"More than you would have earned in a year of clerking anyway"??? In any city where firms are paying a $50k clerkship bonus, you will make over $50k for a federal clerkship. Clerkships, unlike law firms, take cost of living into account.

weird stuff

Starting salaries for federal judicial clerkships are $46,000.

This clerkship is in Texas - low cost of living. Probably not much of a COLA, if any.

"More than you would have earned in a year of clerking anyway"

you get paid AND bonus normally. its not a one or the other situtation.

Feel bad for the other law clerk. Either s/he has to distinguish that s/he is the funded law clerk (kind of an asshole move) or risk having future employers think s/he got the position by volunteering to work for nothing.

2:13 - Yeah, but if your credentials aren't good enough to land a real - er, "funded" - clerkship, this is a way to get in through the back door.

Judge Kent seeks an unpaid intern? How unsurprising.

how will employers view this? seems like it would automtically be less prestigious and employers would know this.

The clerkship colas are calculated in a kind of bizarre way. You actually don't get one for some of the most prestigious courts (SDNY, I think pays base only) but you do get one if you're stuck in middle of nowhere, where no one would want to live, but the cost of living is actually much cheaper.

I think that when the letter says the job "carries all of the responsibilities, prestige, and future opportunities of the funded position," the judge is committing himself/herself to:

(1) allow you to list the clerkship on your resume as a regular clerkship, and

(2) not mention to prospective employers that you worked for free.

Seems like maybe some TX firms would know about this judge's arrangement, but as long as you can list it on your resume the same as any other clerkship, I doubt any NY/DC firm would know the difference.

He knows he'll get someone to clerk for him unfunded too. There are enough crazy law students out there to do it just so they can say they were a fed clerk. Someone should send his info to the FBI to make sure he isn't pocketing some of his budget and claiming that it's an unfunded position when it really is funded.

Yeah, but I'd be pretty pissed off if I had to work side by side with someone working for free (and with less credentials to get the job) and then had to have the same position on my resume. I'd almost feel the need to mention it to employers so that they understood that the position was one I *chose* rather than one I had to take because I couldn't find another job. If word got around that Judge ____ hired clerks for nothing, I wouldn't want someone to think I was that clerk. In a way, that Judge might get a less-distinguished funded clerk because of his choice to offer an unfunded clerkship at the same distinction level.

I just think the entire situation is in poor judgment.

unless this judge doesn't have a JA, the unfunded 'clerk' probably has to sit in the common area where an intern would otherwise work, right?

The payscale is set by adding a base pay with a locality pay. The locality pay varies by city. But, it is completely insane to say SDNY only gets base pay. The total compensation for theThe New York, Newark, Lower half of CT locality pay area for a JS 11 (1s year clerk right out of law school) is 58k. Compare this to the 52k for the rest of USA (not included in specific group) for a JS 11.

I fail to see 1) why it has less value. If you are working with full clerkship duties, then you should be fine.

COLA -

I'm not sure where you are getting your info. Locality pay differential rates are all available on the OPM website. SDNY has one of the highest at 24.57%. There may be some confusion about how they are calculated, but all the prestigious courts have them (NDIL = 21.79%, CDCA = 24.03%, etc.).

Speaking of jobs which promise everything but pay, look at this recent listing on our job board. Loyola law school, where smart and hard working people go to get ripped off.
----------------------------------------------
Employer Name: xx

Contact Name:xx
Address:xx W. Century Boulevard
Suite xx
City:Los Angeles, CA xx
Telephone:xx
Facsimile:xx
E-Mail:xx
Description:HOURS: Part-time. DURATION: Permanent. JOB DESCRIPTION: Law Clerk position immediately available to 2nd and 3rd year students. Offers substantial training, serious litigation experience, exposure to big cases, an elite but fun small firm environment, and an elite practice focused on executive representation, commercial and employment litigation, and consumer class action work. See xx for more information on the practice and the firm’s lawyers. This job usually goes to a student with exceptional grades and writing skills. Whoever joins us will gain invaluable writing and litigation skills training and experience. Under our supervision, our law clerks do not only do legal research. They investigate facts and draft complaints, discovery, motions and other persuasive briefs. The work is vital to our law practice—not make-work. Recent alumni of this position have gone on to obtain summer and permanent associate positions in the best firms including Latham & Watkins, Kaye Scholer, Paul Weiss, and Jones Day. This firm does not offer jobs to first year lawyers. But alumni of our summer program are strongly encouraged to come back after they complete their resumes and training with, and get their fill of, big firm experience. Please read the reviews of your peers who have worked here in the past (which we understand are available at career services). HOW TO APPLY: Please submit resume, cover letter, writing sample, and transcript by email to our office administrator xx at xx.
Date Entered:10/31/07
Job ID:419551

This is deeply unfair to all the non-trust-fund-babies competing to get ahead in the legal world. Lat, why did you redact the judge's name? Please consider naming the judge. Public shaming is in order here, just as ATL regularly puts the spotlight on law firms whose salaries, bonuses, etc, lag behind the market.

What firms pay $50K bonus for district court clekships? I was under the impression that (at the firms paying $50K) $50K was for COA clerks and dsitrict court clerks got less.

what's wrong with that job, L2L? not surprisingly, it refutes all of your whiny complaints. it offers substantive experience which will help you get a biglaw job, if that's what you want.

Work for a federal agency for nothing? Doesn't this arrangement violate the federal minimum wage guidelines?

I am clerking next year on EDNY after one year at a firm. Human resources told me that I would match (got the letter in on time saying I was hired at matching salary) and that I would therefore be on the highest step of the ladder. With that plus having been admitted to the bar (hopefully), they said I would be making just under 90k - which seems like a lot for a federal clerk. Anyone else get a similar number/salary quote?

i think bozo is on to something. what about health insurance?

For a district court clerkship? In Texas?? No way. If it was a 2d/9th/D.C. Cir. position, it might be worth it.

2:23.
I clerked in EDNY and received a COLA; I'd be shocked if SDNY doesn't. I worked for a couple of years first and with the COLA and salary matching I managed to make ~90k while clerking-- still a lot less than I made at my firm, obviously.

2:31: Are you for real? You read about this and the first thing that jumps to mind is that if you were the PAID clerk of the two, you would be resentful because the guy working for FREE would get the same credit on his resume? Amazing, even by ATL standards of prestige-whoring.

Yes, the bare minimum clerkship salary for anyone who went to an accredited law school is 52K.

$90 is correct but the gravy train ends this year.

Next year, matching ends forever.

The good news is, it should be a little easier to get a desirable clerkship b/c the field will be less crowded with law firm associates who refuse to take a $100k haircut to clerk for a year.

So, students should have better chances to land the good jobs than they have in the past.

But, look for quality of writing to dip with students taking over.

question for 2:50,
where did you hear that matching ends? I'm currently a clerk and will be out next fall but I haven't heard this.

There are multiple judges in this district who pursue this, and why wouldn't they? It's free labor. I'm sure there are no shortage of kids who are willing to jump at this for a year. It's a tough legal market out there.

There are multiple judges in this district who pursue this, and why wouldn't they? It's free labor. I'm sure there are no shortage of kids who are willing to jump at this for a year. It's a tough legal market out there.

Finally - a job that is worthy of Loyola 2L and Cumberland 3L's "talents".... also Cumberland 3L shouldn't feel bad about taking it because it dosen't pay a "sinful" amount of money

Judicial conference voted and matching ends next year - but, if you got a letter from your judge dated Sept. 18th or before, stating that you were hired while matching was the policy, then your salary will be matched for 2008-2009. I heard this from the HR department at the courthouse.

Remember the old axiom, though:

You gets whats you payz fo.

2:47 - Maybe my mind jumps to "what if I was the other clerk" because I currently am a (funded) law clerk and when I read the post I imagined "what if my judge started hiring an unfunded position." I think that is a logical place for a law clerk's mind to wander.

It isn't about prestige-whoring... it is about my POV from my current life. I thought that my "name" would have resolved any such queries.

2:50 read it on numberous posts here and other sites back in Sept, covering the judiciary's new money-savings strategies. Clerk pay is now based on experience, with no consioderation for prior salary. I believe the scale is:

0 yrs' experience: 11-1
1 yr: 12-1
2+ yrs (regardless of prior fed clerkship experience): 13-1
3 yrs (incl. 1 as a fed clerk): 14-1 (if the judge doesn't have any other 14s)

some people got matching this year b/c they got an offer letter before the Judicial Conference's recommendations were adopted (Sept. 18, IIRC).

If you accept your offer at a bigfirm before you clerk (for example I know some firms will pay you your bar stipend the summer before you clerk if the judge consents), and then receive your 50k clerkship bonus when you end your clerkship bonus, could you argue that the bonus is income attributable to the year when you clerked?

not if you don't want to run afoul of the code of judicial ethics

yeah, matching ends next year, but they're going to base the pay scale on years of experience. if you're 2 yrs out of law school when you start clerking, you'd still get roughly $90k on the new scale (in a high COLA district like NDCal or SDNY), which is what matching would get you now.

3:08 - since the vast majority of individual income tax payers are on the cash method the 50k bonus would be recognized as income in the year in which it is received

Maybe I don't understand 3:08's question. Assuming your clerkship year runs on the standard Sept.-August calendar as most judges do, and you get your bonus on or about the start date of your post-clerkship job-- i.e., September-- then the income is taxable in the calendar year in which you spent the last 8 months of your 12-month clerkship, isn't it? Am I missing something?

Are SASMF and S&C holding off on matching the bonus in order to raise the bonus?

so, if i started at 12-10 based on salary matching...during my second year i would go to 14-1??

I'm surprised more Judges don't do this.

3:08 - if you were promised a 50k bonus from your biglaw job in 2007 and then started your clerkship in Sept. 2007... and then started your biglaw job the next year (sept. 2008) and received your 50k bonus soon thereafter the 50k is income to you in the year in which it was received not the year in which it was promised to you.

The only exception to this is the very very rare instance of an individual taxpayer who is on the accrual accounting method.

I am a little unclear on the new payscale for clerks. What would a clerk with three years of experience in a law firm get if he/she decided to clerk for a year?

"if you're 2 yrs out of law school when you start clerking, you'd still get roughly $90k on the new scale (in a high COLA district like NDCal or SDNY), which is what matching would get you now."

That's not accurate. You'll be a 13-1 two years out of law school, and, under the NY pay tables, that means a salary of $83,401 as opposed to $91,178 as a salary-matched JSP 12-10 under the old rules. So it's about an 8k difference from the old to new rules- not huge, but not insignificant either.

As far as the question about the clerk starting at 12-10, the answer to that question is that the next year the clerk would go to the next highest step in JSP 13, which would be JSP 13-4.

sasmf is holding off because they havent had a meeting yet of the committe that makes these decisions.

So after clerking for a year for free, this could mean many exciting opportunities -- like working as an associate in a major law firm for free.

this is excellent. I am sure response to the Judge's request will confirm that non-career clerks should be un-paid positions.

At least until judges get a raise.....

3:26 -- it's not really clear what happens to someone who started under matching, but stays on long enough to go up a grade. and it depends how much experience you had first.

if you only had 1 yr of experience after law school, matching would make you a 12-10. in the new system, with one yr of experience, you'd come in as 12-1. a year later (2 yrs of experience under your belt), you'd be 13-1.

if you had 2 yrs before you started clerking, matching would still only get you 12-10, but if you stayed on a year, you'd have three yrs of experince, and under the new system, you could potentially earn 14-1 (if the judge has the opening available).

depending on the locality, 13-1 pays just shy of what 12-10 does. in ND Cal, which has a 30% adjustment, 13-1 is about $7k less than 12-10.

2:13, I think the idea is that this would be good for people who WOULDN'T have a clerkship (and thus a biglaw job) otherwise, and therefore making a 50K bonus after clerking for free would be better than making crap at a small firm or wherever you would end up and making that same crap amount the next year.

And I second 2:47. I think the unpaid clerk has slightly bigger problems than that poor other paid clerk. Sheesh.

Since when are names of judges redacted on this blog?

3:41 -- you're right, it's about $8k different. for people generally talking BIGLAW salaries, the difference between $83k and $91k didn't seem incredibly relevant. if you'd give up nearly $90k to take the clerkship, you'd probably give up nearly $98k.

but i guess my perspective is skewed, as that difference isn't chump change.

so how do we apply?

Lat, why is the name of the Judge redacted? i don't get it.

This seems similar to what some US Attorneys' Offices do. They have unpaid one year positions for attorneys who just want the experience.

For example, the Northern District of California has such an opening (http://www.usdoj.gov/oarm/jobs/sausaadsf.htm)

"Salary Information: This is a one-year appointment without compensation; uncompensated SAUSAs cannot be considered by this office for a permanent AUSA position for two years after expiration of the SAUSA’s one-year appointment."

I think the AUSA position is usually paid for by the attorney's firm.

i can has clerkship?

blah-clerk at 2:13 - The assumption that the unpaid clerk would have markedly poorer credentials (than the paid clerks) is flawed. It might be the case some of the time, but maybe not. For example, say a judge interviews a handful of people for three paid spots and one unpaid spot, but makes an offer to the top four, all of whom have roughly equal credentials. Number four isn't necessarily number four because his or her credentials are weakest; it could just be that the judge clicked better with the other three. Or maybe someone with incredible credentials needs to work in that area for family reasons, but doesn't hit it off with the judge or applies late in the game. Keep in mind, too, that the judge doesn't have to hire an unpaid clerk; presumably his colleagues manage just fine with their standard allotment of clerks.

But even assuming the unpaid clerk did have weaker credentials, who cares? Most judges base their hiring decisions on a variety of criteria, and for many weak credentials can be trumped by a strong recommendation or other random connection. Moreover, some judges have terrible reputations, and some are in (arguably) terrible locations. Those judges might have a tougher time filling their last paid spot, which could require hiring someone with objectively lower credentials (assuming the more nationally competitive applicants take jobs elsewhere). Yet no one is calling for the clerks who fill those last spots to explain themselves or for their co-clerks to clearly distinguish themselves as earlier hires. No firm has ever asked whether a former clerk was the first or last hired---because they don't care. What they do care about is that an applicant clerked. That's all. So if someone wants to work as a federal clerk and do it on his or her own dime, hooray for that person. And if your judge likes what they're doing down in Texas and picks up an unpaid addition to chambers, you should be thankful for the reduction in your workload.

(And, no, I'm not affiliated with the judge in question.)

They may have to post this job for technical reasons--the only SAUSAs I have known have been military officers who prosecute civilian crimes on federal property as civilian attorneys. So, they aren't paid, as it is part of their job, but they do have to be appointed, I think.

Yes, working for free is quite exciting.

4:38 is absolutely right. Having worked as a district court clerk and participated in the hiring process for my successors, I saw that we got way more applications from highly qualified individuals than we could possibly fill-- hundreds of apps for just three positions. At a certain level, qualification stops being the issue and the final decision on interviewing and hiring is made more on the basis of who the judge things s/he would like to work with for a year. Even then, lots of great applicants have to be rejected. Given all that, a firm, or a co-clerk, would be completely stupid to think that someone hired for an unpaid clerkship necessarily has poorer credentials, or is less capable, than someone getting paid for the work.

4:38 is absolutely right. Having worked as a district court clerk and participated in the hiring process for my successors, I saw that we got way more applications from highly qualified individuals than we could possibly fill-- hundreds of apps for just three positions. At a certain level, qualification stops being the issue and the final decision on interviewing and hiring is made more on the basis of who the judge things s/he would like to work with for a year. Even then, lots of great applicants have to be rejected. Given all that, a firm, or a co-clerk, would be completely stupid to think that someone hired for an unpaid clerkship necessarily has poorer credentials, or is less capable, than someone getting paid for the work.

SAUSA positions are generally filled by someone who already works for the feds, most often by someone who has a DOJ job that gets tapped as an SAUSA for a year.

completely nauseating - I am sure there will be many a trust-fund baby who would do this...sucks for those of us who are actually adults and had to pay our way through law school and support ourselves and earn our positions in life without daddy's money....

Is there a stipend or benefits or something at least?

If not, the no-compensation plan really risks ruling out excellent candidates who could not accept the position because of their real-life financial responsibilities. Guess it helps keep the riff-raff out of Texas.

Bad precedent but someone will take it. I wish the law schools would band together against this bad idea.

My bad - I think $46,000 was last year's figure. So clerks starting this year and next year will probably break $50,000.

"Guess it helps keep the riff-raff out of Texas."

Without riff-raff, Texas would be empty.

I'd do it.

SAUSAs come from another federal agency. Sometimes they come from Main but often they come from another agency (we had them from Social Security, HUD, etc) There has been some discussion about private law firms working with the District of Columbia office to assist with superior court cases but I don't know that this has been approved.

Grade 12 Step 10 - you would likely be a 13-6.

"what's wrong with that job, L2L? not surprisingly, it refutes all of your whiny complaints. it offers substantive experience which will help you get a biglaw job, if that's what you want. "

The job states that they will not make you an offer. Now ask yourself this, why would a firm hire a summer clerk if they don't intend to make him/her an offer?

If you're offering a summer of slave wage labor with no hope of advancement, just call it that.

Promising a biglaw position (which is what their ad essentially does when they talk about prior "alumni" going to biglaw) is the ultimate low.

P.S. 2:41, pretty pathetic that you didn't see that for yourself. Be careful in life, friend, as you clearly fell off the turnip truck.

I've never seen so much bs hyperbole in an ad

"substantial training,"
"serious litigation experience,"
"big cases,"
"elite but fun small firm"
"elite practice"
"gain invaluable writing and litigation skills"
"The work is vital to our law practice"
"Recent alumni of this position have gone on to obtain summer and permanent associate positions in the best firms including Latham & Watkins, Kaye Scholer, Paul Weiss, and Jones Day."

LOL at "This firm does not offer jobs to first year lawyers."

That job is a crock of crap.

I've never seen so much bs hyperbole in an ad

"substantial training,"
"serious litigation experience,"
"big cases,"
"elite but fun small firm"
"elite practice"
"gain invaluable writing and litigation skills"
"The work is vital to our law practice"
"Recent alumni of this position have gone on to obtain summer and permanent associate positions in the best firms including Latham & Watkins, Kaye Scholer, Paul Weiss, and Jones Day."

LOL at "This firm does not offer jobs to first year lawyers."

That job is a crock of crap.

Why the frack is the judge redacted? Is he a friend of Lat's or something?

There are multiple judges in this district (E.D. Tex.) that do this. It was probably redacted only because the tipster requested it be redacted. Probably a relatively small pool of people this email was sent too, and wouldn't be hard to track the people down. Though I doubt the judges even care. It's not like this is a big deal.

The race to the bottom begins. Sigh...

L2L - An unpaid internship position for experience beats no position hands down. If you can get a good paid position, that would be better.

In terms of the clerkship, though, I think everyone can do better, even if it involves hanging out a shingle and whatever.

Loyola 2L couldn't get the clerkship or the job he posted.

You could take the job for free and bartend twice or three times per week and make the same salary as a regular law clerk. You could ask the Judge if you could come in a little later on Fridays...I think the Judge would find that eminently reasonable. Then you could give the other clerk free drinks for the whole year. Everyone would be happy.