Supreme Court Clerks: Do They Live Up to the Hype?
Or, perhaps more importantly, their $200,000 signing bonuses? That's the question Dahlia Lithwick takes on in her recent Jurisprudence column for Slate.
The sums in question are even larger than Lithwick notes. She writes:
That will be [a] $200,000 [bonus] on top of a starting salary of $145,000 to $160,000. Which adds up to an awful lot of Pottery Barn sectional furniture for someone who is, on average, 26 years old and just two years out of school. As Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out recently, that $360,000 beats the heck out of the $212,100 he's taking home for, well, chief justice-ing the entire nation.
Actually, the starting salaries are even higher, since pretty much all firms give Supreme Court clerks seniority credit for their two years of clerking. So a clerk who went straight through to a feeder judge, the SCOTUS, and a private law firm would be paid like a third-year associate: $170,000 in Washington, or $185,000 in New York (or in the D.C. office of a New York firm).
Lithwick interviews Walter Dellinger and Carter Phillips, who offer various justifications for the outsized bonuses as an economic matter. We have our doubts -- and are quoted as a dissenting opinion:
On his legal gossip blog, Abovethelaw.com, David Lat tracks lawyer salaries with the glee most of us reserve for American Idol. And according to him, the hefty law clerk bonus stopped making any real economic sense several decimal points ago. Lat notes that these new associates just don't bill extraordinary hours; that boutique appellate practice isn't that lucrative; and a good many former clerks have academic aspirations. "They're billing 1,800 hours, not 2,500, and a lot of them are probably already working on their job talks," he says, referring to their sales pitches for the academic market.The real allure of the Supreme Court clerk, says Lat, is that they are trophy purchases, "something for a firm to crow about in their recruiting materials." Ouch. If Lat is correct about this, the boutique firms are buying former Supreme Court clerks when they might be better off investing in something more enduring, like new leather sofas for their lobbies.
We stand by these remarks, but maybe we'd remove the "Ouch." These bonuses don't make pure economic sense (in our opinion); but neither do many other things that law firms spend gobs of money on. If a firm wants to drop $200,000 on a SCOTUS clerk, or on an Alexander Calder for the lobby, that's their prerogative.
We're quoted later in Lithwick's piece:
[S]ome firms, notes Lat, have decided to stop pursing the Supreme Court clerks and spend their recruiting dollars on what he characterizes as the near misses. "For every one of the 36 smartest law kids," he says, "there is another equally smart law kid who just had a bad interview [for a Court clerkship]." And if law firms make the economic decision to give bonuses to them, "they get all the benefits of a knock-off Prada purse: They perform the same function, they look great, and you know they'll do a great job."
We'd single out Kellogg Huber of D.C. as one such firm. Some of you have expressed curiosity about who pays the biggest clerkship bonuses. We believe it's Kellogg Huber. This tiny, super-elite Washington litigation boutique is rumored to pay clerkship bonuses of $100,000 to federal appeals court clerks -- and for that kind of money, combined with the firm's small size, it can afford to be picky. The non-SCOTUS clerks at the firm tend to be those who came thisclose to landing a job at One First Street (e.g., feeder-judge clerks who interviewed unsuccessfully for Supreme Court gigs).
Update: Do you have an opinion on whether Supreme Court clerkship bonuses are too high, too low, or just right? You can express it by voting in our poll. To vote, click here.
What to make of those astronomical Supreme Court signing bonuses? [Slate]
(40) Comments
the bonuses make perfect economic sense. like the supreme court practice itself, supreme court clerks are loss leaders. while they may not personally be great investments, they're providing valuable prestige points that help firm recruit other smart law students with marginally less impressive credentials.
Isn't the justification for the size of the SC bonuses that these kids have given up 2 years of law firm salary?
60K + 60K + 200K is not much more than 145K + 155K on the 2006 scale, and is less than 160K + 170K on the 2007 scale.
birds of a feather... SCOTUS clerks are complete toolboxes. it only makes sense they are hired by the dorks and douchebags who run Biglaw firms.
Lithwick also mistakenly reports that the average age on completing a SCOTUS clerkship is 26. 1Ls average about 24 year of age, So the number she's looking for is at least 29 and probably higher.
Anonymous 1:19, do you know any SCOTUS clerks? Or do you merely enjoy demeaning others for their hard-earned success? Sounds like you flock with Loyola 2L.
"Isn't the justification for the size of the SC bonuses that these kids have given up 2 years of law firm salary?"
I actually don't begrudge these clerks their bonuses, but I've never really bought this reasoning. Clerkships and working at a large firm are apples and oranges - the labor itself is entirely different, so I've never really seen clerking for a year or two as "giving up" anything. Sure, they could've been getting paid more, but they also weren't (presumably) subjected to the at-times nightmarish environment of being a first or second-year associate at a large firm. What they lost in cash they gained tenfold in quality of work and work environment.
I see the bonuses as precisely what they are: incentives to join Firm A over Firm B.
Lat you should check out the comment from "LuxLawyer" now highlighted at the end of the Lithwick piece on Slate. It's a detailed explanation of why these bonuses might actually make some economic sense for firms.
But isn't there a going rate for SC bonuses?
Let's also not forget that they CHOSE to give up the salary. It was a personal choice of theirs to go clerk, they weren't drafted into it.
I actually have always found it ridiculous. For the same amount of money, you could hire three first years, and after a year-long "survivor," just keep one of them.
I know for a fact that when I went to my BigLaw job, i never thought "well this place has more clerks, i should obviously work there."
But, that being said, as long as firms are handing them out, good for you clerks. Good for you.
A SCOTUS clerkship lasts only one year, not two.
Factoid: A SCOTUS clerkship lasts one year, but invariably, it is preceded by a one-year stint at a lower appellate court (and nowadays, perhaps a district court clerkship to boot). Hence, the minimum two years of lost law firm earnings.
I question the recruiting value of having SCOTUS clerks. Personally, I haven't found former SCOTUS clerks to be particularly compelling interviewers (or co-workers).
If I were that 'near-miss' type of attorney, I might prefer to work somewhere where I wouldn't be surrounded by people who succeeded where I failed. Then again, I went to a mid-Tier 1 school that has never had any alums join the elite, so maybe I have a chip on my shoulder.
A SCOTUS clerkship is a pretty good proxy for general legal brilliance. While that may draw in some additional business -- and help to win some of the tougher cases -- it does not add $200k in value to the firm, especially when you consider that the SCOTUS clerk will be conflicted out of SCOTUS work for two years.
But lawyers at top firms also enjoy being in the presence of brilliance. Many went to top law schools, and they miss their halcyon days on law review, basking in the glow of the Elect-to-be. How can you put a price-tag on recaptuing that?
When I was a 2L I was deciding between Cravath, Davis Polk, and S&C. I can honestly say that the number of former SCOTUS clerks any of those three firms never factored into my consideration. I never thought about it, never checked the firms' websites to see how many former SCOTUS clerks worked there, etc.
Is there anyone out there for whom this actually was a factor in deciding which firm to work at? If so, why?
That's probably for the best that you didn't check, 2:17, since none of those firms are currently (to my knowledge) big SCOTUS clerk recruiters. I summered at one of those three and there was a memo going around asking the handful of former SCOTUS clerks - most of whom had clerked many, many years ago - for help trying to recruit a few new ones. Given that appellate work at those firms is relatively rare, and a SCOTUS appearance is like hens' teeth, you wonder how they could compete with the mostly DC-based appellate shops. I'd be surprised if there were many former SCOTUS clerks that really wanted to do trial work.
Are there other firms in DC with big clerkship bonuses like Kellogg Huber?
2:17 wrote: "When I was a 2L I was deciding between Cravath, Davis Polk, and S&C."
. . .
Also curious: What West Coast firms land SCOTUS clerks and/or have a strong appellate practice (in a DC office or across the firm)? I can think of Munger, Quinn, and Gibson. Anyone else out there?
OMM and Latham. Latham acquired 6 new SCOTUS clerks firm-wide in the last round of hiring.
2:17: appellate lit gunners salivate in the presence of "the elect." d. lat himself has an unusual fascination with them.
2:17, it's ". . . deciding among Cravath . . ."
I'm guessing that if Loyola 2L spent as much time preparing for class as he (or she) does commenting on this blog, he (or she) might have a biglaw job by now.
This article is interesting: http://www.law.com/jsp/llf/PubArticleLLF.jsp?id=1162461919294
Didn't Lat blow an interview for a SCOTUS clerkship? Must be why he's so sure that "For every one of the 36 smartest law kids there is another equally smart law kid who just had a bad interview."
Although it's true that Lat had at least one Supreme Court interview, it's a bit unfair to say he blew it. There are lots of well-qualified candidates who have good interviews at the Court but who nonetheless don't get the job.
3:47 --
That may be the case, but Lat can't be allowed to dole out his occassionally funny bitch-slaps and expect his commentors to play by Marquis of Queensberry rules, so fair or not, I say he blew it.
Lat's interview was with Scalia, who probably didn't want to hire a gay clerk. Scalia, let's remember, has most decidedly not signed on to the anti-anti-homosexual agenda of the legal world.
I think Lat had an AMK interview too. AMK would be much more gay-friendly that AS.
3:05 - Sorry, but 2:17 was correct. It's "between."
http://www.drgrammar.org/faqs/#54
How did he know he was gay?
AMK wrote Lawrence if I'm not mistaken.
Does anyone know if Lat had an AMK interview? I thought he just had a Scalia.
Has anyone ever met Lat? Is he really flaming? He's totally flaming on the blog but if he's not in real life I wonder if Scalia would have even known he's gay.
When has Lat asked his commenters "to play by Marquis of Queensberry rules"?
I'm pretty new to ATL, so maybe I missed something. But Lat seems to take an awful lot of abuse from his commenters, without complaint.
I bet Scalia didn't know he was gay. Unless Lat is apparently gay I don't think anyone would suspect it. I mean, he was in the Federalist Society and whatnot. This isn't a cut against gay Republicans but the fact is that they're rare. I think it's a pretty safe assumption statistically that if a card-carrying member of the Federalist Society is standing in front of you he's straight.
Nino's Gaydar is THE BEST.
One of Scalia's stock interview questions is: "Did you enjoy 'Mommie Dearest'?" If you answer yes, as Lat surely did, you're history.
Nino also (1) solicits your opinions on quiche and (2) asks if you own any pleated pants.
A positive opinion of quiche, or denying that you own any pleated pants, will tank you.
4:14: When he found himself looking around the locker room before gym class...
Maybe it was the chaps and leather vest he wore to the interview.
the prestige factor probably does make the 200K worth it, at least in relative terms. given the insane amount spent on recruiting in general (e.g., summer programs), 200 is a drop in the bucket. that said, i agree with lat that the clerks themselves are not particularly likely to be superlawyers. having previously toiled at one of DC's snottiest firms, i've worked with plenty of the 'elect' or whatever lat calls them. a handful were truly brilliant lawyers, particularly the older generation (who probably didn't get large boni). but more often, these guys and gals were among the most naive, least wordly people i've ever met. what they brought to the table in terms of legal knowledge, they more than offset in an astounding lack of street smarts or even cultural acumen. possibly there's a connection - getting all the requisite credentials to even be considered for the job may leave little time for reading, travel, music, art and other aspects of life that make for a well-rounded person. in any event, it is also the case that many of them left for academia after just a few years. again, this calls into question the value of the bonus except as a prestige factor, much like the nice art in the lobby.
Interesting how Lat's willing to grant that brilliant, deserving people could be passed up for SCOTUS for random reasons, but seems completely unfazed by the existence of qualified non-clerks (e.g., people who were passed up for circuit clerkships for no particularly good reason)...
If SCOTUS clerks are no better than near-SCOTUS clerks, doesn't it follow that circuit clerks are no better than near-circuit clerks? Why don't we rag on bonuses for them?
Do any firms pay more than $15,000 for each year of a clerkship? I thought $15,000 was the going rate whether it's a district or circuit. I'm not sure firms pay clerkship bonuses for state clerkships unless they're on a state's supreme court. Does anyone know?