SCOTUS Clerkship Bonus Watch: Still at $250K?
The National Law Journal suggests that the down economy could be hitting the pockets of the Elect. Some firms are suggesting that the $250,000 bonus to hire a former Supreme Court clerk is just too expensive in today’s economy:
At firms that have been shaken by the downturn, however, a $250,000 bonus will be hard to sell, some practitioners say. “Intuitively, it doesn’t feel right to pay that kind of bonus when you are trying to make economies wherever you can at the firm,” said veteran advocate Carter Phillips, managing partner at Sidley Austin’s Washington office. Thomas Goldstein of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, where there have been cuts, agrees that it’s tough to justify a $250,000 bonus when a firm is considering letting go a staff person paid $50,000. Because of that juxtaposition, he predicted bonuses will shrink — though he said it’s too early in the hiring season to say how much. “The number of firms willing to pay that amount of money will be down.”
But surely these firms aren’t talking about collusion, are they? SCOTUS clerks command top dollar, and firms that are struggling can’t artificially deflate the price for this top talent — even if they want to:
Firms won’t be sorry to wave goodbye to what Goldstein calls the “incredible escalation” that the $250,000 bonus represents. Even before the recession, firms were grumbling about it because of a recurring pattern: Some clerks grab the bonus, work at the firm for a year or three, then skip off to academia with loans paid off and kids’ tuition in the bank. “Firms are going to be more interested in clerks staying around and practicing law,” [former solicitor general Paul] Clement said.
While some firms might be priced out of the Elect market, we are still talking about a “recession-proof” set of credentials.
More after the jump.
Even if the bonus doesn’t go up this year, clerks should still be able to find some suitors willing to meet their demands:
“A Supreme Court clerkship is a recession-proof credential,” David Frederick said firmly. The Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel partner declined to say specifically how much of a bonus his firm will offer this year, but added, “We’re hoping to hire a couple of clerks this term.”King & Spalding’s Paul Clement, the former solicitor general, concurs. “The clerks will still be in great demand,” he said, though he added, “I don’t think the bonus is going up.”
Comparatively speaking, SCOTUS clerks should do just fine. Their employment prospects are beyond solid, and you’ll be hard pressed to find other lawyers without a book of business that can command a signing bonus of any description.
But the Elect might want to show a little humility in today’s economy. You just don’t want to hear anybody complaining about only receiving a $200,000 signing bonus. Not when people are getting fired to help firms save $50,000 here or there.
Less buck for their bang [National Law Journal]
Fewer Law Firms Expected to Pay $250K Hiring Bonuses for High Court Clerks [ABA Journal]
(64) Comments
Comments
first?
SCROTUS Clerks
Quite frankly - if the firms are concerned about clerks running off to academia, they shouldn't hire them in the first place.
"I'm going to get paid in nickles so that I can hit the Atlantic City slots every weekend."
-- SotomayOR!
RALPH BAXTER PAY CUT
When are clerks starting their job hunt? Sept? Aug? And how long does it take to get traction at the fed level? Six months?
SCOTUS be sinking
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
This is a non-story...I'm sure all of us care lots about the 0.000003% of the population that this impacts.
What is the market bonus for federal district and appellate clerks? How about some reporting that affects us normal people?
If you don't clerk for SCOTUS you are TTT
If you don't clerk for SCOTUS you are TTT
I agree with 11, this news is irrelevant to almost everyone who reads this blog. If you're going to write a post about clerks, why not write a more detailed post about the job search difficulties facing fed dist and appellate clerks, since we apparently do not have "recession-proof credentials." jeez.
I'd pay 50, maybe 75k. At least at Kirkland, some of these people are excellent, while others suck. Too big a risk to shell out 250k for an entitled schmuck.
And stop calling them "the Elect." Most of them just knew somebody.
3, agree, or alternatively, sign them to (gasp!) employment contracts for a minimum amount of time with the firm, say 3 years. Methinks though that firms will be *loathe* to give any associate--even a member of the Elect--even whisp of a sense of job security.
A better question would have been "What are the clerkship bonuses looking like across the board?"
supreme court clerks are hot
Comment removed by moderator.
This is nonsense. First off -- with clients caring even MORE about credentials and experience than ever before (hence why they don't want to pay for 1st years, but they will still pay top dollar overall for the partners) these Clerks are in GREATER demand.
Half of this is misdirection and subterfuge on the part of some firms to try and convince other firms to lowball. I doubt it will work, but if you think any of the firms in the V50 are going to short-change a SCOTUS clerk, you're insane. A firm making a single lowball offer this year could permanently gimp their own recruiting out of SCOTUS for years (since unlike law students SCOTUS clerks actually stay in touch and have institutional memory of which firms screwed them in the past).
20, no one cares about your TTT SCOTUS clerkship. Ever hear of the term overqualified?
As a federal district clerk, I care about this story only insofar as it might have an impact on us lowly trial court clerks.
Suicidal Latham laid-off first year,
Have you found another job since being laid off? Have any of your fellow laid off first-years? If you haven't but others have, ask yourself why. Perhaps it has something to do with your attitude.
As a deferred 3L, I'm hoping for the best, and I'm optimistic that I'll actually start. But I'm also planning for the worst. If the worst happens, I won't be spouting off about how unfairly life has treated me. Life is unfair. Get used to it.
Same goes for Scared 3L. What a wimp. Scared 3L, you make the rest of us look bad. At least I know I've got more fight in me than one of us potentially screwed deferrees....although, that's not saying much.
23
Lobby in front of the summers.
i have a friend who claims he has a 250k watch.
ELIE:
The TAKE-AWAY from the comments is that NO ONE CARES ABOUT SCOTUS CLERKS.
IT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO REPORTING ON PARKING OR HEALTH-CLUB BENEFITS FOR SCOTUS JUSTICES--***does not affect the general population of lawyers***.
250K bonus? Does having a SCOTUS clerk at you firm really bring in more business to justify such a cost? that's insane!
23,
Laid-off Latham guy is allowed to be depressed, even if he does need help.
Stop preaching.
Mystal, your moobs are mine, bitch!
If you want the best, you have to pay the best.
-HLS '01
The number of comments are way down on this blog showing that a lot of the former readers are not sitting at a computer at work all day anymore. All those layoffs have lowered the number of readers of this blog. The fall of biglaw may lead to the fall of ATL (or at least advertising revenue.) How long before Lat is forced to give Elie three months severance because of slumping economic conditions but labels it a performance layoff?
Deleting comments is racist.
I will be clerking in a fed dist court next year and then (hopefully) returning to a firm where the rest of my summer class was deferred. I've already resigned myself to the fact that after the clerkship they are going to lump me in with my "class" and pay me as a first year, but should I give up all hope of getting a clerkship bonus too?
SCOTASSLOBSTERs are a hell of a snack.
Hey, why all the hate? I am simply trying to represent the interests of 3L's who have had their offers revoked -- I mean deferred. I don't think people realize that, other than laid off first years, we are getting the most screwed.
24 -- that's great that you're so optimistic. But I don't think you realize that when our offers get officially revoked, we will have ZERO options.
14, it's indirectly relevant.
Your firm's willingness (or not) to pay $250k to incoming Supreme Court clerks is a signal of its financial health and of its priorities.
Also, "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" had zero practical value to most of the people who watched it, but it still entertained them.
36,
That's what you snobby law students at arrogant law schools get for putting all your eggs into the BigLaw basket.
EAT IT!
Scared 3L,
You are not representing our interests at all. You're an anonymous poster on a tabloid. Furthermore, you make us out to be whiny, entitled bitches with no hustle or guts.
ZERO options? What you mean to say is zero options to make a six figure salary within the next few years. During this downturn, grow a pair and start learning about how to practice law. There are opportunities out there. Make lemonade, buddy.
Right on Scared 3L! As a recent law grad who watched my V100 start date get pushed off more than half a year (so far) I can attest that new associates are getting a bigger shaft than laid off mid-levels. Unlike someone who has been working at 6 figures for several years and then gets laid off we have NO MONEY. Moreover, we can't even look for another permanent job because we're still hanging in limbo waiting for the promised job to start (and because nobody is hiring). Even temp work is hard to get because of all the laid off experienced lawyers eager to snap it up.
If you're lucky enough to worry about having your $250K bonus cut back then count your blessings. Some of us don't know how we're going to pay our fucking bills for the rest of the year.
To all deferred 3Ls who feel the need to whine and complain about our situation:
The complaint is valid and understandable, but we've got to get over it. No one is going to give you anything in this world. Life's not fair. You've got to be aggressive and take the things that you want.
Life is long. Bitching about the possibility of never starting at your first big job or getting laid off from your first big job will only hold you down.
"If I am going to spend that kind of money," Goldstein said, "I am going to ask whether this person will be with us for a while."
Ha. Tom Goldstein has never been able to land a SCOTUS clerk--even ones who worked with him before their clerkship--because they all learn during their year at the Court that none of the Justices respect him and his work is actually pretty amateurish. It's pretty funny to hear him talk as if he wouldn't actually fall over himself to finally snag one of them.
41. So what do you recommend, oh sage? We can not in good faith seek out a permanent position when we have accepted a now deferred offer at another firm. Contract work is extremely hard to get for a brand new lawyer in this market. I mean this seriously. What do you recommend, specifically?
41 -- I share 43's question. What you fail to recognize is that it is very difficult to apply for jobs when we are supposed to be starting at our firms in January. The only option is to flat-out lie on our applications, which is not a great way to start our careers.
So we sit here waiting for our firms to defer us further, all the while studying for the bar. Good times!
SCROTUS. Heh.
Wait, is that "SCOTUS"? My bad.
The Erect. Heh.
Wait, is that the "Elect"? My bad.
43/44,
I was speaking generally. Obviously at this point in time we cannot apply for permanent jobs. However, would you rather be in your position or in the position someone w/ no deferral at all?
Just because you can't apply for permanent jobs doesn't mean you can't work or otherwise learn about the practice. Volunteer. Read law journals and practice guides. Go down to the courthouse and watch a trial. What were you planning to do? Sit on your ass? Go to Thailand?
That is actually constructive advice, 47. Thank you!
I plan on getting some kind of part time job to supplement my deferral stipend, but I will definitely try to stay active in the legal community. Do you think I should be restricting myself to legal employment from Sept-January, though?
Scared 3L,
I'm a deferred 3L too, so ask around. I am acting off of the advice of others - both lawyers and non-lawyers. I am volunteering this Fall and the organization knows about my situation (deferred until January). Actually, I think that any organization is more likely to take you on as a volunteer if they know the specific time frame you're dealing with. Offering free labor until January is a tough deal to turn down if they are busy.
I'll probably be waiting tables to supplement the stipend as well.
I have found that Public Defenders offices and DAs offices in less centralized areas (more suburban, if you will) are less staffed and have a ton of work to go around.
I'm basically treating this Fall like it's another semester. I'll have the same amount of $$ (pretty much) as I did when I was taking out student loans to live. Rather than go to classes, I'll be learning as much as I can on the job.
Remember, it's not about what people had before us...the September start dates, Bar trips to exotic places, signing bonuses, huge billables, etc. Examine your situation and make the most of it.
How can these firms think of keeping up such a large bonus for unproven clerks just starting their careers, when they ALL rejected Mark Levine for about the same money earlier this year. That would be bad form.
Why a firm would pay a bonus for a SC clerkship is a mystery to me. Big law firms almost never argue in front of the supreme court. While paying money for someone who understands the workings of a relevant District or Appelate Court makes sense, an SC Clerk is a legal hood ornament. Just plain silly. Why not hire someone who actually has skills that you would use?
These guys almost never stick around after their bonus "vests." Does anyone make money off these guys, or is it a sunk marketing cost that a firm uses to show how great it is?
In response to 51, don't most of these guys (if not all) first clerk at a Circuit Court of Appeals?
It's not about them sticking around. It's about being able to tell clients you have a former SCOTUS clerk working on their case. The couple years they give you is well worth the prestige they build out of it.
To all the "is it worth it" people.
Look, you don't run a meaningful appellate practice group without filling it with former SCOTUS clerks. It's that simple. Getting pro bono reps at SCOTUS is hard enough, the market is shark-infested-water, so even trying to break into the market is dicey.
Without major credentials backing it up, you're better off not bothering.
And while people can say "oh big firms never go to SCOTUS anyway" the point is that SOME do, and ALL of them want to. This is one of the areas where competition is growing drastically -- more firms want in at the SCOTUS level, and more are willing to pay people to get them there.
There's a reason why there are only a handful of real "traditional" SCOTUS practices in this country, and if you look at them you'll see entire practice groups stagged with former clerks.
51--yes, they usually have clerked at an appeals court first. The bonus for an appeals court clerkship is about $80k. I don't have a problem paying them for that. But why pay another $150k for less useful work? I'd much rather have someone who spent all the time at an appeals court, or some time in practice in front of an appeals court.
52--The "prestige" argument is a loser. Firms don't bother telling their clients that some anonymous 4th year was a supreme court clerk. Clients don't care. They often don't even know who the second chair on their case is, let alone any associate buried in the back office.
Part of the large bonus structure is to compensate you for lost earnings while clerking. When you are on the gov't dime, you aren't eating ramen, but you aren't raking in the big bucks like your counterparts at BigLaw. Of course, now that compensation is slipping, that reason is going out the window
Firms definitely do tell clients, and pitch to clients, on the basis of Supreme Court clerk associates in appellate work. Maybe not in other work, but definitely in appellate work. Is it worth $250K, I don't know, but it's worth something. The other argument for the bonuses is that if you don't pay one, you get no SCt clerks at all, and as someone above mentioned, you have to have them if you're going to have an appellate practice that competes for top work. No individual clerk may be worth that much, but paying that much to any you can get is worth it to make sure that you always have some.
Scared 3L keeps playing that same sad song - why does he imagine that anyone wants to keep hearing it? Get over it.
56 - you don't know what you're talking about. none of the $250K bonus is based on the salary they otherwise would have been paid if they were at a law firm.
If they are frustrated at the former clerks leaving after a year or three, then why not just cut it into slices and make each slice contingent on retention? Make it $50k upfront, and then $50k each year they stick around until they hit $250k.
I'm from WESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. I have top grades and can read a case brief to the satisfaction of my professors (who have PRESTIGIOUS CREDENTIALS).
I can OUT COMPETE my colleagues any day because I have a knack for the law as proven by my grades.
How much do you think I can get for a BONUS as a law clerk?????
I'm from WESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. I have top grades and can read a case brief to the satisfaction of my professors (who have PRESTIGIOUS CREDENTIALS).
I can OUT COMPETE my colleagues any day because I have a knack for the law as proven by my grades.
How much do you think I can get for a BONUS as a law clerk?????
Does anyone else think Lat's fascination with "the Elect" is the result of that being the one thing missing from resume? He got all the way to a "feeder judge" on the 9th Cir., but just didn't quite make it all the way. Its the one thing that really haunts him.
63 - That may be true. But this is an Elie post, it seems.