Anonymous User wrote: lolwat wrote:
jd20132013 wrote:I think there's a good chance you'll be tired of cleaning by three years in, for one
Assuming that meant clerking and not “cleaning,” I’m not sure that will be the case for the OP. All three clerkships are at different levels, focusing on different aspects of the litigation process.
The pay will suck but if the goal is public interest, it must not really matter...
The potential downside is having 3 years of clerking on the resume. Then again, if OP is looking to stay in CA, I think the only thing that would look better on a resume than CD/NDCA, 9th Cir., and CASCT clerkships is a SCOTUS clerkship. Not sure how other places view CASCT clerkships.
Really? I think the CA legal market is sophisticated enough to appreciate non-SCOTUS federal clerkships outside of CA, and likely more so than certain CASCT ones. Are you really saying CASCT over CADC?
Clerking on the CASCT is a relatively rare phenomenon before Justice Liu and it's still relatively uncommon since only three justices hire term clerks, and not all hire term clerks for all of their spots, so it's sort of tough to tell. All three justices who hire term clerks are really well-regarded and the people they hire basically have feeder clerkship stats though, so it's not necessarily like other SSC justices in other states who might prefer to hire locally and end up with clerks who don't otherwise have feeder clerkship stats. (I could be wrong about Kruger; most of my info is Cuellar and Liu clerks.)
Also, I don't know if I'd call it a matter of sophistication. It's sort of like how firms here love UCLA and USC kids even though there are other schools in the T20 that are just as good as those two schools. Everybody appreciates clerkships, no matter where you did them. But as a general matter--with exceptions--CDCA/NDCA is looked more favorably upon than other districts (especially non-CA districts) and 9th Circuit is generally looked upon more favorably than other circuits (with exception of Fed. Cir. for patent lit, and possibly D.C. Cir. for prestige).
My previous post was also referring to somebody who will be clerking for three years at the district, federal appellate, and then CASCT levels. I'd take CASCT over a second federal appellate clerkship any day (unless that "federal appellate clerkship" happens to be SCOTUS). There's just not that much value to, for example, clerking on the 6th Circuit and then taking a second clerkship at the D.C Circuit. Even if you had to choose one appellate clerkship and it's between CASCT and the D.C. Circuit, and you're dead set on being in California, I'd choose CASCT.