Top Law Schools

What approximate class rank is 7H/3P at Harvard? (With one Dean's Scholar)?

Anonymous User wrote:What approximate class rank is 7H/3P at Harvard? (With one Dean's Scholar)?

That's 3.8. At graduation, magna (top 10%) is usually around 3.95. Grades are inflated after 1L, but I'd guess 3.8 after 1L is still below top 10%. I'd think roughly around top 15%

do yearly January 1 pay increases for federal civilian employees apply to federal law clerks? The administration announced a 1.9% pay increase (1.4+0.5 locality) effective Jan. 1, 2018. And there's federal legislation proposing a 3.2% increase (although that's less likely to pass). Does that mean law clerks at JSP-11, 12, 13 will see the same amount, or is the schedule completely different? I've googled the question and come up short.

Thanks!

Clerks get that bump, they are on the judicial salary Plan, which mirrors GS scale.

Is it fine to tutor over the weekend to earn extra money? Things like legal writing etc. for 1Ls or general SAT tutoring etc.? Or is that a breach of ethical duties?

Anonymous User wrote:Is it fine to tutor over the weekend to earn extra money? Things like legal writing etc. for 1Ls or general SAT tutoring etc.? Or is that a breach of ethical duties?

http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/f ... ch03_0.pdf. Look at Canon 4 to see what is allowed.

BulletTooth wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Is it fine to tutor over the weekend to earn extra money? Things like legal writing etc. for 1Ls or general SAT tutoring etc.? Or is that a breach of ethical duties?

http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/f ... ch03_0.pdf. Look at Canon 4 to see what is allowed.

And always ask your judge, who might permit less than the rules allow.

My reading of the canon is that tutoring is fine (judge permitting). Is that what y'all think also?

Anonymous User wrote:My reading of the canon is that tutoring is fine (judge permitting). Is that what y'all think also?

yeah

If a judge opened a position on OSCAR very recently (<10 days ago) and today went to "Filled" is the position for sure filled or is the judge just satisfied with making a pick from the applicants he has?

Anonymous User wrote:If a judge opened a position on OSCAR very recently (<10 days ago) and today went to "Filled" is the position for sure filled or is the judge just satisfied with making a pick from the applicants he has?

Could be either, judges aren't bound by HR regulations or anything like that. Ten days is pretty quick to go from job announcement to hiring, but not implausible at all. If you're asking whether or not to send an application anyway, go for it, it's probably a waste of time but who cares?

Anonymous User wrote:If a judge opened a position on OSCAR very recently (<10 days ago) and today went to "Filled" is the position for sure filled or is the judge just satisfied with making a pick from the applicants he has?

More likely that it was filled, but I don't think you can know for certain.

What downsides are there to taking a third clerkship with a State Supreme Court judge like Thomas Lee, Cuellar, Liu, or Kruger? The first two clerkships would be fed district and CoA. Career goals are public interest (inc. fed gov), not big law.

I think there's a good chance you'll be tired of cleaning by three years in, for one

I think there's a good chance you'll be tired of cleaning by three years in, for one

Anonymous User wrote:What downsides are there to taking a third clerkship with a State Supreme Court judge like Thomas Lee, Cuellar, Liu, or Kruger? The first two clerkships would be fed district and CoA. Career goals are public interest (inc. fed gov), not big law.

You're going to have to make the call for yourself. I did exactly what you're considering (for one of those justices) and I think it's worked out for me so far.

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.

If you're looking to work in DC (or practice in Utah I guess) a Lee clerkship would probably be worth it.

And to the extent OP is ever interested in career clerking in California (pay looks pretty good for what I imagine is a strict 40 hours or less job), I imagine getting one of the rare term clerkships would be a big boost.

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?

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.

I am a Bankruptcy associate beginning my second year at Biglaw firm in NYC. I have a district clerkship lined up for 18-19 in a flyover and am currently applying to COA clerk positions for the following year. I don't think I can make it another month at the firm. It's that bad, I hate it, and want to gtfo asap. I have the opportunity to take on a temporary, 6-month clerkship with an Associate Judge on the DC Superior Court (not magistrate judge).

Would it be foolish of me to take this position w/r/t my career? Will it affect my chances of coming back into biglaw (to do litigation of course)? Will future employers look at the DC clerkship and think, "she only got her district and circuit clerkships because of this?" Am I asking the wrong questions? I dont care about the money I would leave behind, and frankly, before this position came up I was simply thinking about straight-up quitting. It's been that bad for me (not asking for a pity party, just trying to give context), and while I want the money, I don't NEED it to survive / cover my loans. I have been saving aggressively and can make it to the next clerkship.

FYI, I am above median at PVM school range, but not law review.

Anonymous User wrote:I am a Bankruptcy associate beginning my second year at Biglaw firm in NYC. I have a district clerkship lined up for 18-19 in a flyover and am currently applying to COA clerk positions for the following year. I don't think I can make it another month at the firm. It's that bad, I hate it, and want to gtfo asap. I have the opportunity to take on a temporary, 6-month clerkship with an Associate Judge on the DC Superior Court (not magistrate judge).

Would it be foolish of me to take this position w/r/t my career?

I don't know if I would call it "foolish," but I wouldn't do it if I were you.

The temporary, 6-month clerkship is going to signal that you quit abruptly or were fired. Given that you're probably going to have a bit of a rough time landing a post-clerkship job anyway (I'm assuming your goal is general lit in big law), I'd stick it out at your firm until two or three months before your district-court clerkship.

I don't know if I would call it "foolish," but I wouldn't do it if I were you.

The temporary, 6-month clerkship is going to signal that you quit abruptly or were fired. Given that you're probably going to have a bit of a rough time landing a post-clerkship job anyway (I'm assuming your goal is general lit), I'd stick it out at your firm.

I see. That was one of my concerns. So do you believe that there is no way that firms would think or that I would be able to explain in interviews that yeah, I did what the firm asked me to do, I tried to get into litigation and it was a no, I didn't want to do this anymore, so I looked for other opportunities, and there was a temporary clerkship opportunity that aligned perfectly with my timeline and future clerkship? (I say aligns perfectly because, and sorry I should have clarified, the position wouldn't begin until January 2018, which would give me a month between the two clerkships and some time to check out of here and quit first week of December. December because then it looks like I don't have a gap in employment. I can stick it out for that long.) Is this train of thought too naive?

Given that you're probably going to have a bit of a rough time landing a post-clerkship job anyway

Also, why do you say this? Is it because my stats are sub-par and I only have transactional experience at a law firm, or you mean it is difficult in general, or both? Genuinely curious, not challenging your opinion.

Anonymous User wrote:

Given that you're probably going to have a bit of a rough time landing a post-clerkship job anyway

Also, why do you say this? Is it because my stats are sub-par and I only have transactional experience at a law firm, or you mean it is difficult in general, or both? Genuinely curious, not challenging your opinion.

Your stats are not a concern. Above median at PVM is plenty good enough. There are a few firms that would filter you out based on your school/grades even after a clerkship, but those firms are off the table regardless of how you handle the next few months.

Your main problem will be that you'll be four or five years out of law school and will have had only BK experience in practice. That's not a deal killer everywhere, but some firms will pass. And if you read past "clerks looking for employment" threads, you'll see clerks commenting that finding a post-clerkship job was harder than they thought it would be. Clerking isn't as much of a boost as many assume it is.

For the above reasons, I'd hesitate before doing something that might give a firm another reason not to hire (or even interview) you. When we see an an applicant who is several years out of law school who left a prior firm to clerk, the first thing we wonder is: "Does this person really want to work at a law firm?"

To be clear, when I wrote "a bit of a rough time landing a post-clerkship job," I meant the "a bit" part. I'm not suggesting that you're completely screwed if you leave your firm for this six-month temp clerkship. But I do think it could hurt you a little down the road--so, if your goal is to maximize your law-firm opportunities post-clerkship, I'd probably stick it out at your firm for a few more months.