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.

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.

Just at the moment, a NASCAR driver that has lost control of his car and is 0.3 seconds from colliding with the wall is in a slightly safer position than a third year law student. The latest terrible news (subscription) comes from the Massachusetts Superior Court:

With this year's budget cutbacks at the Trial Court, 25 third-year law students are scrambling for jobs instead of preparing for fall clerkships at the Superior Court.

The would-be law clerks lost their promised jobs last fall when the Trial Court instituted a hiring freeze, according to Superior Court Chief Justice Barbara J. Rouse.

According to one prospective clerk, who asked not to be named for fear of hurting future job leads, the court's decision to rescind the clerkships was extremely ill-timed.

According to the story, officials knew there would be a hiring freeze as early as last November or October. But they are just getting around to telling the would-be clerks:

According to a statement issued by Rouse in response to questions from Lawyers Weekly, the clerkship offers "always are contingent on funding."

In light of the 2009 fiscal issues, "we made the conditional nature of the offers even more clear," Rouse writes. "The absolute hiring freeze implemented by the Trial Court in mid-October and the deteriorating nature of the state's fiscal condition has precluded the hiring of any new personnel. ... I regret that we are unable to benefit from the assistance of these qualified, capable individuals, however, we are managing unprecedented cuts and difficult decisions across the judicial branch."

Is there some claim, perhaps based on a theory of reliance (i.e. promissory estoppel), that could be relevant here? More details after the jump.

On that ill-fated Thursday last month -- aka the Valentine's Day massacre, in which hundreds of law firm employees lost their jobs -- a federal judicial clerk quipped: "I know the budget is set, but this almost makes me want to chain myself to my desk so they can't make me leave. People at firms must be quaking in their Manolos."

Well, law clerks are quaking in their Keds. Many of them have requested coverage of the plight of clerks in this economy -- similar to the post we did back in February 2008, when the job market for clerks was already starting to soften. So here you go.

Once upon a time, clerks were a hot commodity, wooed by major law firms with constantly increasing clerkship bonuses. The market-rate clerkship bonus rose to $50,000 for one clerkship, $70,000 for two clerkships, and $250,000 for Supreme Court clerks. But times have changed since 2007 -- and clerks, despite their general orientation towards the somewhat more recession-proof field of litigation, are not immune.

Back in February 2008, we wrote about firms no longer welcoming back former associates who left their firms to clerk, contrary to past practice. We also covered the trend of firms imposing freezes on hiring clerks who didn't summer there.

The bad news continues to roll in. More recently, we've heard reports of firms cold-offering clerks holding offers to return. Now we're hearing reports -- anecdotal, admittedly -- of firms outright rescinding offers to current clerks:

I know one friend, who is clerking for a federal judge, who had her offer from a large law firm formally revoked recently. My fellow clerks and I have not been allowed to accept our offers yet and are afraid they may be revoked as well.

Also, we are not sure if the firms will pay out the typical clerkship bonuses in this market. The bonus is obviously the least of our worries, but nonetheless it definitely factored into our decision to take clerkships in the first place.

More discussion, including a Latham & Watkins case study, after the jump.

We take back what we previously wrote about Justice Samuel Alito being "a bit secretive about his clerk hiring." Presumably Justice Alito signed off on this press release issued by Seton Hall Law School, announcing the hiring of Lucas Townsend (Seton Hall 2004 / Ackerman (D.N.J.) / Trump Barry) as an Alito clerk for October Term 2009.

Congratulations to Townsend and to Seton Hall, which has placed its first graduate into a SCOTUS clerkship. From a tipster:

We just got this email [a slightly tweaked version of the press release] from the dean. Not bad for a school that most of the elitists on ATL would consider a TTT. Although SHU will never sniff the T-14, the school has been steadily climbing the U.S. News rankings, and I think this alum's accomplishment might help that cause.

We also had the best showing of New York Vault 100 placement ever by this year's 2L class. Things are looking good on this side of the Hudson.

Additional Supreme Court clerk hiring news, plus updated lists of Supreme Court clerks for OT 2009 and OT 2010, after the jump.

In late October, we received this question from a federal clerk:

To date, I've seen at least six posts in a series ATL has been doing about firms rescinding unaccepted summer associate offers to 2L's due to oversubscription of the summer class. I would be interested to know whether firms are actually, or at least contemplating, rescinding unaccepted offers for full-time associate positions that were being held open for former summer associates that are doing judicial clerkships this year?

I have an offer from a biglaw firm and was assured (albeit almost one year ago) that my offer would be held open until I had completed my clerkship and could formally accept. Needless to say, I am getting more than a bit nervous about whether my job will still be waiting for me come September '09.

At the time, we told the questioner that we hadn't heard anything like that from any major law firm during this recruiting cycle. Nobody's going to rescind offers to clerks!

We thought.

We hoped.

Yesterday, we had a couple of interesting conversations with folks over at Wiley Rein. We now believe that the chair of Wiley Rein's recruiting committee placed a number of phone calls over the weekend to current judicial clerks. The recruiting coordinator was careful to say that Wiley was not "rescinding" offers, but that the clerks should seriously consider looking at other options for full-time employment when their clerkships are up.

More details after the jump.

Coming into this week, Harvard Law School had placed 58 federal clerks, leading all law schools. That is not altogether surprising, given the Cretaceous size of HLS classes. Yale is only clocking in with 14 (9th place) clerks. But it's early yet. It's just important that Eli-the-bulldog doesn't drop his bone in the river trying to grab another one.

The real news from the Federal Appellate Judicial Clerks 2009 blog is that the University of Michigan Law School is currently tied for second (with Stanford).

Way to go, wolverines. We told you that stealing cell phones and sandwiches wasn't going to adversely affect the school's reputation when it came to anything important.

But look at how difficult it is to get a clerkship coming from a school outside of the top 14:

* T14: 71.3%

* Others: 28.7%

Those numbers are worst than last year for those outside the top 14.

At least if you are still in the top tier you have a fighting chance to get a clerkship. The path to clerking is all but blocked for those outside tier 1:

* T1: 94.2%

* T2: 3.6%

* T3: 1.4%

* T4: 0.8%

The lesson, as always, get into the best school you can and don't look back.

Federal Appellate Judicial Clerks 2009

Some of you might remember that there is a presidential election going on. Turnout is expected to be high and many voters will be participating for the first time.

However, if you are a federal clerk you had better keep your political opinions to yourself. Free speech does not exist for you. One of our readers pointed out:

I just accepted a position as a federal law clerk for the 2009-10 term. I also have an Obama sticker on my bumper and an Obama sign in my yard. According to Ethics for Federal Judicial Law Clerks (p.20), I would be violating Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees if I were currently clerking.

Pretty much. The scope of political activity is curtailed not just by the canons of judicial ethics, but also by the Hatch Act. As a clerk, you are discouraged from giving money, attending events, you're not even allowed to wear a campaign button to work.

We're all for judicial impartiality, but making clerks say "I don't know nothin about birthin' no babies" seems a bit undemocratic (small "d") to us. Federal clerks participate in some of the most important decisions about how we live, and we expect them to be able to weigh both sides without passion or prejudice. But a bumper sticker removes the veil of ignorance and reduces clerks to partisan hacks? A legal fiction is one thing, this is a legal farce.

Luckily for new clerks like our reader, this is not a problem for 2009-2010 clerks. They can go nuts until they are "official" federal employees. But current clerks can attest to the exact moment where free speech falls to the illusion of impartiality.

Update: If you're interested in learning more about clerkships, and if you'll be in Washington on Saturday, October, 4, this free event may be of interest to you.

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of clerkships

Let us turn our attention to judges and the law students who do all their work. Monday marks the first day where judges can schedule interviews with clerkship applicants. ATL will be right there with the applicants, poring over the Clerkship Notification Blog.

The plan is simple, according to the 2008 Law Clerk Hiring Plan.

But just like last year the best laid plans sometimes go awry. According to a tipster:

The hiring plan seems to be falling apart. I knew it was already unraveling in 'flyover country' because judges there thought it worked to their disadvantage, but people here are talking about judges even in major markets (DC, NY, CA) who purport to follow the plan are at least calling early, if not offering early too.

How are applicants coping with the last weekend before the official hiring season? And who is already sitting on secret offers? Discuss, vent, or gloat below.

Earlier: Clerkship Hiring: Today's the Day

A few weeks ago, Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the Most Holy D.C. Circuit warned summer associates not to do anything that would get them a shout-out on Above the Law. Law school career counselors, we're told, tell students the same thing when advising them about how to conduct themselves as summer associates.

That may be wise advice, as far as Biglaw goes. You don't want to stand out from the crowd. Work hard, keep your head down, get the offer.

But if you're gunning for the ultimate credential in the legal profession, a coveted U.S. Supreme Court clerkship, could a little bit of publicity on ATL perhaps be a good thing? Could the Elect be governed by a different set of rules than mere mortals?

Am Law 200 law firms are expected to hire about 10,000 new associates this fall (although query whether that number will go down with the economy). In contrast, the nine justices, plus retired Justice O'Connor, hire just 37 new law clerks each year. Thus, unlike summer associates, Supreme Court clerks DO need to stand out from the crowd to land their jobs.

Interestingly enough, a number of Harvard Law School students who were mentioned by name on ATL subsequently landed SCOTUS clerkships. Consider:

What's going on at the Supreme Court? Last weekend, after handing down the last opinions of October Term 2007, two of the justices had law clerk reunions at One First Street.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hosted a tea for her clerks on Sunday afternoon. Perfectly lovely and civilized, and just what one would expect from a justice with a white frilly thing sprouting from her neck.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy has his clerk reunion every five years. There was a black-tie dinner at the Court on Saturday night, followed by a kid- and family-friendly lunch on Sunday. Turnout was strong, and the attendees included several former AMK clerks who are now judges: Chief Judge Alex Kozinski (9th Cir.; awkward?), Judge Brett Kavanaugh (D.C. Cir.), Judge Neil Gorsuch (10th Cir.), and the just-confirmed Raymond Kethledge (6th Cir.). We may have a more detailed report on the AMK reunion later.

And speaking of Supreme Court clerks, we have lots of hiring news to pass along. We were hoping to wait a bit longer to tie up some loose ends (of which there are a number). But since some of this news has been showing up elsewhere -- e.g., the Volokh Conspiracy (Orin Kerr); Wikipedia -- we've been forced to show our hand.

As noted over at the Clerkship Notification Blog, Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg have completed their law clerk hiring for October Term 2009. In addition, we've independently confirmed that Justice Antonin Scalia is also all finished for OT 2009. If you were hoping to land a clerkship with JPS, RBG, or AS -- who, by the way, are frequently mentioned by ex-SCOTUS clerks (of all ideological stripes) when you ask them who the smartest of the nine justices are -- sorry, but the courthouse doors are closed. Try again next year.

Check out the list of Supreme Court clerks for OT 2009 -- which contains some information gaps, which we're hoping you can help us fill -- after the jump.

Too... much.... information. Yes, we're talking about the controversy over Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit, who's presiding over the Ira Isaacs obscenity trial in Los Angeles, and who uploaded some materials to a shared family website that contained some sexual images (among many other things).

This controversy is "TMI" in more ways than one. There has been such a torrent of news and legal blog coverage that we're still getting up to speed. We'll have more detailed thoughts later. Our extensive past coverage appears here, here, and here.

In the meantime, here's an open thread for discussion, plus some material to keep you occupied: (1) an extensive collection of links related to this matter, to both mainstream media sources and blogs, as well as selected material obtained from Chief Judge Kozinski's site; and (2) a pair of reader polls (one from yesterday, still open, and one new, prompted by comments like this one).

NEWS COVERAGE
Judge suspends L.A. obscenity trial after conceding his website had sexual images [Los Angeles Times]
Porn Stash Puts Obscenity Case Judge in Awkward Spot [New York Sun]
Chief Judge Contributed to Racy Web Site [New York Times]
Report: Smut-case judge posted explicit images [AP]
Judge Assailed Over Sexually Explicit Images on Web Site [Washington Post]
Obscenity Trial Suspended After Report That Judge Posted Sexual Images [WSJ Law Blog]

BLOGOSPHERE COVERAGE
The L.A. Times's Tipster on Kozinski's Porn: Cyrus Sanai [Patterico's Pontifications]
More on Cyrus Sanai's Campaign Against Judge Kozinski [Patterico's Pontifications]
The L.A. Times's Tipster [How Appealing (Howard Bashman)]
The Kozinski Circus [Convictions / Slate (Emily Bazelon)]
Should Litigants in Obscenity Case Before Judge Kozinski Moo-ve for a Mistrial? [Legal Blog Watch (Carolyn Elefant)]
Judges Gone Wild [Concurring Opinions (Kaimipono Wanger)]
News judgments about Kozinski's porn [LawBeat (Mark Obbie) via How Appealing]

COLLECTED MATERIALS FROM CHIEF JUDGE KOZINSKI'S WEBSITE
[Warning: NSFW]
What "Stuff" was on Judge Kozinski's Personal Website? [Celebrity Justice / USLaw.com]
Exclusive: Kozinski's Porn -- Images from Judge Alex Kozinski's Web Site [Patterico's Pontifications]
[Warning: NSFW]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski (scroll down)

While we continue to update our ATL / Lateral Link tables on clerkship bonuses and signing bonuses and bar exam fees, a few of the clerks I have been working with lately have asked an interesting, but often critical question: "Do I have to give it back if I leave?"

Update: This survey is now closed. Click here for the results.

In the meantime, a quick shout-out to two firms making nice strides lately: Hogan & Hartson now offers a $50K clerkship bonus in all of their offices, and Fried Frank has increased their paid maternity leave to 18 weeks.

Both of our running tables have now been updated to reflect the good news.

--
Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this survey.

Here are a few items about U.S. Supreme Court clerk hiring:

1. The justices have completed their hiring for October Term 2008. They're all done (including retired Justice O'Connor). If you were hoping to land a SCOTUS clerkship for OT 2008 and haven't heard anything, our condolences -- that ship has sailed.

2. Here are two hires not previously reported in these pages:

(a) Clerking for Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (Term not determined): Jaynie Randall (Yale 2006 / M. Patel (N.D. Cal.) / Cabranes).

(b) Clerking for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (for October Term 2009): Scott Keller (University of Texas 2007 / Kozinski).

We don't know whether Randall will be clerking for Justice Alito in OT 2008 or OT 2009. We have reason to believe that she's an OT 2009 clerk. But that would leave two unknown spots for OT 2008 in SAA's chambers, which strikes us as strange. So we are listing her as OT 2008 for the time being, until the mysteriously missing Alito clerks are identified.

(On that subject, if the outstanding Alito clerks for OT 2008 are deliberately trying to conceal their identities from the world -- perhaps thinking their fellow clerks are fit to be listed on ATL and Wikipedia, but they are somehow too "special" to be revealed -- that strikes us as rather precious and self-important. Also, their names will appear on the Court's official list of law clerks in a few weeks, making the cloak-and-dagger secrecy even more unwarranted.)

Keller, a current clerk for Judge Kozinski, will do a Bristow Fellowship in between his Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court clerkships. To the ATL readers who asked about whether Bristow Fellows had been announced, there's your answer.

3. The Clerkship Notification Blog, a tremendously helpful resource for those in the clerkship hunt, is up and running for the 2009-10 clerkship season. The main page is accessible here, and the SCOTUS clerk section is accessible here.

4. Finally, we'd like to pose the same question to you about SCOTUS clerk demographics that we posed last year:

We're interested in figuring out how many law clerks for the upcoming Supreme Court Term are women or minorities. But we don't know all these folks personally (much as we might like to). So we need your help.

If you know of either (1) a clerk who is a racial or ethnic minority or (2) a clerk whose gender is not revealed by their name (we already know that incoming AMK clerk Ashley Keller is a guy), please let us know, preferably by email (subject line: "SCOTUS clerk demographics"). Thanks.

(Some of you might find this inquiry crass. But racial and gender diversity among Supreme Court law clerks has been discussed on Capitol Hill and in the pages of the New York Times and the Legal Times. So please don't get upset at us for being curious about something that members of Congress and the mainstream media are already interested in.)

The latest lists of the OT 2008 and OT 2009 law clerks to the U.S. Supreme Court, with Randall and Keller added, appear after the jump.

Here's a topic we haven't written about in a while: clerkship bonuses. But we're guessing it's of interest to at least some of you, judging from the robust discussion on the recent Community post an ATL reader started about law firms hiring -- or not hiring -- judicial law clerks.

A source passes along this information about Davis Polk & Wardwell:

The firm is amending its clerkship bonus policy to pay $50,000 for a one-year clerkship and a $70,000 clerkship bonus for a two-year clerkship or two one-year clerkships. As you know, Cravath, Debevoise, Paul Weiss, Shearman, Skadden and S&C have this policy in place.

The full clerkship bonus policy of DPW, after the jump.

We probably won't cover judicial clerkship bonuses quite as closely as we used to, now that Justin Bernold has put together this handy table of clerkship bonus info. But we did want to bring your attention to one development, since several of you emailed us about it. This message is representative:

Just to let you know, JD has just changed their website to reflect a $50K clerkship bonus. Despite all the bad things said about JD on ATL, they are at least keeping pace with clerkship bonuses. Hope this spurs some positive commentary....

Thanks for providing a great service to lawyers everywhere!

For ATL's table of clerkship bonuses, which has been corrected to reflect the JD information, click here.

P.S. For the record, we don't think the Jones Day buzz here has been that bad. Sure, there have been some negative comments, but that's true of almost every firm under the sun. And we've heard from Jones Day defenders as well.

Jones Day - Careers - Compensation [Jones Day]

We received about 400 responses to last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on judicial clerk hiring. Roughly 140 of these responses were from current judicial clerks.

Although comments in last week's post suggest a weakening market for judicial clerk hiring, the actual survey results were mixed. A couple dozen respondents claimed that their firms were not hiring judicial clerks, but there were other respondents at almost all of these firms who said that they were hiring clerks, as well as responses from clerks stating that they had received offers from these firms. (And, in at least three cases, I've personally worked with clerks who received offers at the supposedly non-hiring firms.) But it does seem clear that firms are more likely to hire clerks in their larger offices, especially New York, than in smaller branches.

That said, the clerks seem to be doing pretty well overall. A quarter of responding clerks have already accepted offers for post-clerkship employment, and another fifth have received offers but haven't yet decided where to go. Fifteen percent have started interviewing. A quarter have not yet started looking. Only about sixteen percent have started looking, but haven't yet landed interviews.

Interestingly, 56% of the clerks who have accepted offers are going to firms that they did not work for before clerking. Almost 90% will receive clerkship bonuses, with more than half receiving $50,000.

Check out our table of clerkship bonuses, after the jump.

There have been some rumblings on this blog of a slowdown in judicial clerk hiring, even as firms raise clerkship bonuses to $50K.

Today's ATL / Lateral Link survey digs a little deeper into who is (or isn't) hiring judicial clerks, and what their bonuses look like.

Update: This survey is now closed. Click here or here for the results.

--
Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this survey.

We have confirmed, with a reliable source at the firm, the rumor that Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher now pays a $50,000 clerkship bonus, as of January 1 of this year. We don't know the firm's policy for multiple clerkships of years of clerking; if you happen to know, email us, and we'll update this post with the information once it's confirmed.

Over the weekend, there was some discussion about a possible slowdown in terms of law firms hiring law clerks. Could sizable clerkship bonuses be contributing to this, by making law clerks more expensive for firms to hire?

Update: Two pieces of additional information. First, the $50,000 bonus is "flat"; it does not increase for multiple clerkships or years of clerking. Second:

I love Gibson Dunn, but don't be fooled. They just eliminated the bar stipend amount ($15,000), and then tell you that you are getting a $50,000 bonus for clerking. You can get $15,000 in the summer before you start your clerkship (like all of the other new associates) to help pay for the bar, but then your bonus really is only $35,000. So, they didn't really up their bonus, they just called your bar stipend something different.

Some people clerk for the experience. And some people clerk for the experience. From an interesting article entitled "Clerks in Paradise," which appeared in last month's American Lawyer:

[Some go clerk for feeder judges, and some go clerk for] courts in the Northern Mariana Islands, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia and other tropical locales in the Pacific Ocean. These former United Nations trust territories have legal systems similar to those of the United States, and appeals from their courts traditionally lie with U.S. courts. Many of these territories invite American law graduates to spend a year or two working in their courts as clerks and counsel.

The pull of the Pacific can be powerful.

When Timothy Schimpf accepted a position as court counsel in Palau, a nation of more than 300 islands that became independent in 1994, he turned down a permanent job as a trademark attorney with the federal government. "It's absolutely worth it to take a chance and go do something outlandish," he says.

The $40,000 salary he earned in Palau wouldn't go far in America, but life in the Pacific Islands had its perks. From Schimpf's government-provided beachfront housing, after-work swims and kayak sessions were easy.

Sounds like a pretty sweet gig. Read more -- about clerking in paradise, and about the current job market for law clerks applying to large law firms -- after the jump.