Clerkship Bonuses (as of 8/9/07)

The $50k Club (* = $50k/$70k):
2. Cravath*
3. SullCrom*
4. Skadden*
5. Davis Polk
6. STB
7. Cleary
9. Weil*
10. Covington (NY only)
11. Kirkland
12. Debevoise*
13. Paul Weiss*
19. OMM
20. White & Case
23. MoFo
29. Fried Frank
30. Ropes & Gray (NY only)*
31. Paul Hastings*
32. Wilkie Farr
33. Akin Gump (NY only)
35. Dewey Ballantine
43. Quinn Emanuel
52. LeBoeuf*
55. Cahill
92. Kramer Levin*
NR. Patterson Belknap

The Vault 20 LIST OF SHAME:
1. Wachtell ($0)
8. Latham ($35k)
14. Shearman ($15k)
15. Wilmer ($35k)
16. Williams & Connolly ($35k)
17. Sidley ($35k)
18. Gibson ($35k)

David, thanks for doing what you do -- I'm sure there are others out there who, like me, infrequently comment, but are very grateful for your blog.

Another day passes. Latham and Gibson, what happened?

Thanks for all of your work David. I would not let "abuse" stop you from doing what you do so well. I am anxiously waiting for Chicago- Jenner, Latham to match Kirkland, Paul Hastings and Skadden and the rest of the market that has moved to 50. Any word?

based on yesterdays charity posts, with some small donations by attorneys, you might be able to get some law firms to pay your way.

Lat, you are awesome. Keep the pressure up, my v25 firm hasn't raised yet!

Abuse? My firm has got your back.

I'm with you 8:19. I'm surprised the other big Chi players are letting K&E run away with this. Sidley usually moves quickly to the top of the market, and I also thought that lit powerhouses like Winston and Jenner would want to match quickly.

Skadden clerkship bonus is $50k, regardless of office. So they have matched in Chicago.

I am 103% behind the sentiments of the posters on this message board that more Chicago players need to start making moves. There also needs to be more movement at lesser players (>v50) because I want several appealing options a year from now.

For the firms that have raised to 50, how many also pay bar stipends of $10-$15 in addition to the clerkship bonus? I think that is the sticking point for Gibson (and most likely Latham too). They probably think firms 1-20 that have raised don't pay both, so their 35 + bar stipend is equivalent. Those wanting GDC and LW and others to raise need to figure out which peer firms pay both a stipend and a clerkship bonus. I know, so far, OMM does. Does Quinn? Others in the top 1-15?

"But we might reconsider if, say, enough people made (tax-deductible) charitable donations to support us in the New York marathon this year. We need to raise $1,250 by early next month. Contributions -- did we mention they're tax-deductible? -- can be made through our fundraising page"

Ask the chambermaid

Tha bar "stipend" as opposed to "advance" just means you do not get a stub bonus in Jan. after you start (usually a third to quarter of the full year bonus depending on start date).

Stipend is not an excuse.

I've heard Kirkland pays a stipend and reimburses bar expenses, in addition to its clerkship bonus.

Can people comment on my chances of success in landing a decent clerkship if I was from a Tier4 school? I was on journal, graduated at the very top of class, and would have about 1.5 year of big law (very well respected litigation department) experience at the time the clerkship started (.5 year experience when applying and interviewing). I guess the question is basically will my big law litigation experience put me on equal or better footing than individuals from top schools or should I not even bother applying????

Kirkland gives the bar stipend/PILI fellowship + the 50K. Thank you Kirkland. I love you.

I am continuing my relentless quest to persuade Lat to create a separate thread for the hysterical Patton Boggs website photos found in the latest (and as usual otherwise sucky) wedding watch thread. I'm sure many of you, like me, generally ignore those threads, other than a quick look to see if any of the people are hot (so I guess the threads don't suck - sorry Lat). Therefore, you have probably missed the PB website links on that thread. LOOK AT THEM RIGHT NOW!!!! They are the funniest thing that's been on this site in days.

10:08 AM, Tier 4 is going to be EXTREMELY TOUGH, even with your numbers and journal membership. The first thing that the clerks reviewing your application will wonder is, "Is this school even accredited because I've never heard of it. Why did the applicant need to attend at TTTT? Next!" Were I you and wanted a federal clerkship, I would focus on federal magistrate judges (Artice I judges) in so-called "fly-over" states. In other words, don't expect to get interviews for MJ's on the coasts. Also, ask your school's job placement offices about (1) federal judges who attended your law school, and (2) law clerks who attended (There have got to be some.) That is, apply to judges who have some sort of connection to your school (or even a similarly-ranked law school), the conventional wisdom being that if the judge was willing to (attend or)
hire a promising applicant from a TTTT law school, he/she would be willing to seriously consider your application.

Good luck.

Not all FTT are created equal. If you went to, say New York Law School, where anyone with geographical ties to NY is much more likely to have them to other schools in that city, your chances are worse.

But if you went to a regional school in a flyover state that's well respected within the state, your chances are very high with judges in that state---at least district court judges.

Quinn couples its clerkship bonus with a bar stipend ($13K) for incoming clerks

Two corrections to earlier posts.

First, Quinn, like other firms, does NOT give stipends to clerks who worked for other firms prior to their clerkships. They're essentially getting these clerks at a discount.

Second, 9:58 is absolutely wrong. The difference between a stipend and an advance has nothing to do with the stub bonus. Stipend means what it always means--you don't have to pay it back. Advance, in contrast, means that you do. Several firms do a stipend of, say, $12k, offer an additional advance up to, say, $5k, and do a stub bonus prorated for the number of days you worked prior to the end of the fiscal year.

11:05 - what 9:58 was trying to say, I believe, is that the firms that give a stipend as opposed to an advance generally don't give a stub bonus, whereas those who give an advance (requiring the new associate to repay it) give a stub bonus at the end of the year. Because the stub bonus is 1/4 to 1/3 of the first year bonus, it is essentially the same amount as a stipend would have been.

So does anyone know when Latham's recruiting/associates committee meets? Any chance we'll have an announcement today?

Seriously, I'm going to be pissed when I start working at my firm (one of Latham or Gibson) and a month later they raise to $50k. That's not going to help my productivity.

10:08 -- this information may not be easy to come by, but see if you can identify judges that prefer clerks with prior experience. In my experience, this is a growing trend (as the docket grows, the need for more efficient clerks grows). The high-powered judges tend to only recruit newbies from top schools because of the prestige factor and because they can mold the newbies to suit their purposes. But to some judges, the ones just trying to stay above water and write a few decent opinions, a tier 4 clerk with good experience (and more self-confidence) is more valuable than a tier 1 greenhorn whose hand the judge will have to hold for several months (if not the entire clerkship).

Definitely look at senior judges. Many of them have only 1 clerk, so they need somebody they know they can rely on. A fresh Harvard graduate is more risky than somebody who's been practicing at a big firm for a couple years (especially if you can get partners at your firm to write you nice recommendations).

yes, 11:18, the silence is deafening, and you're still a d-bag.

11:32 - I'm not 11:18, but still, if you don't like this discussion, why are you reading the comments?

If we make donations for the marathon in order to get Lat to call firms about clerkships, aren't we disqualifying part of the tax deduction by getting something in return?

I guess that the value of the call is really just a dollar or two, so it isn't that much of a problem.

All girls with fifty-K clerks

The stipend is fairly standard for CA-based firms (in lieu of, e.g., a salary advance as is common in NY). Also, whoever said the stipend replaces the stub bonus is wrong. I know Gibson for one pays both a stipend and a stub bonus. And the stipend is available to clerks either the summer they graduate or the summer before they start at the firm (assuming, of course, they clerk straight out of law school). I believe other CA firms have similar policies.

Bottom line: I'm not buying that the stipend is the sticking point for Latham and Gibson. Now that OMM, MoFo, and Quinn, not to mention the numerous out-of-state firms with CA offices, have bumped to $50K, it's only a matter of time before they do as well. I would be very surprised if both firms don't announce this month or, at the very least, in September before most current clerks begin work at the firm.

That said, I really hope Lat gets the contributions he needs so he might start calling these places again and applying some additional pressure. Shame that some idiot commenters screwed it up for the countless denizens that greatly appreciate Lat's efforts.

Does anyone know how the bonuses are taxed? Is it at the standard 25% for bonuses or at the applicabe tax bracket?

I would also be curious as to how clerkship bonuses and yearly bonuses are taxed?

Applicable tax bracket, yo.

does anyone know if any DC-based firms raised to 50K in DC? covington? hogan? A&P? wilmer?

there is no "standard 25% for bonuses" what the hell are you talking about?

The "standard 25% for bonuses" is the flat withholding rate for supplemental wages (like bonuses, salary advances and bar stipends). The rate is only used to calculate the amount withheld from a bonus check. The actual amount of taxes you owe on your bonus is no different from any other type of income, which usually means 33% for associates.

Another area where the supplemental wage withholding rate comes up is when law firms try to discourage incoming first year associates from taking their salary advance. I know one firm that told associates that taking the advance wasn't worth it because nearly half of the advance would go to taxes. While it is true that the a large amount of the advance would be withheld, the truth is that a great deal of that money would be returned in the form of a tax refund.

Furthermore, the marginal tax rate for your first tax year as an attorney (in which you only work a couple of months)is going to be 25% for most people, as opposed to 33% for the next year in which you are drawing paychecks for the whole year. The difference in these rates equates to an extra $1,200 of tax savings on a $15,000 advance. This is in addition to the time value stemming from getting that money earlier. In short, incoming associates should take the salary advance.

Covington has not raised in its DC office. Now that $50k has become more common in non-NY-based firms, its paying $50k only in NY looks weak.

I recently was told that Quinn's clerkship bonus will not be activated until the clerkship class of 2008. Thus, clerks joining the firm now will receive $35K.