jones day if jones day had space.

But maybe I’m wrong about all of this, and maybe you and the apparent current attitude of firms (visible through the evidence I described) are correct.

Thread OP here. This is a fascinating discussion but also one that scares me a bit. So I've always been told clerking is nothing but a plus for someone in lit, and I'm definitely shooting for it, at least on the D.Ct level. But if it's actually harder to get a lit job out of a clerkship than through OCI (which, since I'm at HYS, shouldn't be all that difficult, even if corp would be easier), especially a lit job that would make the clerkship investment cost-benefit justified from a financial/professional standpoint, then maybe I shouldn't try to clerk right away. Is that the upshot here?

[objctnyrhnr]

I guess I'm confused, then, because every year there are lots of clerks and many of them get jobs in firms (even if they had jobs lined up, I mean they apply and get new positions for after clerking). So I have no idea what "the vast majority of firms" means in this context.

Have you ever gone through the process of biglaw aps post-fedclerk? I have. The pickings are much slimmer than, in my opinion, they should be (with pickings in this context being defined as publicly-listed post-clerkship junior associate positions). That’s my whole point. Yeah some people succeed in landing biglaw and yeah there are some posted positions, but I do not understand why the market for this is not much bigger. There are only a few firms in my market that even actively try to recruit law clerks.

Most of the firms that could reliably count on getting clerks trying to trade up are already filled with people who clerked or could have clerked, though. It's not like Cravath or Munger or whatever are filled with the top-third WUSTL types you mentioned. And I'm not sure your average Jones Day-type firm could count on getting enough people year in and year out trying to upgrade that it would make sense for them to leave spots open.

See this is where I disagree. I think Jones Day absolutely could bank on that. I mean have you seen the post clerkship hiring thread? Seems like there is a bit of a struggle. There are just so many clerks every year. These people already have sexy credentials. Maybe they jumped from their firm cause they didn’t like it for some reason and they’re looking for another v30 firm. The clerkship receptions I’ve been to have been full of people like that. Even though jones day wasn’t the firm throwing the reception, I’m fairly confident many of those people would be happy to go to jones day if jones day had space.

But maybe I’m wrong about all of this, and maybe you and the apparent current attitude of firms (visible through the evidence I described) are correct.

Thread OP here. This is a fascinating discussion but also one that scares me a bit. So I've always been told clerking is nothing but a plus for someone in lit, and I'm definitely shooting for it, at least on the D.Ct level. But if it's actually harder to get a lit job out of a clerkship than through OCI (which, since I'm at HYS, shouldn't be all that difficult, even if corp would be easier), especially a lit job that would make the clerkship investment cost-benefit justified from a financial/professional standpoint, then maybe I shouldn't try to clerk right away. Is that the upshot here?

I’m the V30 lit associate quoted in the discussion above who is more pessimistic about post-fedclerk outcomes in the aggregate these days. That said, to the extent that my sentiment articulated above is evidence/observation-based, I’m primarily talking about candidates from lower t14-say t25, people trying to trade up in firm, people trying to use clerkship to lateral to a similar firm due to bad experience, and people who got no offered at their SA then landed a clerkship. I think YHSCC would probably be good regardless, in most circumstances.

To elaborate on that last statement, I think TCR is that the ideal scenario is you land a SA at, at the least, a market-paying firm. You get an offer at the end. Around that time (just before or just after the SA), you land a clerkship for immediately post-grad. You tell the firm you SAed at. They say they want you back and will pay bonus or whatever. Then while clerking you can try your hand at going somewhere else and if that fails, you have a really good situation to fall back on.

So, OP, if you follow that path, then the wisdom holds that a clerkship can only help you. If you fall into one of the other categories I described above, jumping back becomes just a tad harder...but still far far from impossible; it’s more that one might have to hustle a bit more than one might expect going into the clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

I'm at an elite lit boutique that has above market total comp, and business is booming/firm is growing. I think this is firm specific; I doubt Kirkland/Quinn/classic litigation biglaw shops feel like their practice is "dying out."

Firms that have discovery work being a large part of their hours/income are going to be feeling the pain as automation sets in, but it's not like corporate isn't going to be dented by automation either.

[PMan99]

Thread OP here. This is a fascinating discussion but also one that scares me a bit. So I've always been told clerking is nothing but a plus for someone in lit, and I'm definitely shooting for it, at least on the D.Ct level. But if it's actually harder to get a lit job out of a clerkship than through OCI (which, since I'm at HYS, shouldn't be all that difficult, even if corp would be easier), especially a lit job that would make the clerkship investment cost-benefit justified from a financial/professional standpoint, then maybe I shouldn't try to clerk right away. Is that the upshot here?

I’m the V30 lit associate quoted in the discussion above who is more pessimistic about post-fedclerk outcomes in the aggregate these days. That said, to the extent that my sentiment articulated above is evidence/observation-based, I’m primarily talking about candidates from lower t14-say t25, people trying to trade up in firm, people trying to use clerkship to lateral to a similar firm due to bad experience, and people who got no offered at their SA then landed a clerkship. I think YHSCC would probably be good regardless, in most circumstances.

To elaborate on that last statement, I think TCR is that the ideal scenario is you land a SA at, at the least, a market-paying firm. You get an offer at the end. Around that time (just before or just after the SA), you land a clerkship for immediately post-grad. You tell the firm you SAed at. They say they want you back and will pay bonus or whatever. Then while clerking you can try your hand at going somewhere else and if that fails, you have a really good situation to fall back on.

So, OP, if you follow that path, then the wisdom holds that a clerkship can only help you. If you fall into one of the other categories I described above, jumping back becomes just a tad harder...but still far far from impossible; it’s more that one might have to hustle a bit more than one might expect going into the clerkship.

It's worth mentioning that there's a vast difference between clerkships in terms of prestige and it varies a bit geographically. A District of South Dakota clerkship on a resume is, in all honesty, going to add very little to a resume beyond what's already there, regardless of where someone applies. On the other hand, having a N.D. Ill or 7th Circuit clerkship while applying to Chicago firms can be a significant boost. But the same N.D. Ill clerkship won't carry as far in LA or OC, whereas the opposite is true for a C.D. Cal clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

One V10 historically known for a strong lit practice recently told a friend of mine, coming off a CA2/9 clerkship, that s/he'd have to join the corporate group if s/he wanted to re-join. S/he of course chose to go to another V10. Could be a firm-specific thing, I guess, but didn't seem like a great sign. (Or I suppose s/he could have been a bad SA, very strongly doubt it though).

[nixy]

The thing about the post-clerkship hiring thread, I think, is that 1) people start looking really early and freak out when firms aren't ready to hire yet, 2) people who weren't competitive at OCI/before clerking aren't magically more competitive than they were before clerking (don't get me wrong, if you do strike out a clerkship is likely going to give you a better second shot at biglaw than a lot of other options, but it doesn't utterly transform you), and 3) people are more likely to come here and talk about the process if they're struggling than if it's going well.

Which isn't to say that there can't be variations by market as well (especially depending on the typical size of classes. Like the example you gave, objctn, was a 10 person summer class and 50 clerks applying for post-clerkship positions - but have you been on the hiring side of this? do you have evidence for how many clerks are applying compared to size of classes? there are far fewer clerks than there are 2Ls going through OCI).

So to the HYS person who wants to do lit and is shooting for a clerkship - I don't think getting a lit job out of a clerkship is *harder* than getting one out of OCI. I just think that getting a job any way other than OCI requires more hustle than going through OCI.

[Citizen Genet]

The thing about the post-clerkship hiring thread, I think, is that 1) people start looking really early and freak out when firms aren't ready to hire yet, 2) people who weren't competitive at OCI/before clerking aren't magically more competitive than they were before clerking (don't get me wrong, if you do strike out a clerkship is likely going to give you a better second shot at biglaw than a lot of other options, but it doesn't utterly transform you), and 3) people are more likely to come here and talk about the process if they're struggling than if it's going well.

Which isn't to say that there can't be variations by market as well (especially depending on the typical size of classes. Like the example you gave, objctn, was a 10 person summer class and 50 clerks applying for post-clerkship positions - but have you been on the hiring side of this? do you have evidence for how many clerks are applying compared to size of classes? there are far fewer clerks than there are 2Ls going through OCI).

So to the HYS person who wants to do lit and is shooting for a clerkship - I don't think getting a lit job out of a clerkship is *harder* than getting one out of OCI. I just think that getting a job any way other than OCI requires more hustle than going through OCI.

+1. This thread is weird because it has bits of truth that have become way overblown.

Is BigLaw lit dying? No. But it is shrinking. Over the past two decades, more and more litigation has become commoditized (become so routine that a swarm of different kinds of lawyers can do it). Commoditization results in more competition for the same work. Competition means rates are reduced. Reduced rates means that partners bringing in that kind of work have to struggle to continue to generate revenue warranting a partnership share compared to traditional corporate practices. As they struggle, they leave for firms where their revenue generation is competitive, which tend to be ones that have lower profits per partner (i.e. go from BigLaw high roller to BigLaw standard to BigLaw fringe to MidLaw). Insurance defense fits this mold. In the 80s and early 90s, it wasn't uncommon for BigLaw firms to have insurance defense matters to keep a swarm of young associates busy. But insurance companies realized they could just switch these matters to MidLaw firms at half the cost for roughly the same results. Products liability did the same shift in the 90s into the 2000s. Labor and employment has done the same from the 2000s into the '10s.

For sure someone is going to say, "But I know a products liability and L&E partner at X firm!" Sure you do. And that partner handles the biggest, most massive products liability or L&E cases for a firm's clients - the ones where a company can justify throwing dollars at it. And that will always be there. There will always be cases that are so significant that companies will break the bank for it. So BigLaw lit won't die; it will just continue to shrink so that only the biggest, most profitable litigation stays around. The practice groups that have resisted the pressures of "commoditization" have been those where fees can stay high due to external forces. For example, bankruptcy judges approve obscene fees for BigLaw firms and companies don't care because that money is either going to their lawyers or their creditors. M&Aand securities lit is usually insured by the company, and those providing the insurance usually have a pre-approved list of providers that (surprise!) match who is willing to sign up for insurance from them. Mid-law boutique won't ever compete for that business until something structural changes there. Patent lit has kept BigLaw's attention because there are so many bet-the-company suits stemming from patents; it has already begun to be commoditized, but there is just enough skin in the game that you still want to hire the best. Same for class actions and appellate work.

Long story short: Companies will always be willing to justify sicking BigLaw Firm on some huge matter, and some types of litigation are resistant to commoditization. So BigLaw lit is not dying. But it is shrinking because commodotization continues to drive BigLaw partners to go to firms that will allow more competitive rates.

Now, the thing that I think is by far the most overblown in this thread is, "I knew a YHS grad, 2nd Circuit clerk who was told by some V10s that they weren't hiring clerks, so certainly that's a very ominous sign for BigLaw lit." Really that means one of a million things. Possibilities include:
Firms are putting more pressure on existing associates to bill more in response to two rounds of raises in the part 5 years.
That clerk reached out to smaller offices of V10 firms who don't generally budget a lot of room for additional clerk hires.
Some V10 firms oversubscribed their summers last year.
Some V10 firms got their summer numbers right last year, but summers from a couple years ago clerked, and now there's a glut of new associates.
Some V10 firms need more mid-level to senior talent, not more junior associates.
The clerk reached out too early.
That clerk is a terrible interviewer / networker.
That clerk might have gone to YHS and done law review, but not meet GPA cut offs for those firms. (It happens.)

The notion that this one anecdotal story is somehow the canary in the coal mine for BigLaw lit.... really, really, far down the list of what I'd infer.

[Anonymous User]

As someone who meets the qualifications in the above post and recently was on the clerkship market, my anecdotal experience is that the big V10s are not where lit hiring is happening. I interviewed at a number of perhaps lesser known boutiques, E.g. Molo/Morvillo/Holwell, in addition to susman/BSF, who were all actively pursuing clerks (albeit some with very limited availability) and keeping mid level associates fully staffed. I also shot out apps to a couple “V10”/V20 — those lists seem to change a lot so I never went by them much — and wasn’t even given interviews at a few firms with whom I’d received offers and pursuit at my law school’s version of OCI. Those firms seemed more interested in keeping under control the number former summers returning post-clerkship.

I also echo that these anecdotal experiences don’t mean much in a vacuum. Nor does any particular school. People from “lower ranked” schools clerking on my circuit had just as much or more success; vise versa for “higher”. Clerkship is not a cure all though. You generally come out close to as competitive as you came in, with some exceptions that prove the general rule.4

[objctnyrhnr]

One V10 historically known for a strong lit practice recently told a friend of mine, coming off a CA2/9 clerkship, that s/he'd have to join the corporate group if s/he wanted to re-join. S/he of course chose to go to another V10. Could be a firm-specific thing, I guess, but didn't seem like a great sign. (Or I suppose s/he could have been a bad SA, very strongly doubt it though).

This definitely (to a small degree) confirms my concerns I discussed earlier.

[nixy]

One V10 historically known for a strong lit practice recently told a friend of mine, coming off a CA2/9 clerkship, that s/he'd have to join the corporate group if s/he wanted to re-join. S/he of course chose to go to another V10. Could be a firm-specific thing, I guess, but didn't seem like a great sign. (Or I suppose s/he could have been a bad SA, very strongly doubt it though).

This definitely (to a small degree) confirms my concerns I discussed earlier.

But this is one anecdote of one candidate at one firm. Again, there are lots of reasons why this could be the case - maybe because they have such a strong lit practice, they ended up with a really strong class of lit people who stuck around and just didn't have openings in lit for a clerk. Or that particular candidate had some kind of "fit" issue with the lit people when they were a SA (not even saying that they were a "bad" SA, because so much of this is about personality/fit more than ability). Extrapolating trends based on one anecdote doesn't make sense.

[jkpolk]

I have never understood why v50 and up pack their ranks with summer/first year associate’s such that they won’t have availability for post-clerkship hires (especially impressive ones). In other words, there are hundreds of fedclerks every year, many of whom are looking for new firms at the end of the clerkship. Would you rather have somebody with fedclerk credentials and possibly already a year or two of biglaw training or like 33%ile at wash u who summered with you?

Anyway I realize that’s slightly off topic, but just is something I’ve been thinking about.

Clerkship is an overrated credential just for working in biglaw. Like yeah, if you want to be a partner, work bigfed, actually go to court, etc. maybe useful (and firms will pick up a couple ppl like this) - but pretty much anyone can tag exhibits and do doc review and big law needs way more associates than trial partners.

[Anonymous User]

I will just chime in to say that i clerk on one of the “fancy” districts/circuits, have made several acquaintances (and have several friends) on the district/circuit, and (anecdotally of course) I don’t know anyone—HYS through DCNG—who has struggled to get a big firm job. Almost the entire v10 have sent letters of recruitment to chambers (as well as dozens, dozens of firms lower down the ladder and dozens of boutiques). I don’t know anyone who has had trouble going back to their old firm. I will say I don’t know many people attempting to “trade up” biglaw firm to biglaw firm (e.g., Goodwin proctor to Kirkland). Most either return to their old biglaw firm or shoot for boutiques, and from what I understand the lit work at boutique firms are increasing aLOT, not decreasing.

I also think that many firms (correctly) believe that they can offer young associates better training to do what they do best (ie, discovery motion practice, running large cases, crisis management) than clerkships can. So i don’t think CSM needs to reserve a dozen spots for clerks each year.

I also don’t know anyone who didn’t have the “traditional” stats to clerk here, though. So yeah

[Anonymous User]

I have never understood why v50 and up pack their ranks with summer/first year associate’s such that they won’t have availability for post-clerkship hires (especially impressive ones). In other words, there are hundreds of fedclerks every year, many of whom are looking for new firms at the end of the clerkship. Would you rather have somebody with fedclerk credentials and possibly already a year or two of biglaw training or like 33%ile at wash u who summered with you?

Anyway I realize that’s slightly off topic, but just is something I’ve been thinking about.

Clerkship is an overrated credential just for working in biglaw. Like yeah, if you want to be a partner, work bigfed, actually go to court, etc. maybe useful (and firms will pick up a couple ppl like this) - but pretty much anyone can tag exhibits and do doc review and big law needs way more associates than trial partners.

I’m the above anon clerk and these are my thoughts as well.

[objctnyrhnr]

I have never understood why v50 and up pack their ranks with summer/first year associate’s such that they won’t have availability for post-clerkship hires (especially impressive ones). In other words, there are hundreds of fedclerks every year, many of whom are looking for new firms at the end of the clerkship. Would you rather have somebody with fedclerk credentials and possibly already a year or two of biglaw training or like 33%ile at wash u who summered with you?

Anyway I realize that’s slightly off topic, but just is something I’ve been thinking about.

Clerkship is an overrated credential just for working in biglaw. Like yeah, if you want to be a partner, work bigfed, actually go to court, etc. maybe useful (and firms will pick up a couple ppl like this) - but pretty much anyone can tag exhibits and do doc review and big law needs way more associates than trial partners.

I’m the above anon clerk and these are my thoughts as well.

Is the corrolary consensus then, also, that I’m imagining it when I picture gcs at potential client entities getting impressed when they see associates who have fedclerked in bios, in the same way that I picture them getting impressed when they see associates from YHS? This has always been a presumption of mine—that this matters to clients insofar as it constitutes a prestige stamp. That said, I have never worked in house and I have absolutely no evidence—anecdotal or otherwise—to back this up.

[wishywashy]

Litigation comes and goes in waves over the decades and trails the business cycle. I've heard it argued this way:

When companies are flush (and when Dems naturally come back into power during these "big money/poorly divided pie" times) litigation gets easier. Companies are more flush and courts don't need to worry about waves of bankruptcies from major companies teetering on the brink that get wiped out by lawsuit after lawsuit resulting in mass unemployment. Also, regulators get more aggressive because backward looking solutions and rules are magic wands that end all misery.

After a while of these "good times" companies will start to struggle. At this point Republicans tend to come back into power as there is only this shriveled and rotten little pie to divide and no one wants to eat that crap. So litigation dries up as the Republicans cut off causes of actions and tighten up procedural rules while relaxing what companies are allowed to do (so less litigating with aggressive regulators). Then after a decade or two of "growing the pie" the villagers start to pile up on the lawn with pitch forks and angry faces and the Dems get re-elected and it starts all over.

So litigation may be coming back into vogue if dems take control and try to divide that juicy pie up (until they get so focused on slicing it they forget to grow it and you end up with a rotten little turd that no one wants to eat). Sometimes the swing is big (like 60s and 70s for the dems and then the 80s and 90s for repubs) and sometimes the playing filed is more mixed and some industries will be in the regulatory death grip (like banking was until recently post-crash) and others will be a free for all for defendants with high bars for plaintiffs (like antitrust has been for a while).

I always thought the above argument had at least a little weight but never had the time to go looking for the data to verify it. The TL;DR is what is hot today (transactional) can be cold tomorrow. Find a firm that lets you try both transactional and litigation and do what you like - you're more likely to develop the type of skillset that sets you above the pack if you enjoy the work.

Good luck OP.