Federal Clerkships, An Overview For Someone Who Didn't Think He'd Get Good Grades Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hi all,

So I just finished 1L at Duke and did way better than I thought I would. I got a ~3.85 GPA, which I think is somewhere in the top 10 students, school doesn't release class rank, but I'm assuming top 2-3%. Now I didn't think I would be in this position, so I have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to clerkships. I want to be a litigator, probably not appellate, but would be open to it. So, I'm wondering a lot of things:

1. If I don't think I'm going to be an appellate litigator and would be clerking for the tangible legal benefits I could gain from the experience, would a district court be a better option than an appellate court, even though the latter is more prestigious?

2. How do I maximize the balance between applying broadly to get a clerkship vs. not wanting to live in certain places/picking up and moving to somewhere not-so-desireable for just a year?

3. What types of clerkships am I competitive for? Is it worth applying to feeder judges?

4. What do judges look for in candidates? I'm good at law school (apparently) but I'm not super cerebral and when someone talks to me I feel like I kind of sound like an average joe ... will that hurt me with all these smart judges?

5. How should the prospect of clerking factor in to my decisions with regards to OCI? How is the hiring process out of clerkships? Is there an expectation to return to the firm you summered with? Is there any location-type factor such as how if someone wants to practice in Indiana they probably should go to IU Law School ... should you attempt to clerk only around where you want to practice or does it not matter so much?

Any thoughts on these topics would be much appreciated. Career/Clerkship office has been only semi-helpful and gives the stock "well those are personal choices to make" rather than at least floating considerations for me to consider in making those choices.

Anon for obvious reasons.

[Anonymous User]

3.85 isn't top 2-3 students at Duke, but comfortably within the top 10.

[Anonymous User]

3.85 isn't top 2-3 students at Duke, but comfortably within the top 10.

Top 10 students, top 2-3% is what I said. You missed the %. Any advice on the topic?

[rpupkin]

1. Yes, a district-court clerkship would be more useful. And law students generally overvalue the "prestige" of a COA clerkship. If you're going to do one clerkship, I suggest doing a district-court clerkship.

2. Your grades are strong enough that you probably can get away with focusing on geographic areas you want to live in, so long as those areas aren't super-competitive—e.g., don't just apply to clerkships in SF and DC.

3. You're competitive for district court and COA clerkships. At Duke, top 2% - 3% isn't good enough for most feeder judges, but you'll have a shot if you get the right prof/recommender on your side. You should talk to Duke's clerkship office/advisor about this.

4. It always helps to be a great conversationalist, but it's not a prerequisite to getting a clerkship. I'd continue to practice your interview skills but I otherwise wouldn't worry about this.

5. This is a non-factor. Don't allow theoretical clerkship opportunities to impact your approach to OCI, or vice versa.

[mjb447]

Re: not being "super cerebral" in conversation, with lots of judges that won't come up, at least until you're already hired. Many clerkship interviews are more about seeing if you're normal and pleasant enough to work around in close quarters for a year or two. (It's also not a prerequisite to excelling as a clerk, at least in most chambers - writing and research skills, conscientiousness/work ethic, and being pleasant to work with all tend to be higher on the list.)

Generally agree with rpupkin's answers, except I don't have enough experience with Duke or feeders to comment on the second half of #3.

ETA It's also context somewhat dependent. If you write a note, sure, the judge will probably expect you to be able to talk intelligently about the issues in it. It's less likely that you'll be expected to be conversant with something you have no reason to be familiar with.

[Anonymous User]

Hi all,

So I just finished 1L at Duke and did way better than I thought I would. I got a ~3.85 GPA, which I think is somewhere in the top 10 students, school doesn't release class rank, but I'm assuming top 2-3%. Now I didn't think I would be in this position, so I have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to clerkships. I want to be a litigator, probably not appellate, but would be open to it. So, I'm wondering a lot of things:

1. If I don't think I'm going to be an appellate litigator and would be clerking for the tangible legal benefits I could gain from the experience, would a district court be a better option than an appellate court, even though the latter is more prestigious?

2. How do I maximize the balance between applying broadly to get a clerkship vs. not wanting to live in certain places/picking up and moving to somewhere not-so-desireable for just a year?

3. What types of clerkships am I competitive for? Is it worth applying to feeder judges?

4. What do judges look for in candidates? I'm good at law school (apparently) but I'm not super cerebral and when someone talks to me I feel like I kind of sound like an average joe ... will that hurt me with all these smart judges?

5. How should the prospect of clerking factor in to my decisions with regards to OCI? How is the hiring process out of clerkships? Is there an expectation to return to the firm you summered with? Is there any location-type factor such as how if someone wants to practice in Indiana they probably should go to IU Law School ... should you attempt to clerk only around where you want to practice or does it not matter so much?

Any thoughts on these topics would be much appreciated. Career/Clerkship office has been only semi-helpful and gives the stock "well those are personal choices to make" rather than at least floating considerations for me to consider in making those choices.

Anon for obvious reasons.

All the advice on this thread is good. A couple random things I will add:

#4 might actually help you with some judges, assuming if by "average Joe" you mean "someone with social skills who doesn't sound like he does law and nothing else." Your grades demonstrate that you have legal reasoning ability, and especially if you have a strong writing sample, the judge won't be worried about worried about your capacity to do the work. Many judges will appreciate someone who comes off as "normal" instead of academic, although especially at the COA level there are some judges that prefer the future-professor type.

In terms of where to apply, any district clerkship in the country is going to be a valuable career asset if you're going to be a litigator. Because you're pretty early for 2019 and your grades are so good I'd recommend focusing your applications on judges in the market you want to practice in, and in the districts where your prospective future employers might do a lot of litigation. Obviously if your target market is NY, DC, or SF you can't just target those ultra-competitive districts, but if you're shooting for another city I would begin by applying to the entire district that city is located in.

[stumpy]

Hi all,

So I just finished 1L at Duke and did way better than I thought I would. I got a ~3.85 GPA, which I think is somewhere in the top 10 students, school doesn't release class rank, but I'm assuming top 2-3%. Now I didn't think I would be in this position, so I have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to clerkships. I want to be a litigator, probably not appellate, but would be open to it. So, I'm wondering a lot of things:

1. If I don't think I'm going to be an appellate litigator and would be clerking for the tangible legal benefits I could gain from the experience, would a district court be a better option than an appellate court, even though the latter is more prestigious?

2. How do I maximize the balance between applying broadly to get a clerkship vs. not wanting to live in certain places/picking up and moving to somewhere not-so-desireable for just a year?

3. What types of clerkships am I competitive for? Is it worth applying to feeder judges?

4. What do judges look for in candidates? I'm good at law school (apparently) but I'm not super cerebral and when someone talks to me I feel like I kind of sound like an average joe ... will that hurt me with all these smart judges?

5. How should the prospect of clerking factor in to my decisions with regards to OCI? How is the hiring process out of clerkships? Is there an expectation to return to the firm you summered with? Is there any location-type factor such as how if someone wants to practice in Indiana they probably should go to IU Law School ... should you attempt to clerk only around where you want to practice or does it not matter so much?

Any thoughts on these topics would be much appreciated. Career/Clerkship office has been only semi-helpful and gives the stock "well those are personal choices to make" rather than at least floating considerations for me to consider in making those choices.

Anon for obvious reasons.

Duke Law grad and current DJ clerk here. You should reach out to the clerkship director (I think that's what the position is called; it's a different person now from when I was there). She will get you in contact with the right people to get the ball rolling. Feel free to PM me if you want more details or have any questions.

[Anonymous User]

(a classmate here)

you gotta push the clerkships office yourself. assume you got the email with list of OSCAR judges? Make a ranked list, send it in for feedback, and start writing cover letters. If you're looking to apply to CoA there's no reason to not be going now.

[lolwat]

4. What do judges look for in candidates? I'm good at law school (apparently) but I'm not super cerebral and when someone talks to me I feel like I kind of sound like an average joe ... will that hurt me with all these smart judges?

All the advice on this thread is good. A couple random things I will add:

#4 might actually help you with some judges, assuming if by "average Joe" you mean "someone with social skills who doesn't sound like he does law and nothing else." Your grades demonstrate that you have legal reasoning ability, and especially if you have a strong writing sample, the judge won't be worried about worried about your capacity to do the work. Many judges will appreciate someone who comes off as "normal" instead of academic, although especially at the COA level there are some judges that prefer the future-professor type.

In terms of where to apply, any district clerkship in the country is going to be a valuable career asset if you're going to be a litigator. Because you're pretty early for 2019 and your grades are so good I'd recommend focusing your applications on judges in the market you want to practice in, and in the districts where your prospective future employers might do a lot of litigation. Obviously if your target market is NY, DC, or SF you can't just target those ultra-competitive districts, but if you're shooting for another city I would begin by applying to the entire district that city is located in.

#4 probably helps most with judges that were trial lawyers before they became a judge. Those are the judges that most ordinary people can relate to because they spent their entire careers talking to juries -- and probably also the most likely to see the value in being an "average joe" rather than a "super cerebral" person.

I can't help any more than what everyone else has already said though. Your school's clerkship director/office might be the best resource at this point given your ranking.

[Barrred]

2. How do I maximize the balance between applying broadly to get a clerkship vs. not wanting to live in certain places/picking up and moving to somewhere not-so-desireable for just a year?

All of the above answers are great. I'm responding to this one because its a pet peeve of mine (and maybe one where I diverge from conventional TLS advice).

I cant stand when people (both on TLS and in clerkship offices/professor office hours across the country) essentially shame people into applying more broadly than they are comfortable doing. There is a fine line between encouraging an applicant to expand their thinking/comfort zone and outright pressuring applicants to apply to places they have zero desire to live and work for a year.

I think that it is entirely rational to have a very geographically limited application strategy, and you shouldn't let people convince you to apply somewhere you aren't comfortable moving (obviously you have to think hard and make up your own mind first on where you are comfortable moving for a clerkship). Now, that said, if your applications are very geographically limited (especially if limited to a competitive area like LA/SF or NYC/DC), you have to accept the possibility that you wont get a clerkship, but for many people thats fine. The "apply broadly!!!!!!!!1111" advice is mostly applicable to people with no personal/professional/family ties to a geographic area, are relatively young/early in their careers, and have a "clerkship-or-bust" mentality. I would argue that the majority of clerkship applicants don't fall squarely in this category.

Think long and hard about where you would feel comfortable moving to clerk for a year or two, thinking about your short and long-term career goals as well as your tolerance for the risk of not getting a clerkship at all, and then apply as broadly as you feel comfortable doing. Don't let people make you feel bad for geographically limiting your applications if you have spent a lot of time thinking about the issue.

[bretby]

2. How do I maximize the balance between applying broadly to get a clerkship vs. not wanting to live in certain places/picking up and moving to somewhere not-so-desireable for just a year?

All of the above answers are great. I'm responding to this one because its a pet peeve of mine (and maybe one where I diverge from conventional TLS advice).

I cant stand when people (both on TLS and in clerkship offices/professor office hours across the country) essentially shame people into applying more broadly than they are comfortable doing. There is a fine line between encouraging an applicant to expand their thinking/comfort zone and outright pressuring applicants to apply to places they have zero desire to live and work for a year.

I think that it is entirely rational to have a very geographically limited application strategy, and you shouldn't let people convince you to apply somewhere you aren't comfortable moving (obviously you have to think hard and make up your own mind first on where you are comfortable moving for a clerkship). Now, that said, if your applications are very geographically limited (especially if limited to a competitive area like LA/SF or NYC/DC), you have to accept the possibility that you wont get a clerkship, but for many people thats fine. The "apply broadly!!!!!!!!1111" advice is mostly applicable to people with no personal/professional/family ties to a geographic area, are relatively young/early in their careers, and have a "clerkship-or-bust" mentality. I would argue that the majority of clerkship applicants don't fall squarely in this category.

Think long and hard about where you would feel comfortable moving to clerk for a year or two, thinking about your short and long-term career goals as well as your tolerance for the risk of not getting a clerkship at all, and then apply as broadly as you feel comfortable doing. Don't let people make you feel bad for geographically limiting your applications if you have spent a lot of time thinking about the issue.

I disagree with this. While I think there are some people who truly cannot move for a year, the numbers are relatively low. Apart from having children/being the caretaker for a family member, moving for a year is not unreasonable. People shouldn't "make you feel bad" for limiting yourself geographically, but make sure if you are limiting yourself and you do want a clerkship that your reason for doing so is really solid.

[lavarman84]

2. How do I maximize the balance between applying broadly to get a clerkship vs. not wanting to live in certain places/picking up and moving to somewhere not-so-desireable for just a year?

All of the above answers are great. I'm responding to this one because its a pet peeve of mine (and maybe one where I diverge from conventional TLS advice).

I cant stand when people (both on TLS and in clerkship offices/professor office hours across the country) essentially shame people into applying more broadly than they are comfortable doing. There is a fine line between encouraging an applicant to expand their thinking/comfort zone and outright pressuring applicants to apply to places they have zero desire to live and work for a year.

I think that it is entirely rational to have a very geographically limited application strategy, and you shouldn't let people convince you to apply somewhere you aren't comfortable moving (obviously you have to think hard and make up your own mind first on where you are comfortable moving for a clerkship). Now, that said, if your applications are very geographically limited (especially if limited to a competitive area like LA/SF or NYC/DC), you have to accept the possibility that you wont get a clerkship, but for many people thats fine. The "apply broadly!!!!!!!!1111" advice is mostly applicable to people with no personal/professional/family ties to a geographic area, are relatively young/early in their careers, and have a "clerkship-or-bust" mentality. I would argue that the majority of clerkship applicants don't fall squarely in this category.

Think long and hard about where you would feel comfortable moving to clerk for a year or two, thinking about your short and long-term career goals as well as your tolerance for the risk of not getting a clerkship at all, and then apply as broadly as you feel comfortable doing. Don't let people make you feel bad for geographically limiting your applications if you have spent a lot of time thinking about the issue.

You're ranting about something that isn't really an issue. The apply broadly advice is generally given to people who have no geographic preference and want to clerk. When someone states a geographic preference, people generally let them know how competitive the courts in that region are and might warn them of the possibility of not getting a clerkship if they choose only to apply in that region. There's nothing wrong with that.

Frankly, I think most people don't know whether or not they'd enjoy living somewhere unless they have been to that region. The city I will be clerking in is quite different from what I assumed it to be. I had no preferences, so I applied broadly. I was a little nervous about the city I landed my clerkship in because I had never been there and made assumptions about what it would be like. When I visited, I found it to be very different from what I assumed, and I'm excited to have an opportunity to experience living in a new part of the country.

[Barrred]

You're ranting about something that isn't really an issue. The apply broadly advice is generally given to people who have no geographic preference and want to clerk. When someone states a geographic preference, people generally let them know how competitive the courts in that region are and might warn them of the possibility of not getting a clerkship if they choose only to apply in that region. There's nothing wrong with that.

Frankly, I think most people don't know whether or not they'd enjoy living somewhere unless they have been to that region. The city I will be clerking in is quite different from what I assumed it to be. I had no preferences, so I applied broadly. I was a little nervous about the city I landed my clerkship in because I had never been there and made assumptions about what it would be like. When I visited, I found it to be very different from what I assumed, and I'm excited to have an opportunity to experience living in a new part of the country.

Thats fair. My perception of this being an issue is not so much what I have witnessed on TLS, and more-so what I have witnessed in real life by a few aggressive professors and clerkship coordinators at a couple schools (think: pressuring a gay guy who is from/wants to return to California to apply to magistrate judges in rural cities across the deep south). Hopefully these are just outliers and this isn't an issue for most people.

[lavarman84]

You're ranting about something that isn't really an issue. The apply broadly advice is generally given to people who have no geographic preference and want to clerk. When someone states a geographic preference, people generally let them know how competitive the courts in that region are and might warn them of the possibility of not getting a clerkship if they choose only to apply in that region. There's nothing wrong with that.

Frankly, I think most people don't know whether or not they'd enjoy living somewhere unless they have been to that region. The city I will be clerking in is quite different from what I assumed it to be. I had no preferences, so I applied broadly. I was a little nervous about the city I landed my clerkship in because I had never been there and made assumptions about what it would be like. When I visited, I found it to be very different from what I assumed, and I'm excited to have an opportunity to experience living in a new part of the country.

Thats fair. My perception of this being an issue is not so much what I have witnessed on TLS, and more-so what I have witnessed in real life by a few aggressive professors and clerkship coordinators at a couple schools (think: pressuring a gay guy who is from/wants to return to California to apply to magistrate judges in rural cities across the deep south). Hopefully these are just outliers and this isn't an issue for most people.

Yea, that's shitty. They have ulterior motives, as we all know.