I wonder if the clerks of all those SDNY judges with two year clerkship are going to be pissed if the bonus is the same no matter how many years you do?

Makes sense that if two years were worth more than one year last week, it should be worth more now.

The problem with not going to $70k is that 2Ls doing EIP will be guided by 3Ls doing clerkship interviews who will know all about clerkship bonuses.

So if you're deciding between Cravath and Cleary, and one goes to 70K and another doesn't, you have a recruitment problem on your hands.

I remember some arrogant poster on here a few weeks back before the $50K club got started was saying that the reason DC paid higher clerkship bonuses than NYC was because "clerks were more valuable in DC practices."

It seems like the discrepancy between cities and even among firms was really more of an information failure -- that ATL is having a correcting effect on.

BTW, Lat, I miss the comments scroll on the left side of page. Sure, you can click on "recent comments" to expose them, but i liked just glancing over there.

Was it all the autoadmitesque posts that did the comments scroll in?

I think the clerkship "bonus" should be doled out in terms of hours, and not cash.

How many hours does $50K cost a firm? Just shave it off our requirement (or factor it into our average, if there's no requirement) and let have the extra free time instead!

All of those firms were clearly at 50k for one OR two year clerks.

por ejamplo, Cleary:
"I am very pleased to announce that the firm will be increasing its judicial clerkship bonus for U.S. associates who complete one OR MORE clerkships to $50,000 (emphasis added!).

But they all announced before Cravath upped the ante.

It would be penny-wise, but pound foolish, not to match.

I'm not sure why a firm should pay more for a second year of a clerkship with the same judge. What added value is there? If one did a trial court and then an appellate, fine. But two years at the same trial court or at the same appellate court strikes me as adding no added value to the firm.

I'm not sure why a firm should pay more for a second year of a clerkship with the same judge. What added value is there? If one did a trial court and then an appellate, fine. But two years at the same trial court or at the same appellate court strikes me as adding no added value to the firm.

I'm not sure why a firm should pay more for a second year of a clerkship with the same judge. What added value is there? If one did a trial court and then an appellate, fine. But two years at the same trial court or at the same appellate court strikes me as adding no added value to the firm.

Well, a) they've been paying more for two years forever, and b) they have an extra year's worth of experience.

The only reason to match is because Cravath did.

And cause Weil did.

They have the same incentives to match as they did to bump in the first place. Like Lat posted, it's not about the clerks, it's about the recruitment impact.

why do all atlanta firms pay shitty to no clerkship bonuses?

12:07 - Because Atlanta is a shithole, and shit begets shit.

Just more proof that lawyers believe themselves to be a special class of citizens, with special perqs available only to members of the club. In the real world people don't get $50,000 signing bonuses for having spent a year in public service. But then, lawyers do plenty of stuff that would be unethical for, let's say, doctors, like referral fees, fee splitting, accepting cases based on profitability, etc. Doctors would lose their licenses if they acted the way lawyers do.

Is there any statistical data indicating that former clerks are more successful lawyers, either in terms of litigation, client satisfaction or billable hours?

The notion of paying bonuses for former clerks has the whiff of corruption as well. Clerks have relationships with judges and those relationships can be abused.

Since the tobacco litigation established a precedent that a legal industry can be compelled to pay the costs it brings to society, and since a major factor in the cost of medicine is dealing with potential litigation, there should be a 50% tax on attorney's fees for personal injury cases. That tax should subsidize health insurance for Americans. Trial lawyers do no productive work and create no new wealth - they are simply parasites.

Barking up the wrong tree Bozoer. No one getting a $50,000 clerkship bonus is doing personal injury plaintiff's litigation. Find another soap box.

Let's not forget that law firms are businesses!

This is stupid. Why don't they just throw away money. I think Cadwalader has it right on this one (and i can't believe i'm saying that): screw entitled clerks. Seriously, if i were at a place like that, i would apply for a clerkship as an associate. It's disincentive to keep working there. You can actually come out ahead by leaving the firm for a year or two and coming back (and have infinitely more free time for that period) than you would if you stayed and worked there. How on Earth does that make sense?

In response to 9:14... I know many, although perhaps not all, firms limit their judicial clerkship bonuses to incoming "first" year associates. In other words, if you've been with a firm, leave, clerk, and return to practice, you may not be entitled to a clerkship bonus under the firm's policy.

Fifty thousand dollars to some kid, for what? For his condescending to work in public service for one whole year?

Yet another reason for the general public to hate us.

Seems that many on this board wish they were clerking right now....

9:28, Name one good firm that does that.

Still no word from Davis? Debevoise?

Yeah, I agree with Happy Clerk. There are some "haters" out there. Do not hate the clerk, hate the "game." LOL

hand - 9:28 might be thinking of the language about clerkship bonuses being paid to associates who join the firm "immediately following" a clerkship. I assume that language is to prevent laterals from double-dipping though. An associate who leaves and comes back would meet its terms.

hand - 9:28 might be thinking of the language about clerkship bonuses being paid to associates who join the firm "immediately following" a clerkship. I assume that language is to prevent laterals from double-dipping though. An associate who leaves and comes back would meet its terms.

10:18:

http://www.paulhastings.com/careers_attorneys_FAQs.aspx

I don't wish I was a clerk. I am a transactional lawyer and feel that being a clerk would be a giant waste of time and in no way improve my skills. (with the exception maybe of tax court or bankruptcy) However, what my firm is basically telling me with their new policy, is that i can take a 1 year sabbatical, work 30 hours a week, hang out with my friends, and when i come back to work, they'll give me a bonus. How does that make sense, it's great for me, i guess, but it's an absolutely ridiculous policy and will bring no increase value whatsoever to the firm, you learn everything once you're actually there anyway.

I wish I only worked 30 hours a week. Someone has lied to you. I work 45 a week. Sure, not firm hours, but not firm money either.

anon 9:14,
I don't know where you imagine you'd clerk. I'm a clerk and I work 60+ hours a week. It's not unequivocally the "sabbatical" you're envisioning. And, because you apparently haven't clerked, you have no idea how it would be valuable to your firm (esp. if you were a litigation associate, which is what many clerks plan to be).

I'm a clerk and I work longer hours than most of my big firms friends. So if you're looking for a "sabbatical," 10:46, do your research first.

I am a clerk and i do work about 30 hours a week (25 if you subtract ATL browsing). its awesome!

I am not a litigation associate, as I indicated, but a transactional associate, so it's a little different. Secondly, you are clerks, meaning you haven't worked in a law firm yet, and whereas I am unaware of the "rigors" of clerking, you have not experienced what it's really like in a big firm.

My friends that clerk work about half the hours I do. And I usually bill at least 25% more hours in a week than they work (including lunch with the judge; i do not know if that includes fetching coffee). I also do not beleive that any of you are going to work at 7 and leaving at 10 ... which is what a 65 hour week would be.

11:04, I believe to be truthful, and objective, probably a pretty good clerk ... he can keep his bonus ...

I stand firm on my point that, as firm practice, paying clerkship bonuses are ridiculous, at least the vast majority of you would have clerked regardless of the bonus, when you signed on to do it it may have even only been 15k...

11:06 ... you call that an argument? Clearly it is worth ~$35-50k to his firm, it's called the effing market.

And "many" clerks do plan to be "litigation associates" ... for about 2 years -- then off to la-la-academic land.

Reasoning like yours, perhaps, is why people think clerks are over valued.

....And no, I don't want to be a clerk. I want to be a llm on scholarship at a 2nd tier school with a beach.

As if it really needed to be said, but the hours a clerk works obviously varies from chamber to chamber. Personally, I work 35-40 hours a week on most weeks. Of course, there are other weeks where I'm working 50-60, but those are more rare. However, I know clerks who regularly work 60+.

ditto 11:04...actual work is about 30 hrs/week, with never more than 40 hrs/week spent in the office. in fact, i'm wondering if 11:04 might be my co-clerk. clerking rules!

ditto 11:37...actual work is about 30 hrs/week, with never more than 40 hrs/week spent in the office. in fact, i'm wondering if 11:04 might be my co-clerk. clerking rules!

It is for sure dependent on chambers. However, I spend the entire time in the office. And yes, I came to this job from BigLaw after my second year (so that I could make a smother transition from DC to NYC) so I do understand law firm hours. I clearly work less hours . . . about 2 hours less per day. Some clerks are in at 9 and out at 5, with a lot of "easy time" during the day. I hoped for that, but it didn't happen. I get in at 9 and get out at 6 . . . unless we're close to an opinion. Then, I'm in at 9 and out at 730/8.

Do I deserve a bonus? I don't know. I think the job has made me a better lawyer, so the firm will be getting a benefit. Either way, I'm greedy, and if someone is handing out cash to me, I'm taking it.

30 hours a week? Clerks not being in firms beforehand? Check your facts. Many judges require more than 40 hours a week, and many judges are moving to hiring clerks with a few years of big firm experience.

Anonymous 11:46,
Perhaps you should learn how to read. I said he had no idea 'how' it would be valuable to his firm; I'm not disputing that his firm obviously values the clerkship experience. And my posts on ATL in no way reflect my reasoning skills. This is a blog, not an opinion.

Um, and Anon 9:14 should learn how to multiply. 60 hours a week is 12 hours a day for 5 days (e.g., 7 a.-7 p.). My judge requires a minimum of 10 hours a weekday (that's 50 a week, to help you out).

Dear Anon 11:06.

Lunch and all that time you spend walking around, talking on instant messenger, stalking the last girl you met on MySpace and reading posts on ATL isn't "work." You said you were "working 60+ a week" ... that means at least 14 hours a day at the office. Minimum.

If you think that the hours are the same, and you think that from the time you hit the office to the time you leave is all "work" wait until you have to start billing time and accounting for it, unless you're committing fraud of course ...

Going to lunch with the judge everyday and entertaining her is 'work' even though I wouldn't be able to bill it at a firm.

And for the record, once again, 11:04 can keep his bonus.

I respect that different clerks work different hours. Just like different associates at big firms do. Some work 70 hours a week, and some work 80. But since apparantly we're counting as work every second between the time you get to the office and the time you leave (and if i'm allowed to count time at home, and at bars talking about work, and dreaming about it, etc. pursuant to the 11:06 time-accounting guide). I think i'm probably pushing about 120 right now. I think there's a solid 4-5 hours a day i'm not doing something work related ... lately ...

I've earned a bonus!

Oh, let's all pity the corporate associate who made a few wrong choices about what path his/her career should take.

Don't pity me, a clerk, though. Don't pity my excellent work experience. Don't pity my 50 (8-6 daily, no exceptions) hour work week. Don't pity my $50k bonus. And please, don't pity my prestigious resume.

1:51 - what a prick.

Dear 1:51,

I'm sorry you feel as though you made poor choices about your career path, but they were your choices to make. No one is asking for your pity. You might want to lose the chip on your shoulder; I don't think it will improve your career prospects. And you certainly won't be getting a bonus for it.

"However, what my firm is basically telling me with their new policy, is that i can take a 1 year sabbatical, work 30 hours a week, hang out with my friends, and when i come back to work, they'll give me a bonus."

I've clerked on the Circuit, the District Court, and worked at a firm, and I can tell you that while I did not put in firm-type hours while clerking, it was certainly no "sabbatical." I definitely worked 50-60 hours/week, sometimes more. And, moreover, a was making just a bit less money doing it.

I'd be fine if people on this thread were making arguments that clerkships bonuses were too big and undeserved if not FIVE MONTHS AGO the same people were not frothing at the mouth for their firms to give them a $15-20,000 raise. And not because they earned it and not because of inflation, and certainly not because they were being underpaid, but because other firms were doing it, and I don't remember seeing any comments back then about the fact that lawyers are over-entitled and that this is why the rest of the public hates us.

If you think a $50,000 bonus for clerks is a waste of money because they don't add significant value, where were you when 1st years were whining about their extra $15,000/year?

Skadden just matched