Obviously there are a lot of things to consider after you have your post-clerkship job lined up, but here are two to give serious thought to: start date and payment of the clerkship bonus (if any).
Most of the clerks I know were able to get a start date sometime 4-6-8 weeks after the end of the clerkship and probably 3/4 were able to get their clerkship bonus either in full or in part upon completion of their clerkship. The latter is good if you are planning to take some time off (highly recommended by the way) in between the clerkship and the new job. Obviously these are outliers; we all know some firms don't pay a clerkship bonus, or pay their bonus after the first year of working; other firms want you to start right away, and you may want to start right away. In general, however, these two things seemed pretty easy to negotiate, and I would be willing to bet that most firms are more than willing to work with you to ensure you are rested and ready to go by the time you start.
Also, don't forget to factor in the time it takes to move - it's a much bigger pain in the ass then you may initially think. Add another week after you plan on moving in case you aren't sure.
And for those starting off clerking (or have already started), now is the time to start looking for that post-clerkship job (assuming you aren't looking for a second (or third) clerkship. In a lot of ways, you are on the same schedule as a third year law student, and competing against them just the same (with obvious benefits - bar passage (when it comes), clerkship, general coolness, etc.).
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Things for a clerk to negotiate when weighing their post-clerkship options
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Less than two weeks to go, and probably less if i use the last of my vacation time
It has been incredibly busy, which I still think is kind of odd, but mainly because I have been trapped with the school mentality that August is the end of summer where everything is comfortably slow, and I guess I'm just going to have to get used to the fact that the answer is "not necessarily."
I am certainly looking forward to getting this clerkship bonus, which should help cover some upcoming travel plans. In the meantime, I need to finalize my fantasy football draft and see if can improve again from last year's paltry finish. I can tell you one person that I won't be drafting this year, and that is Shaun Alexander.
And has anyone else noticed that the price of gas has dropped without anything fundamental changing besides consumer supply and demand? Interesting indeed. I do love how quickly the news has jumped from the headlines of "oil could be $300/barrel" or "pickens plan estimates oil to hit $200 by december" to "oil could be $65 by the end of the month" and other estimates which basically demonstrate without ambiguity that nobody understands this mess. At least in a couple months I will not have to worry so much about that particular expense.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Clerk bluebooking
What is interesting, at least to me (and only to a certain degree) is how different some of my co-clerks' styles are when it comes to the bluebook. Obviously it controls, but there are certainly liberties taken sometimes with how short cites, reference cites, books, typeface, parentheticals, etc. are used. I'm sort of surprised it isn't unified within the courts, but I suppose that would make for a very boring job if all one had to do all day was double check cites and make everything conform to the same system.
In the end, as long as I can figure out what or where the reference is coming from, I can judge for myself whether the sentence that was cited to is accurate or a little bit of a push. Of course, when the attorneys do it in their brief, and they cite to a west headnote page and not the actual page, that sort of mistake is not only infuriating, it makes me that less inclined to have any confidence in the explanation of why the judge did or did not make a bad ruling. Then I think to myself, if I'm just a novice at this and I can figure it out, is there that much overload in work that that person couldn't?
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Attorney frustration
Sometimes, and without tipping any cards or hands, I read some of these attorney briefs and wonder what are these people thinking? Granted, while some, if not a majority of the briefs we receive are written very well, every so often we get some that make me wonder how these attorneys can, with a straight face, argue that Case X says Y (when it clearly says Z). Read more!
Friday, February 22, 2008
Opinions left and right
I've been pretty busy working on several things lately. One I worked on recently even got mentioned in a major metropolitan newspaper, so that was a feather in the cap, so to speak. I still am gathering my thoughts now that I'm over the six month hump, so maybe I'll have time next week to pontificate about that.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The separation of facts from reality
As I've alluded to several times (I think) over the past few months, I cannot discuss the substance of most of my work for the court (and obviously the merits of a case are out of the question). It's the nature of the profession I suppose. Because some of my work deals with criminal matters (as much of appellate work covers I would say), I find it much easier to think about facts in theory than in reality. Let me explain.
Take any criminal matter, or at least one that encompasses very disturbing facts. On paper, it's easy to equate law from previous cases and not really think about the nitty gritty. And, leaving the whole golden rule argument out of this discussion, I'm left to wonder (not much, but a little) how much of an impact court opinions have beyond the legal world. The facts are the same for both legal eagles and the average joe or jane, but obviously to the victim (or the defendant for that matter), they take on a much different context.
Put another way, in creating "law" so to speak, isn't there some inherent thought about the consequences of the words the court uses? I'm not talking about the legal sense per se, but more for the victims who (likely) never read these legal opinions. And the newspapers that report on them. I can't count how many times I've read an article that completely misses the point of an opinion, or adds in flowery language that really makes the court look biased. It's infuriating.
In the end, I'm probably making a little something about nothing. The non-lawyer's take on an issue (and to some degree, the court of public opinion) has only certain bearings on the profession. It's the public opinion when a potentially negative (or positive) case comes out, however, that has sparked this particular topic.
I remember during my first winter break from law school, I was at a party and my neighbor was complaining about the way that criminals can break into houses, get assaulted by the homeowner defending his or her property, and then can sue the homeowner for damages. I sort of remember this being an episode of Boston Legal, and obviously there are plenty of defenses that make it less likely that the criminal will win this one, but the fact that he thought this was the actual state of legal affairs bothered me. And in light of some of the cases I've been working on, I sometimes wonder whether the court (and to a certain extent, myself) am partly responsible for these misperceptions.
In the end, I can't let it bother me, and I must conclude that the court is not responsible (or if it is, a higher court will correct it). Nor can I put much stock into how the press attacks the US Supreme Court for being either too liberal or not liberal enough. All I can say is that I do the best I can and try and be as objective and persuasive as I can be, and hope whatever aspect of the law I am working on is presented as true to the spirit of the caselaw as it can be. And if it's bulletproof to a further appeal or motion, that's good too. If only the briefs were as objective and thought about this when presenting their version of facts.
Anyway, my thoughts on why both Journeyman and Heroes has dropped off of my television list will have to wait until later this week. On that note, if anyone from the major networks is willing to pay me what I'll be making next year in a big firm, I'll gladly work with a team of other law clerks on a comedy series that is sure to succeed on Tuesday or Thursday nights.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The Road Less Taken
One of my favorite poems is Robert Frost's The Road Not Taken. So, when I saw ATL's link about Sen. Barack Obama's decision to forgo the clerkship route for greener pastures, I thought it would make an interesting read. And it certainly does. See The Man That Got Away: Judges Dreamed of Having Barack Obama as their clerk. Why did he turn them all down?
Since I went the appeals route, and will be heading to a big firm next year, I sometimes wonder if this is the correct path or not. That, however, calls for a much longer entry and right now I simply do not have to the time to give it to the due diligence that it deserves. I did hear a story the other day of a similar choice made by another clerk years ago. Allegedly, this particular clerk had an offer from Skadden: New York and decided after a year of clerking that he was less enamored with the prospect of corporate law and decided to go work for the public defender's office. Good for this clerk.
Myself, I don't have that luxury for two reasons: one, I highly doubt I would be a public defender, and two, I think I am going to enjoy big firm life and big firm work. While this answer may be different five years from now, I can only hope that it's not. Nonetheless, being in a somewhat similar position (although not from Chicago), I can certainly respect not taking the lesser traveled path and forging through one's own. As Frost says, sometimes the road less traveled makes all the difference. The caveat, as Jerry Seinfeld put it, is that sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason. To each his (or her) own.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Unbelievably busy days
Who would think December would be so hectic? In either case, my schedule is finally starting to settle down again and so I thought I would chime in on what I think is the most interesting internet/free speech/criminal law question around nowadays and that is this cyberspace myspace case in Missouri. The brief facts are that one girl (Megan Meier) pretended to be a boy named Josh, created a relationship with another girl who became devastated when "Josh" told her something that upset this girl, who then hung herself. I'm going to have to spend some more time thinking about this one, and I can't imagine this bizarro fact pattern would show up on the east coast, but the case certainly could represent an interesting intersection of free speech and criminal liability. I would imagine the national press this case has already gotten will spurn some great commentary from more educated free speech enthusiasts.
My thoughts, and they are really only limited to a couple of articles since I'm almost two weeks behind in my RSS feeder, is that free speech may not protect her on this one. Unlike being a pamphleteer shouting from his internet soapbox, this is much more targeted. Somehow I don't think the framers had this sort of thing in mind in protecting speech. But I guess that will be up to either the Missouri courts or some Missouri district court to decide. Should be interesting.
I will save my comments about the recent Supreme Court crack/powder cocaine case after I've read more about it. Since my clerkship doesn't have too much to do with sentencing, I'm not sure how much my ivory tower opinion would matter on this one.
I'm also thinking of taking another bar or at least exploring other parts of the east coast. More on that after I investigate this whole reciprocity idea.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Legal rumors and some thoughts about hourly pay
First, I've heard multiple rumors now of a NY bar result listing coming by the end of this week (based on last year's results posting) and another that says they won't be out until December because of the computer related issues discussed earlier this summer. I will stick with my belief that the results will be out before Thanksgiving, as vague as that may be.
I have a couple of other topics I may or may not have time to write about this week; namely they involve the importance of law review and first semester grades in the clerkship process. In case I don't have time to write about it, I reemphasize my assertion that law review is probably the most important thing for you to have on your resume for BigLaw or BigClerkships. While it's not necessary, I think that you are necessarily handicapping yourself if you aren't on a law review.
Granted, if you're at Harvard, NYU, Yale, and maybe a couple others, you can probably graduate last and still do okay. Everywhere else, I think you need to be closer to the top 50%. And even that is probably being generous outside of the top 20 or so schools. As I have stated numerous times in this blog, if you aren't in the top of your class (with a sliding scale as to what is the "top" depending on your law school) and if you aren't on a law review, you are struggling to find good work (more on salary considerations below).
Also, while I'm at it, if you're not on the top law review at your non-top 10 school, I want a good explanation as to why not, if it comes up in an interview. More on other interviewing tips (do's and don'ts) from the perspective of a clerk in another entry.
One new tip though; you should assume that I was editor-in-chief of my law review (even though I, admittedly, was not) and have a good idea of what your position does. I would argue that anyone with a board position knows what every type of board position does and associates those positions on their law reviews with the people that were in them. For some positions and in some law reviews or journals, I'm sure that hurts some people by no fault of their own. Nevertheless, if you're interviewing for a clerkship, this is a fair question. And you should also assume that I am aware of the Washington & Lee law review rankings. Don't bullshit a bullshitter.
And now, my thoughts on hourly pay for BigLaw and Clerks. (By clerks, I also include small firm salaries that are in the, say, $75k to start range, even though that may be generous). Second, I recognize that statistics are easily manipulated to prove a point.
Let's say that a Biglaw firm requires 2000 billable hours a year, which, assuming a 50-week year (2 weeks vacation), is a 40 hour billable work week. Assuming that all rumors of an average of 80 working hours/week is true, the numbers wind up getting tweaked a little. I think (based on my friends who are currently at big firms), a 60-80 hour/week isn't that unrealistic. So I'll go for three estimates. One uses a conservative multiplier of 1.3 working hours for every billable hour. That would give you a 52 hour week, or 2600 hours. The second will use a 1.5 hour multiplier, giving you a 60 hour week, or 3000 hours. The second will use the 80 hour week, or 4000 hours. I would suspect that on average, the real number is somewhere in the middle of the middle.
Now let's say that the big firms pay $160k, even though I know that isn't representative of the entire BigLaw market. Now, not taking out deductions for IRA, and assuming federal, state, and city taxes chomp away about 50% of your base salary (exclusive of bonuses), you are going to clear about $100,000 after Uncle Sam takes his cut. Assuming this is correct, and in my 2500 hours/year working week, you are making almost $40/hour. In my 3000 hour/year working week, you are making $33 an hour, and in the dreaded 80 hour work week, you are making a whopping $25/hour. And keep in mind, this is the New York scale, and obviously different markets are lower.
Now, say you took a government or small firms job, which purports to work you only about 50 hours a week on average. If you're starting salary is between $60 and 75k, you are probably pulling in around $50k after taxes. Unlike the big firms, I think you are more likely to be closer to the 52 or 60 hour work week (2600/3000) on average rather than an 80 hour week, but you could also be in the 45/hour week on average if you don't have billables (e.g., public defender or prosecutor). If you work 2600 hours/year (the 52 hour workweek) for $50k, that works out to about $20/hour. At 3000 and 4000, your time is worth only $17 and $12.50, respectively.
What I find interesting with this perspective is the close intersection with the BigFirm 80 hour weeks ($25/hour) and the small firms typical 52 hour week ($19.23/hour). So, one way to evaluate your time is that your big firm value is only $5/hour more than small firm value. I think Above the Law had a similar thread on this a while back, but the point is the same. Just based on time, your value as a lawyer at a BigFirm and at a small firm, is essentially the same.
Now, obviously, at a big firm, you are working many more hours, and you are getting paid far better for the time that you work. In that sense, it's a numbers game. In another, I just wonder if your free time becomes that much less valuable and how much weight that should be given.
Regardless of whether my math is right, or whether you agree or not, my point with this exercise isn't with the money at all. It is that this whole exercise will never happen for 99% of law school graduates. This is the much bigger problem, especially given the staggering numbers of bar-exam takers being churned out by the 180 or so ABA schools and however many non-ABA law schools there are (and LLM's are another category all together).
I can't tell you how many people (clerks and current law students/non-lawyers) that are under the delusional perspective that people are graduating with these BigFirm options. To be certain, they are not. It's one reason law review is that much more important nowadays. And good grades. And creating opportunity for yourself if you were initially handicapped by a bad LSAT and aren't at Harvard, Yale, NYU, Columbia or the rest of the so-called top 20.
This is going somewhere, but I've had enough of this ramble for now. I have to watch tv and destress that way rather than by writing more on work stuff and next year's considerations. Fortunately, I will be trying to balance the $25-40/hour jobs with my rigid television schedule.
Monday, October 15, 2007
The fun of really researching an issue
One thing that I miss from my law review days is the ability to commiserate and complain about various authors' "suggestions" and "papers" (and "ideas") to my fellow board members. As a clerk, the only comparable experience is with the written "briefs" and the "ideas" contained therein to my fellow clerks. But that is not my point to this particular entry. Unlike law school, where you can discuss various aspects of the legal world with your study group or other law school friends or professors, your ability to do so is limited to the court in which you work. And depending on your court rules and judge, maybe it's limited to your chambers. I certainly respect and understand the confidentiality and reasoning behind such rules, but it makes for that much more ground work and hope that your reasoning on a complex issue is right. And in the end, if you're wrong, I guess that gives the academic world something to write about.
In that sense it's no different than how you do work around a firm. Unlike the firm though, the universe of people you can bounce work-related ideas off of is much smaller (acknowledging the universe in a firm is small as it is). It's frustrating in some senses that you see or read something interesting related to a case you are working on and are duty bound not to talk about it. I guess that's the experience that a firm pays for when you get hired post-clerkship. Nevertheless, it's pretty annoying. Less may be more, but sometimes you need more in order to say less if that makes any sense.
On a related note, I saw that the AP wire had picked up a story on something I had worked on (this was last week or the week before, and left over from last year's clerk, but still). It's funny reading things written by a non-lawyer trying to interpret a legal document. Oh, the things you miss, AP reporter. Of course, I also remember a former clerk telling me about some commentator's blog entry about a case, and she told me that the blogger totally got caught up on a sentence in the case that was utterly unimportant to the issues. To both types of interpreters, I can only say that with my various entries, I try and explain things the best I can. With my opinions, I obviously put a lot more effort in. I think the key word with published stuff is "effort." If the WSJ can't do it, I'm not sure what the average newspaper reader is being led to believe. I would venture to say that the answer is "whatever the writer wants the reader to believe." Such biased reporting is fine for blogs, I guess, but somewhere along the line, I think the newspaper has lost its focus. Speaking of which, this entry is long enough and football is about to come on.
In more cheerful news (and unrelated to the topic at hand), a couple of my friends who took the Virginia bar tell me that the results are due out by the end of the week. According to the Virginia Board of Bar examiners website, they are due out Oct. 18. My friends who took Texas, South Carolina and the remaining states still are a few more weeks away, but the day to announce whether or not I passed the bar is certainly inching closer.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Behind the Scenes of an Appellate Court: Clerkship 101
Someone posted a question asking me to describe what my experience as a clerk has been so far. I think if you ask any clerk about their clerkship experience, you're going to get a different story every time. Obviously my story will get better as the year goes on, but I am happy to give my take on my first month of working behind the scenes of an appellate court.
Compared to working in a firm, the first big difference is that you aren't accountable for your time (for the most part). You have plenty of work to do to keep you busy, and obviously organization helps, but you can spend as little or as long as you want on an issue. As long as you get your assignments done on time, with everything perfect, you're doing great. So, in that sense, it is like doing work for a partner or associate; on the other, it's very academic. If you like that sort of thing, you should consider doing a clerkship for a year.
For federal clerkships, I know there is a real trend in working for two or three years before going applying or doing a district court clerkship first, but if you have strong credentials, you will still be fine and still have a good shot. Only about half of the people you'll work with who will be a little older (besides the secretaries and judges). For state clerkships, I think it's a little different, but from my friends who are clerks in state courts, most are right out of law school or clerked somewhere else for a year first. In either case, you will need to have a high GPA, be or have been on a law review, and have an ability to communicate why you want to be a clerk. Once you're in the door, and have accepted your offer, the question turns to this: What's it like to be a clerk? Here's my answer. I'm sure for trial court clerks, their answers would vary.
As far as the learning curve and workload, it all depends. The first month has had some long days, and some shorter days (no golfing days yet). I think the first thing you need to pick up quick is how your judge (and your court) writes. The easiest way to do that is to find opinions that have been previously written in the same area of law that you are working on. For novel things, I usually try and pattern other well-written opinions (or at least ones that seem to be well-written). The faster you can pick up on your judge's writing style, the faster you will get to the top of the curve. Of course, you'll always have to take the edits you are given and learn from them. I would say that it's a work in progress. As far as technical stuff, get used to using short, concise sentences in the active voice.
As far as whether I think I was prepared for the clerkship when it started, I would say I was. Of course, working as an articles editor certainly helped with the bluebook aspect of things, but each court has its own nuances that you have to pick up. For the most part, courts follow the bluebook, so I would make sure that you learn as much as you can from the senior members of your law review if you have any interest in clerking. Of course, there's probably a judge in the court that is far superior to you in editing and can help you out if need be.
Would I have done anything different so far? I think it's too early to tell. Personally, I'm pretty organized, so I can schedule my work day around my assignments fairly easily. Of course, you never know what comes up that needs to be taken care of, so you have to be able to switch gears at a moment's notice. You should also be nice to all the clerks and secretaries. They have been there longer than you, and will remember you if you're good, and even more if you're a jerk.
Is my judge easy to work with? Yes. The most important thing you are looking to get out of the clerkship is mentoring, so if you're personable, it should be easy to get along with most judges. Some judges are more personable than others though, so every clerkship will be different. I'm sure some judges are harder to work with than others, and that's the nature of the working world anyway. I think you just have to hope to luck out. For the most part, you should. One of the most rewarding things you'll get out of the clerkship is the conversations with the judge about the law.
Will you learn a lot? Absolutely. If anything, you'll get an appreciation for how the court thinks about things. You'll also see how ... diverse lawyer's writing styles are. I think you'll be, let's say, surprised at the range of briefs you'll get. You'll be a better writer by the end of your clerkship, that's a guarantee.
I think that's enough for now. The only other thing I would say is important is to get along with all your co-clerks. Dating them is another post for another day. Either way, they are in the same boat with you and pretty much the extent of your social circle for this year of your life.
I'm happy to write about any other questions. Post away.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Clerks, benefits, resumes, and post-bar life
One of my friends who clerks for one of the district courts (who has since passed the bar of her state) tells me that a lot of her non-law school friends have been asking, "Well, what kind of work are you going to do now that you passed the bar?" To which she replies (to the effect of): "I work as a clerk, I'll do that until the clerkship is over." And the reaction is, unsurprisingly, one of utter confusion. As a clerk, are you a lawyer? Yes and no. Of course, that answer is of no help either.
Honestly, I've just about given up trying to explain what a clerkship is, and to some degree, even the prestige of the clerkship is lost on someone who has never gone to law school. Thus, my answer to my friend's questions about what it is I do is more along the lines of, "it's sort of a one-year transition job some law students do after law school." This seems to be get rid of most of the confusion. I have yet to come up with the question I hope to get from my friends once I (hopefully) get my bar results: "So what are you going to do now that you're a lawyer." Again, the answer, "my clerkship" would likely invoke the same dazed and confused look.
Speaking of MBE scores, this same friend reported that the raw curve for the 2007 MBE was 16 points, give or take one or two points. I still say this is unsubstantiated, but I would say she is credible. Apparently the score report, however, doesn't go into any other detail than that. More info on the MBE will be posted in the future once I get the actual results.
Part of the reason I am writing this particular entry is because I recently got the chance to look at some of the resumes of those who applied for a clerkship in my court and did or did not get an acceptance to interview (or the clerkship for that matter). Having worked in the resume business to a certain degree before law school, and assisting my friends with their resumes during law school, I was nevertheless shocked at the resumes, cover letters, writing samples, and letters of recommendation about. Here are my top 5 things for those applying to clerkships in the future should think about.
First. Don't say you're an excellent writer and can benefit from this clerkship and then use incorrect grammar in the next sentence. That are a ding. Also, don't spell the judge's name wrong. Seriously. I would love to see if this happens at firms as well, and I'm sure their reaction is much less amusing.
Second. If your GPA is low, that's okay. I'll find it on your transcript. Failure to attach your transcript, however, leads me to think that your GPA must be really bad and therefore results in a ding. To be honest, the first thing I looked at was GPA (which directed how closely I looked at the rest of your resume package). The second thing I looked at was your undergraduate school and GPA (since I've met enough jokers from Harvard that I am convinced that the next generation of law students taught by these future professors is in big trouble). Law school was third. Recommendations and publications were next....
Third. I've read hundreds of recommendation letters. I could write an entire separate entry on what makes a good letter and what makes a bad letter, and perhaps someday I will. In the meantime, I am convinced that most law professors (and I emphasize most) are very bad at explaining why or why not a candidate is qualified to clerk. I suspect this is because most students make no efforts to talk to the professor outside of trying to get some insight into the final. Perhaps ironically, professors seem to remember this sparse interaction and decide, for whatever reason, that this is a good thing to write in their letters of recommendation. It is not. Please use recommendations of people who know you beyond your grade. Otherwise... DING.
Fourth. I am more impressed with someone that is published (since how many law review students are published a year, one or two for each journal?). You should selectively apply to judges who may have an interest in your publication, but it is impressive nonetheless. For those of you who aren't published, that's not a deal breaker, but you should have a second short paragraph accompanying your unpublished work giving me a brief synopsis of it. SSRN hits, while interesting to put on a resume, are almost laughable, so I wouldn't recommend taking up the space.
Fifth and last on this short list (since there are probably five or six more things I also consider). The cover letter is important, but not that important. I read all of them first, so I want some sort of short summary of why you are applying and why you want to take a year off from "real" work and clerk. Unsurprisingly, I could care less that you are "applying to clerk in your chambers because [you] think it will benefit [your] career." I am much more interested in something more than a conclusory thought. All I can say is get some disinterested person who is law trained to read it and give you an objective opinion. You may be surprised at the insight you get with a little help.
My last point is that you need to be able to convey, within the few minutes that I am spending looking over your resumes, why you want to be a clerk. At least then, you may have a good answer for when your friends ask you the same question from the non-legal end of things.
Any other clerks want to put their two cents in? Feel free to share in the comment box.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Another case bites the dust...
...thanks to settlement that is. This is the second time this has happened in as many weeks. While that is all well and good for the argument promoting efficiency of courts and the legal system, it creates, based on the timing of the assignment, a lot of extra work for a clerk. What can you do? The short answer is: Not too much. Basically, I can only hang onto the research and hope that a similar issue is appealed sometime in the next year (or two years if I decide to take a stab at going to the US Supreme Court, which at this point seems rather unlikely). I can only hope that another clerk reads this and comments with commiserating sympathy (although both unlikely and unnecessary). Read more!
Monday, September 17, 2007
Heard around the clerkship circuit
I'm heading out but two things real quick. One, and this is more of a teaching point more than anything - don't spell things wrong in your briefs. Second, the previous clerk left this piece of humor for me (that was written in a past brief): "A bus owned (plaintiff)." Bearing in mind that this dealt with some sort of personal injury insurance case, I thought the choice of language, although a bit colloquial, was pretty funny.
And, some news about $50k clerkship bonus... Skadden will pay theirs the day you are finished your clerkship. I know I read that a few places will tack it onto your first paycheck, which I think is a bit late considering that most of us want to take at least a month off before diving into BigFirm life. According to my source, the amount after taxes is somewhere in between the meaty part of $32 and $34k. The latest comment on this particular area from Above the Law can be found here: Law Clerk Salaries Benefits.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Thoughts after the first week: Ready for retirement
Well, four days down now. Really six if you count the fact I had to do work yesterday and today. It's certainly interesting stuff. The trade-off is that I've already read almost a thousand pages of briefs and appendices. One of these days I may try and count up all the manpower and hours that go into any one case (criminal or civil) from start to finish. I'm sure it's staggering.
Once I got back to sit in front of my television for a few hours to watch football though, the fact that I don't have to worry about any long term tests (setting aside the bar bear for the time being), I must say that clerking/working is much better than law school and a good transition into firm work. If I don't feel like doing any more work for the day, I can stop. Of course it is still there tomorrow, but that's beside the point. Plus I feel like I'm actually making an impact on the legal world, so it's very rewarding in that sense, and I can work on something as long as I want without worrying about billing hours or using up precious Westlaw minutes. And for a bonus, I am guaranteed to piss one side with each and every one of my efforts.
And speaking of (not) being pissed off, my fantasy team did phenomenal this week. Plus I still have Carson Palmer to throw tomorrow, so my undefeated record should remain intact. Of course, if Dallas fumbles another return, I am going to flip out.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Humor around the clerkship circle
Just a paraphrase of a random comment heard from one of the other clerks: "After going to Big Ten Undergrad, I went to medical school for a couple years. After I realized that I didn’t like helping people, I decided to go to law school instead."
And I must have heard or been a part of at least five separate conversations about the $50k clerkship bonus offered by most of the New York firms. If any firm (New York or otherwise) isn't at least attempting to hit the $20k-$35k mark because they don't think this bonus has an impact on the final decision, you are fooling yourself. Even Above the law reports that yet another firm has bumped its clerkship bonus to $50k. More on the greedy bonus stuff another day.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
First couple days of clerkship
Not a lot of time to write a lot, and after a full week, I'll probably have more to say. In the interim though, I will say that "so far so good" and I'm glad I only have to wear a suit on days I have to go to court. And the first recruiting event is already planned.
So how much work is there in an appellate court? A ridiculous amount. Looking at the calendar of cases due over the next month, I will have a hand in at least thirty of them. Looks like my weekend plans for watching football sunday will have to be postponed a bit. At least until halftime. Thankfully, my fantasy football draft was last week before all this craziness began.
