Can Clerks Come Home Again? It Depends at WilmerHale.
There has been a lot going on at WilmerHale recently. Summer associates are coming, regular associates are “transitioning.” The uncertainty has made some WilmerHale alumni who are currently clerking wonder if they can return to the firm when their clerkships end.
Above the Law has received reports from current clerks who were expecting to be hired back by WilmerHale after their clerkships are over. Some tipsters report that WilmerHale has decided not to rehire any of its former associates who took a year off to clerk. We know that many clerks are worried about being in a similar situation, so we asked WilmerHale clarify its position on rehiring clerks. The firm gave us this response:
All former summer associates who received an offer and then went on to clerk after graduation from law school have been invited to join the firm as associates. The firm, however, does not tell associates who leave for a clerkship that they can return after their clerkships are complete; rather, former associates must reapply to the firm, and we have not historically given offers of employment to all former associates at the conclusion of their clerkships. This year, we extended offers to some but not all of the former associates who inquired about returning; in addition, we have hired a small number of very promising judicial clerks who had not previously been with the firm.
So, if you clerk before you start at the firm, you are golden. But if you worked for a couple of years and then decided to clerk, best of luck.
Despite the difficulties clerks are facing when trying to get back into the Biglaw market, there are still many people who want to cool their heels as a clerk. One deferred incoming WilmerHale associate was so happy to receive a clerkship that the firm posted his gushing thanks on its internal website.
More details after the jump.
On the WilmerHale internal website, the firm is happy to promote a success story:
This past April, our 2009 incoming associate class was notified that the firm was postponing fall start dates until 2010. In a Managing Partner Update sent to staff on April 13, 2009, Co-Managing Partners Bill Lee and Bill Perlstein stated that the delay of the fall start dates was necessary to “address issues arising from this unprecedented economic crisis and to allow us to offer a meaningful experience to the lawyers already here, as well as to this new class of lawyers when they join us.”Some of our incoming associates have secured clerkships to bridge the gap until they officially join the firm in 2010. One such incoming associate, [Redacted], secured a six-month clerkship with [Redacted]. After obtaining the clerkship, [Redacted], who will reside in our Boston office, sent an email to Legal Personnel, thanking the firm for the help in obtaining this “dream come true.”
Let’s check out the gushing thanks. This “thank you” letter reminds me of what happens when I give my dog barbecue chicken. The future clerk writes:
I always thought that WilmerHale was the perfect fit for me, and knew that working at the firm would be a fantastic way to start my career. Yet even with my incredibly high opinion of the firm, I could not have imagined that I would find so much generosity, so much kindness, and so many instances of individuals going above and beyond what was necessary. As you know, I would have preferred to start working at WilmerHale the day after I graduated law school. I was therefore somewhat dismayed to learn of my March start date, but decided that the deferral was not going to be an obstacle, but an opportunity. With your help, the opportunity that I envisioned has turned into nothing short of a dream come true. That may sound hyperbolic, but I mean every word: I think most people would say that I will be a far better lawyer for having this unusual six-month clerkship than I would have been had I been able to start working at the firm in the fall. I have heard such good things about Judge [Redacted], and I am incredibly excited about the opportunity to clerk for her!
Upon reflection, this does sound “hyperbolic.” Hyperbolic with just the faintest hint of desperation, like a perfume that sticks to a long discarded blouse.
I cannot thank you enough for your help in making this all happen. Thank you for the time you put into talking with me, for your efforts in helping me comply with the ethical rules, and for facilitating a certain phone call on my behalf. (I sent [Redacted] a note by mail yesterday, and would have sent this by mail but feared that my thank you cards did not contain enough space for everything I wanted to say. Plus, my handwriting is barely legible.) As I said in my note to [Redacted], I saw or heard many surprising things in my time between the chambers of Judge [Redacted], Judge [Redacted] and Judge [Redacted]; the most surprising moment of all was when Judge [Redacted] told me that [Redacted] had called her on my behalf. Thank you for making that happen! Now my only concern is living up to whatever [Redacted] (and Judge [Redacted], who also spoke to Judge [Redacted]) said I was capable of!
Get. A. Room.
Thank you for everything. I was always eager to return to a firm that I knew to be full of the best lawyers in Boston. I am now doubly excited to return to a firm that I know to be full of the best people…anywhere. Thank you so much for everything you’ve done for me, and I’ll look forward to hearing from you soon and seeing you back at the office in March.Yours truly,
[Redacted]
There’s a thin line between love and psychosis. For everybody’s sake, I really hope WilmerHale’s promise to rehire all of their incoming associates who decided to clerk before starting at the firm is ironclad.
Earlier: Nationwide Layoff Watch: Getting the Message Across to WilmerHale Associates
Clerks: Can’t Go Home Again? (Or: An open thread about post-clerkship job prospects.)
(78) 
Comments
who cares.
Wilmer Hale is the Yale of Texas.
Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem.
When is Holland & Knight going to fold?
I wish ATL had a webcam trained on Mystal so we could see his heaving moobs as he types.
Let's talk about clerks with no where to go. What are we supposed to do?!?!
Syracuse is the Yale of TTT
This story isn't really fair to WH.
There are a lot of bad associates who go back to clerking to avoid termination. Should WH hire those folks back too?
Comment removed by moderator.
Breaking:
Sotomayor part of ELITE SECRET SOCIETY for women only:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23375.html
guys please sound off here:
ITE, is it totally unwise to take a clerking position and defer your employment at BIGLAW for a year? will there certainly be no job when you get back (assume offer as an SA?)
TY
9: too long, didn't read.
@9 - Even your mother hates you, doesn't she?
Is SMU the Yale of Louisiana?
I left my big firm to clerk. I was told I could return, but seriously doubt (a) I want to or (b) they'll have me back. Having paid off my loans, I'm trying to get into the federal government where I can be a competent lawyer and not have to deal with the question as to whether I'm getting fired or laid off due to the partner's PPP dropping 10 percent. Also: want to have time to actually raise my kids.
12,
A fair criticism.
A post like that is for a more limited audience. Typically I will strive to keep my posts shorter and more appropriate to the brief and amusing interlude we seek from this site.
Thanks for the feedback.
Orlando Magic are the Yale of NBA
Let's get more on this topic please. I know Simpson is turning down many (or all?) of its former associates who left to clerk. I'm guessing that's true of a lot of firms ...
RA - I hope you get devoured by a ravenous Sotomayor Monster.
I'm serial.
Clerking is a great move; you'll have a guaranteed job for two years (or three, depending on your judge).
It's a lot better than going to the hellworld that is Salusa Secundus of law firms.
However, when you leave BigLaw to clerk, don't expect to return with accolades. Other associates will be jealous and partners will wonder why you left since it's not a very billable move.
Use the clerkship as an opportunity to transition elsewhere. In this case, out and far away from WilmerHale. If you have to beg to come back to WH, then, in the firm's view, that says something about you whether or not the economy has something to do with it.
Does it?
Can we please discuss the ATL webcam trained on Elie's moobs?
9,
NO ONE CARES.
On the topic of clerkships -
My opinion is that a federal judicial clerkship is nearly always the smart way to go.
The way things are now, the "one in the hand" of the lawfirm position is anything but a sure thing. We're all at risk of layoffs, and someone w/o clerkship experience is at greater risk than someone that has had one. Many firms don't have enough substantive work to allow associates to distinguish themselves from the pack, but a clerkship remains a good way of doing that. Declining a clerkship for the firm position places you at the mercy of that single firm. If you get laid off, other potential employers view you as no different from other BigLaw layoffs.
You may not have a spot waiting for you at your firm (though you may), but you will have a distinct resume/experience advantage that will make you marketable to other firms, in-house, or federal government (plus, your Judge should have ample connections to help you along). You may need to look for a job, but your competitive advantage will be apparent to everyone. (plus, you may be able to go back to your firm, and conduct the search for the perfect job while cooling your heels there - employment at will is a 2 way street, after all)
So, rather than sitting on a drudgery job with a firm you don't like much hoping not to get laid off, I'd do the clerkship to be a more marketable quantity to all employers.
That's my opinion, FWIW
Another clerk here who had an offer yanked. My firm didn't even have the decency to let me know they had changed their mind. I had to call them to hear about it. I never thought I'd be struggling to find a job coming out of a clerkship.
23 - again, too long, didn't read.
So let's see if I understand this correctly:
Big Law firms are not automatically hiring back each and every attorney who voluntarily left the firm to clerk. Instead, they are assessing each candidate separately and making individualized hiring decisions, consistent with the past practices of at least some such law firms.
These Big Law firms generally apply this same criteria regarding whether to re-hire former attorneys (associates and partners alike) who previously left the firm to work for the government, work in-house or to just walk the earth.
Quite simply, this is an outrage. Thank you for bringing such gross inequities to our attention.
I know I'm biased because i've spent 2 yrs clerking, but I think it is seriously ridiculous that firms wouldn't want people back after clerking, provided it's a firm with a real litigation department. firms should be firing people who suck to make room for returning fed court clerks - harsh, but true.
25,
That time my post was only 2 paragraphs plus a couple short sentences.
I'm afraid my response this time would be to advise that you cultivate a greater love of reading.
Um, is this not the one time promissory estoppel should actually be raised? Leaving to take less $ with a promise you can come back? Hulloo?
clerks have an inflated sense of the value of clerking: how many pro athletes spend time as refs?
Awww, don't be so harsh RA. For some people, two whole paragraphs is a lot to read and takes a long time. In fact, what I'm writing here is so long that I myself didn't even bother to read it.
Rogue Associate, it looks like your post got zapped.
Try to post things that are (1) shorter and (2) not off-topic.
Right now you are basically the equivalent of spam.
This story is BS. Everyone know's Elie wouldn't ever share his BBQ chicken
LOL'd at barbecue chicken.
32,
Indeed that seems to be the case. Ahh, well, such is life.
Sometimes there's so much to hate about my firm that I have trouble cutting it into small digestible chunks. I suppose when a rant gets so long as to go right past screed and into a full on diatribe, it is not unexpected.
I'm going to proceed on the assumption that the problem with my post was length. Most things on ATL posts are off topic (characters, Dune, Sotomayor, Lathamites, etc. etc.), so I doubt that is what got my comment bounced.
I do feel bad for the Thompson Hine partners, though. They paid me to write that long diatribe and now don't get the benefit of it.
C'est la vie.
Seems pretty obvious that the non-hires weren't so great as associates. Rather than whine about it, they'd be better off trying to get a job elsewhere. If WH was making some kind of mistake by not hiring them back, you'd think they'd have offers elsewhere by now.
28 - too long. didn't read.
I'm amazed that the firms named are not welcoming clerks back. It just confirms that the financial pressures they are under are extreme -- survival level, not PPP. (To be honest, I'm also still struggling with the utterly bizarre behavior of MoFo -- and the unintelligible memos they write--you couldnt make those up)
For clerks, I think that you should talk to your judge and also talk to attorneys who you enjoyed or admired when they practiced in whatever court you were in. In a lot of places, they will probably know of smaller "boutiques" that could use you and provide a good fit for your skills. I've seen a lot of that, and these clerks are invariably happier than their peers at big law.
One of the reasons firms look at returning clerks on a case-by-case basis is that it often matters which judge the clerk worked for. If a firm tries a lot of cases before a judge, it is obviously to the firm's advantage to hire one of his or her former clerks. If the clerk worked for a judge with whom the firm has little or no interaction, that clerk's value to the firm is less.
oh the naivite...... i think i'm going to heave. oh how it's going to hurt when reality hits.........
Wow- this firm must be run by people who failed Contracts. This has Restatement (Second) of Contracts Section 90 written all over it!
26 - in my experience there was no assessment of individual candidates, it was a hushed sigh of relief when people left, being falsely told they could return
36: To get a clerkship as an associate, you're going to need to be a fairly decent attorney. I actually had to get a recommendation of a direct supervisor by my judge (in addition to the regular 3). These clerks were probably good, it's just the firm can't afford them.
27,
Joseph Heller said it better, but can you explain why you would regret not working for a firm that didn't want you? There have to be better options out there, and you are probably lucky to have found this out BEFORE you started!!
The "conventional wisdom" that I see reiterated on this site daily is more misinformation than good career advice. Going down the yellow brick road of clerkships, big law 3-4 year stints is really putting off the practice of law, not pursuing it. I'm actually very surprised that the current model has lasted as long as it has. We have the majority of the best and brightest going straight from school to being a glorified paralegal (minus any practical skills).
I've been out for 5 years from a T3, and I'm just now starting to see young attorneys coming out of biglaw, and as smart as they may be, they are completely worthless. They don't know how to do anything, have never considered the business of law (other than being a hardworking employee), and have a completely generic corporate personality that cannot connect with people.
I really fault the schools for this outcome. If you're a student reading this, my advice to you is to figure out your long term goals and priorities as soon as you can. If you want to be a lawyer, take a job where you'll be practicing law. It may not pay off in the short term, but you'll figure out how this business works, and in time you will surpass the income of those that chose to be corporate employees.
29, thats a horrible argument, not least because no firm makes such a promise, let alone an unconditional one. The people who went to clerk did so for their own reasons, not because they were sent there by their firms. Long run they will be better for it, but there's no obligation by the firm to take them back.
And seriously, to anyone considering suing to get a job at a biglaw firm, that lack of judgment is reason enough why you will never work at a major firm anyway.
Firms should be free to not accept returning clerks, but I cant help but think this will harm their recruiting in the future. If you're a HYSCCN grad with lots of choices among the big firms, why go to a firm that will penalize you if you decide to clerk for a year? These decisions are going to knock some firms (Wilmer, Simpson, etc) out of the competition for the best law student recruits.
So, having read through a totally non germane article about Clemson yesterday -- and seeing today's news that clerks can't get hired back, I wonder what else law firms are doing to save money?
Are they cutting back CLE and off site training? Are they cancelling lexis and magazine subscriptions? What about advertising? When I practiced, the American Lawyer was just developing its PPP model, but the first thing we always did was cut back magazine and trade journal subscriptions.
Counter-intuitive, but true.
Journalism schools are increasing enrollment while the journalistic business model is falling apart and newspapers are shedding jobs and employees left and right.
I see similar signs in the legal field.
Having grown fat stupid and happy in debt induced stupor (thanks Ronnie!) we are now all beached whales given that the tide has receded.
The last 30 years of Republican deficit spending and free market abasement, i.e., deregulation and tax cuts, and general failure to make investments for the future have brought us to this point. However, we, the American people, have been complicit in this market failure.
43, that's clearly untrue. The things that make a good lawyer (judgment, charisma, etc) do not necessarilly matter to clerking. I know plenty of dorks who had great law school grades, and made excellent clerks, but who made terrible lawyers because they could never get their heads out of the clouds and realize what true advocacy is all about.
Why are comments not being allowed the the ridiculous "sweet hot justice" post above? It's a terrible post and deserves to be informed of that.
As for this post, privileged clerks find out they aren't so privileged after all. Waaah.
"These decisions are going to knock some firms (Wilmer, Simpson, etc) out of the competition for the best law student recruits."
Naive. As if good lawyers only come from a handful of schools located in the Northeast.
"Good" law school grades do not equal being a fine lawyer. Law firms are starting to remember this.
50. You are a fucking idiot. Clerking, particularly in a district court, is basically about understanding how to advocate effectively, what works, and what doesn't work. Your opinion is the reason I see terrible briefs, which made insanely off the wall arguments, in the shallow hope that something sticks. It never does. And it pisses everyone off. Clerking teaches people how to be effective advocates mainly by understanding how to effectively pick & win your battles (which big firm attorneys sans clerkship experience often fail to grasp). Your comment belies your ignorance as to what clerks do all day long.
I was curious what was up with this "six month" clerkship. Are judges going to take free labor like public law groups? Sounds like some 3Ls might be screwed when applying for clerkships next fall if a bunch of judges are going to take law firm deferral candidates who will work for free.
Already whenever you look at public interest legal positions you will see a demand for free associates. I never see any interest in even a $30k + benefits associate. All these other organizations are happy to take on the free labor and are no longer recruiting for real positions.
Can anyone provide details on Simpson not allowing former associates who left to clerk, to come back? That's a huge story.
In its summer program, the firm HUGELY promotes the idea of people leaving to go clerk and come back.
(That's different from promising people they can come back, of course, but that had just been standard practice.)
Incidentally, any interested party can feel free to contact me at RogueAssociate@hotmail.com
Yep, Simpson is no-offering associates who left to clerk (not sure about those who clerked straight out of law school). At least Wilmer is being upfront about it.
I'm a current clerk and holding on to this cushy job for as long as possible.
57 - is Simpson no-offering all former associates who left to clerk, or doing it case-by-case?
stb is on dissolution watch. no-offering clerks and taking SAs to burger king.
WilmerHale claims that "this year, we extended offers to some but not all of the former associates who inquired about returning." I strongly suspect that this is an outright lie, and I'd love to get to the bottom of it.
I have talked to at least ten former Wilmer associates who left to take clerkships and NONE received offers to return to the firm. Most of these people were very well respected at the firm before they left, left only to take appellate clerkships, and were informally assured that they would be welcomed back.
Its certainly possible (but I think unlikely) that one or two people currently clerking were invited back, but even in this best case scenario, the firm's comments are misleading. In what I think is the more likely scenario that no clerks were invited back, Wilmer has resorted to a new low of deception (this even given its recent "performance-based" dismissals).
stb is on dissolution watch. no-offering clerks and taking SAs to burger king.
53, this is 50. I did clerk, and I know exactly what you mean about poor argument selection. And if you're learning something about it, thats great. Still doesnt change the fact that the majority of people coming off clerkships are eggheads fascinated with their own sense of brilliance, not people with the charisma and natural talent to persuade. There's a big difference between being a good clerk and being a good lawyer, something I'm sure you'll see in time.
61: Gibson Dunn is doing the same thing. Former associates who left to clerk or for other government service are being turned away even though they quietly were assured there would be a job waiting for them when they finished. It is not related to the former associates' abilities, but only to the firm's lack of work. Still, that seems like the risk you take when you leave.
Wow RA is really bored and desparate, in a creepy sort of way.
59 - it's case by case.
65,
I don't know from creepy, but bored and desperate is probably a reasonable guess.
I know most at my firm are bored and desperate, and our firm doesn't sound near as bad as Thomas Hines.
I enjoy seeing someone call out partner bullshit. It's not like partners keep us informed or give us constructive avenues for feedback. I enjoy watching them reap the rewards of that by getting bashed.
58, I'm with you.
I'm at a state COA and my judge just offered me the chance to re-up for another year and then stay on after that on an open-ended basis while I search for work.
I took his offer real quick in this job market.
i just think it's weird that the Wilmer person and the judge have the same name.
69, I noticed that also and I agree with you. The bracket thing is a little odd too.
what about paul hastings and incoming clerks?
Clerking teaches young lawyers how to write and research at a high level and how to think and argue strategically. Things needed to be a very good junior to midlevel associate.
It does not teach how to manage written discovery, conduct depositions or generate business. Senior associate/junior partner skills. You can only learn those skills in private practice.
Talking about clerking, I'm from Western State University College of Law and we are not that highly ranked.
An associate lawyer told me to type up a 5 page memo.
To show him that students at Western State University College of Law are great at analysis, I did a lot of research and will turn in a 30 page memo to him.
It has footnotes and everything! I will surely impress him with my legal analysis skills!!!
As someone who worked at a big firm for four years I find it hilarious that a junior associate/mid-level isn't managing discovery, taking a dep or two and run a full litigation cycle (complaint to trial). I'm clerking now and well, it's more strategic. I wouldn't be able to make the sort of decisions I make now because I'd need to run it by a committee of senior associates and partners. Most of whom would pan it and subsequently re-package as their own.
I think you confused with a junior attorney does and what a senior one running a case does. Just sayin'
I know Goodwin Procter also told clerks not to return. If there is no work, there is no work, but most clerks can't stay on because a new one is likely to show up in September! The judge is stuck either telling the new clerk he or she can't come or sending the current clerk into unemployment. It's a bad situation for everyone, sadly.
I don't know a single Simpson clerk (who previously worked at the firm) who has been asked to return. just sayin
Wilmer is TTT if it can't make room for its former associates who took a year off to pursue an appellate clerkship.
53 is absolutely right. Anyone that decries the value of a high-level clerkship is clearly a moron. I consistently shake my head at the strategic missteps taken by partners at my firm.