Help - I took a useless second clerkship Forum

[Anonymous User]

I graduated a t14 and took a federal district clerkship in my home flyover state after graduating. The judge for whom I clerked was great friends with somebody on that state’s supreme court, and we often ate lunch together. I quickly became friends with the SSC judge and they offered me a clerkship as well, which I took. At the time I thought that some appellate experience would be nice and it would further distance me from average law school grades.

Now, I’ve started applying to big law firms in the major markets Im interested in (CA & TX) and two separate screener interviewers told me, unprompted, that my state clerkship was strange. One said it detracted from my candidacy. Both firms have since ghosted me.

Is this salvageable and should I keep applying? I’m a bit worried I’ll be stuck in my home state forever.

[Anonymous User]

That's incredibly weird and may just be unique to those firms. Every biglaw firm I applied to loved that I did federal and state clerkship.

[jotarokujo]

I graduated a t14 and took a federal district clerkship in my home flyover state after graduating. The judge for whom I clerked was great friends with somebody on that state’s supreme court, and we often ate lunch together. I quickly became friends with the SSC judge and they offered me a clerkship as well, which I took. At the time I thought that some appellate experience would be nice and it would further distance me from average law school grades.

Now, I’ve started applying to big law firms in the major markets Im interested in (CA & TX) and two separate screener interviewers told me, unprompted, that my state clerkship was strange. One said it detracted from my candidacy. Both firms have since ghosted me.

Is this salvageable and should I keep applying? I’m a bit worried I’ll be stuck in my home state forever.

sample size is small. It definitely doesn't detract to most firms. When asked about why you did it just say what you said here - for appellate experience

[crazywafflez]

Honestly, really surprised by this. My old firm prized state sup clerkships in our state more than fed dist.

This is really odd and I wouldn't let it get you down at all.

[tablecloths]

Agree with all the comments. I think state SSC with a federal district court clerkship is great. Possible area of concern for firms is that they think you're committed to staying in your home state but I honestly think that's easily explained away.

I think you're totally fine and in a great position. Enjoy your clerkship and apply to more firms.

[Anonymous User]

Just out of curiosity, is it somewhere truly random like North Dakota? Either way, I don’t see how it’s a bad thing. I’d view it positively. Maybe the firms are worried that you’re a flight risk, but I don’t get how that would be any different than clerking in a flyover district court (and everyone leaves eventually).

[Anonymous User]

Just out of curiosity, is it somewhere truly random like North Dakota? Either way, I don’t see how it’s a bad thing. I’d view it positively. Maybe the firms are worried that you’re a flight risk, but I don’t get how that would be any different than clerking in a flyover district court (and everyone leaves eventually).

North dakota isn’t the state but you’re very close.

In both instances, I said that I wanted to try appellate work and talked a little bit about the value I thought I gained from the appellate clerkship.

Thanks to all the other responders - I would’ve shrugged off one interview but for the first two interviews I’ve had all hiring cycle to start that way scared me.

I’ll keep at it

[dyemond]

Just out of curiosity, is it somewhere truly random like North Dakota? Either way, I don’t see how it’s a bad thing. I’d view it positively. Maybe the firms are worried that you’re a flight risk, but I don’t get how that would be any different than clerking in a flyover district court (and everyone leaves eventually).

North dakota isn’t the state but you’re very close.

In both instances, I said that I wanted to try appellate work and talked a little bit about the value I thought I gained from the appellate clerkship.

Thanks to all the other responders - I would’ve shrugged off one interview but for the first two interviews I’ve had all hiring cycle to start that way scared me.

I’ll keep at it

Honest response—I’m assuming you’re in Wyoming or Minnesota or something: stay there. Yeah, the pay kind of sucks, but those clerkships you did basically set you up for being a pretty visible member of the bar, had a good friend who went to a lower amlaw in a nowheresville state after doing something similar, he made equity at his firm in year 7 or 8, he makes like $750K a year and bills 1300-1500 and I’m extremely jealous of his situation if you can’t tell.

[Wild Card]

Clerkship hiring is extremely rough, especially if you don't have previous biglaw experience and even more so if you're not clerking in a tip-top district. Don't get discouraged.

Also, clerking for a state supreme court is extremely awesome and I wish I'd been able to do it.

[alawyer2018]

Just out of curiosity, is it somewhere truly random like North Dakota? Either way, I don’t see how it’s a bad thing. I’d view it positively. Maybe the firms are worried that you’re a flight risk, but I don’t get how that would be any different than clerking in a flyover district court (and everyone leaves eventually).

North dakota isn’t the state but you’re very close.

In both instances, I said that I wanted to try appellate work and talked a little bit about the value I thought I gained from the appellate clerkship.

Thanks to all the other responders - I would’ve shrugged off one interview but for the first two interviews I’ve had all hiring cycle to start that way scared me.

I’ll keep at it

Honest response—I’m assuming you’re in Wyoming or Minnesota or something: stay there. Yeah, the pay kind of sucks, but those clerkships you did basically set you up for being a pretty visible member of the bar, had a good friend who went to a lower amlaw in a nowheresville state after doing something similar, he made equity at his firm in year 7 or 8, he makes like $750K a year and bills 1300-1500 and I’m extremely jealous of his situation if you can’t tell.

To put it differently, the state / geographic location where you did these clerkships is the location you should consider focusing your job search on -- that's where your credentials will be most prized/valuable. You shouldn't just reflexively target "major" biglaw markets.

[Anonymous User]

Just out of curiosity, is it somewhere truly random like North Dakota? Either way, I don’t see how it’s a bad thing. I’d view it positively. Maybe the firms are worried that you’re a flight risk, but I don’t get how that would be any different than clerking in a flyover district court (and everyone leaves eventually).

North dakota isn’t the state but you’re very close.

In both instances, I said that I wanted to try appellate work and talked a little bit about the value I thought I gained from the appellate clerkship.

Thanks to all the other responders - I would’ve shrugged off one interview but for the first two interviews I’ve had all hiring cycle to start that way scared me.

I’ll keep at it

Honest response—I’m assuming you’re in Wyoming or Minnesota or something: stay there. Yeah, the pay kind of sucks, but those clerkships you did basically set you up for being a pretty visible member of the bar, had a good friend who went to a lower amlaw in a nowheresville state after doing something similar, he made equity at his firm in year 7 or 8, he makes like $750K a year and bills 1300-1500 and I’m extremely jealous of his situation if you can’t tell.

To put it differently, the state / geographic location where you did these clerkships is the location you should consider focusing your job search on -- that's where your credentials will be most prized/valuable. You shouldn't just reflexively target "major" biglaw markets.

I’m pretty curious about this take, as someone who did a flyover district court clerkship followed by a COA clerkship in a “non-major” (put not flyover) part of the US. Is post-clerkship hiring so difficult now that you have to resign yourself to whatever firms exist in the place that you clerked? Or is this specific to OP?

I did DOJ HP so I don’t have to worry about it, but I have a friend who is about to go through the process and am curious how far their district/COA clerkships will take them if they didn’t have a major market SA position. I heard a lot of conflicting takes—some said it was nothing to worry about, others had the opposite take.

[Anonymous User]

I’m pretty curious about this take, as someone who did a flyover district court clerkship followed by a COA clerkship in a “non-major” (put not flyover) part of the US. Is post-clerkship hiring so difficult now that you have to resign yourself to whatever firms exist in the place that you clerked? Or is this specific to OP?

I did DOJ HP so I don’t have to worry about it, but I have a friend who is about to go through the process and am curious how far their district/COA clerkships will take them if they didn’t have a major market SA position. I heard a lot of conflicting takes—some said it was nothing to worry about, others had the opposite take.

Purely anecdotal opinion, so worth what you're paying for it: I do think that district/COA clerkships are valuable to employers regardless of where they are. Wrt the original OP, a state SC clerkship is an excellent credential, but it tends to carry the most weight locally. The disdain they encountered is weird/wrong (and I wonder if it was just annoying interviewers trying to fuck with them), but they are a little less portable. Certainly doing district/COA local to where you want to work is ideal, but they're still excellent credentials wherever you want to end up, especially the combo.

However, just based on what I've seen, getting major market biglaw out of a clerkship depends in large part on why someone didn't have a major market SA position. The people who seem to struggle most are those who simply weren't a good candidate b/c their school and grades were mediocre. I don't think clerking, especially in other jurisdictions, completely transforms someone that situation (b/c clerkship hiring is weird, it can occasionally happen that someone clerks above their weight, so to speak). If they had the qualifications but chose not to do biglaw previously, they're probably fine. If they struck out for weird reasons (poor bidding, random chance) but have either good grades or a good school, they're probably fine.

To be clear, I think the clerkships should still help them get a decent job even if they have the mediocre grades/school combo, and it's certainly going to be better than not having them. But it may not be a matter of sending applications to only the V[pick a number here] and getting hired in Feb/March. They may have to apply more broadly/wait longer to get something. (or they may not! the other factor, of course, is the market for clerks generally.)

[Anonymous User]

I went to a major market after clerking in flyover areas. That said, I agree with the above poster about giving your local region a serious look. I wasn’t from where I clerked so it didn’t make much sense to stay, but had I been from there, I would have seriously thought about it. Local clerkships in flyover areas set you up well, especially if your judge mentors you or helps you network. You’re basically on a fast track for success and leadership. In a major market, you’re just like every other former clerk from a fancy school--a dime a dozen and no one really cares about your experience in Wyoming or Nebraska or wherever aside from checking the “clerked” box.

[Anonymous User]

Echoing that quality of life for lawyers in the Eighth Circuitish is really high—very good partnership prospects and reasonable hours even at firms that do pretty sophisticated lit. You also tend to get earlier experience because there’s much lower leverage. And of course there’s a big cost of living advantage and with your credentials you could basically work wherever you wanted to. If you like the area I would strongly consider it. Though if you’re literally in the Dakotas you probably need to go to Minneapolis, Omaha, or Des Moines to get the best work.

As far as the SSC thing yeah that’s weird and I think unrepresentative. Your reasons for doing it are normal, their reactions are strange.

[Anonymous User]

(previous anon who did two flyovers and says to consider local region)

I agree with others that the interviewers’ reactions are weird. I suspect it’s grounded in elitism. They assume that people do SSC when they can’t get a “better” clerkship. I think that’s lame, but I’ve definitely seen that perspective in this credential-obsessed profession.

[Anonymous User]

(previous anon who did two flyovers and says to consider local region)

I agree with others that the interviewers’ reactions are weird. I suspect it’s grounded in elitism. They assume that people do SSC when they can’t get a “better” clerkship. I think that’s lame, but I’ve definitely seen that perspective in this credential-obsessed profession.

Maybe it is this, but OP also has a federal district court clerkship so it would be a weird assumption to make.

[alawyer2018]

In re-reading OP's post, I'm doubling down on my recommendation to consider staying in the region of their clerkships. OP said: (a) the fed district clerkship was in their *home* flyover state and (b) the fed judge for whom they clerked was "great friends" with the SSC judge. So, OP is from this region and they already have a seemingly very strong network there. Seems like a fast track to success IMO.

[jotarokujo]

we have no idea why OP is targeting CA and TX but I assume they have considered staying in their home market

OP maybe target lit boutiques that appreciate clerkships more. Plenty of those in CA and TX

[Anonymous User]

we have no idea why OP is targeting CA and TX but I assume they have considered staying in their home market

OP maybe target lit boutiques that appreciate clerkships more. Plenty of those in CA and TX

I have a lot of debt and even the best firms in my home state seem to start at ~40% of what milbank-scale associates make, with little or no bonus for clerking. Even living in a much higher COL region like Dallas or Century City would be offset by the massive salary gap.

Advice taken on the boutiques

[Anonymous User]

I understand why the state Supreme Court clerkship seems weird…if you want to go work for a boutique in NY or CA doing litigation they probably don’t care much about your intricate knowledge of Nebraska’s legal system.

[Anonymous User]

I graduated a t14 and took a federal district clerkship in my home flyover state after graduating. The judge for whom I clerked was great friends with somebody on that state’s supreme court, and we often ate lunch together. I quickly became friends with the SSC judge and they offered me a clerkship as well, which I took. At the time I thought that some appellate experience would be nice and it would further distance me from average law school grades.

Now, I’ve started applying to big law firms in the major markets Im interested in (CA & TX) and two separate screener interviewers told me, unprompted, that my state clerkship was strange. One said it detracted from my candidacy. Both firms have since ghosted me.

Is this salvageable and should I keep applying? I’m a bit worried I’ll be stuck in my home state forever.

You could say that you had a desire to clerk at the appellate level but that you had some obligations you needed to fulfill at home at the same time. You're happy to have gotten the chance to kill two birds with one stone with your SSC clerkship, learned a ton, bla bla, but now things at home are settled and the next step in your career is to be the best California/Texas boutique lawyer bla bla bla.

It's not really even a lie. Everyone has shit they need to handle near home.