Slate's Bizbox
jurisprudence: The law, lawyers, and the court.

Bonus RoundWhat to make of those astronomical Supreme Court signing bonuses?

By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Saturday, March 10, 2007, at 7:48 AM ET

(Continued from page 1)

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.

These enormous signing bonuses have also spawned a bizarre collision of two ethical rules. The Supreme Court's Rule 7 bars any former clerk from participating "in any professional capacity in any case" before the High Court for two years after they leave. That includes helping or advising their firms on upcoming cases before the court. Thus, the specific expertise for which they were hired is on ice for two years.

On the other hand, and perhaps merely coincidentally, two years seems to have become the unofficial number for the young associates themselves, many of whom agree informally that if they stick around the law firm for that period of time, they can't be accused of having taken the money and run. They'll have fulfilled an ethical obligation.

In fact, the big bonuses create an enormous incentive for young Supreme Court clerks to, well, take the money and run. After two years in private practice, they can pay down or even pay off their law school debts and leave the firm holding the bag. Carter Phillips concedes that the huge bonuses have undermined what he calls a "natural sorting process," wherein some former clerks once naturally gravitated to government service, and others left the court for academia. "I'm sort of glad we didn't have that kind of bonus in my day," says Tim Wu, who clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer in 1999 and teaches at Columbia Law School. "Money like that leaves you no option. In my case, it would have ruined my career." Alexander Volokh, who clerked for Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Samuel Alito in 2005 and 2006 and chose to teach law, is similarly adamant: "My Georgetown colleagues are worth $300,000, at least."

So now law firm recruiters have to worry about finding the clerks who really want to stick around, and they may have to settle, as Phillips says, for using those first years "as a chance to persuade the others that private practice is the place to be." Akin Gump's Goldstein says it's worth the gamble: "It's such a talent-rich pool that we can't afford to miss out on it. The combination of the clerks' skill, that they could become leading lawyers in the firm, and the reputational benefit to having them, justifiably creates this incredible demand."

Some boutique firms have very successful appellate practices with few or no former Supreme Court clerks. Others content themselves with the hope that if the clerks stay for even a few years and bill their 2,000 hours, they will still break even on the proposition. And some 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."

Maybe there really isn't anything wrong with these massive bonuses. They aren't necessarily dragging young lawyers out of government or public service. Several former clerks who have signed up with firms suggest precisely the opposite: It gives them the freedom to pay off their loans and then teach or work at the Justice Department after a few years. And if the clerks are happy, their firms are satisfied, and the clients are OK with it, who's really harmed by these astronomical rates?

Well, Justice Anthony Kennedy is, for one. As he testified just last month before the Senate Judiciary Committee, "Something is wrong when a judge's law clerk, just one or two years out of law school, has a salary greater than that of the judge or justice he or she served the year before." The fact is that if the market is working to drive associate salaries higher and higher, the lack of a market is now ensuring that a first-year associate at a law firm who clerked on the court will earn more next year than Justice Antonin Scalia ($203,000), Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald ($140,300), or a well-paid public defender ($75,000). And whether or not those salary disparities make you weep in sympathy, it's hard to dispute the justices' claim that the opportunity cost of staying on the bench has become almost impossible to ignore.

It's one thing to insist that service to one's country should be its own reward. But as college costs loom and boilers break down, one has to wonder whether it makes perfect sense to pay astronomical sums to young lawyers to argue and influence (or, in some cases, not argue and not influence) their former bosses—those same former bosses who have moved way beyond envy, and on into bitter, grinding resentment.

A version of this article also appears in the Outlook section of the Sunday Washington Post.

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Dahlia Lithwick is a Slate senior editor.
Photograph of bank notes on the Slate home page courtesy Medioimages.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

When my first M.S. student graduated after having written a thesis under my supervision, at a public university, he was able to get a job immediately, at a salary 20% more than mine. Outrageous? Hardly. It happens all the time. These clerks are going to a different job than a SC Justice, who is after all a civil servant. We all make tradeoffs in our decisions about what to do with our lives, and while it may be personally bothersome that our apprentices earn more than we do (for doing something other than what we do), there's nothing wrong with it.

--RSA

(To reply, click here.)

Usual introductory materials: I am a relatively junior partner in a large law firm that actively competes in the Supreme Court clerk hiring market. Also, I did not clerk at the Court, but have many friends and colleagues who did.

On with the show...

(1) First off, the billables discussion in this article has little to do with the clerk bonus question but bears some comment. I am skeptical of the three hours worked per two billed statistic. The principal job for people working in a law firm is to work on stuff that clients pay for. (Set aside pro bono, which raises other firm investment issues.)

80% billable yield (i.e., 4 hours billed for 5 worked) is a reasonable target. Some midlevel associates who manage time well hit 90%, but even 80% means that a 2200 hour year equates to 2750 hours worked per year. That's 55 a week-no slacker job, but highly consistent with what many professional people, including government lawyers, work.

If you are at 66% billable yield (2 hours billed for 3 worked), then either (a) you aren't doing your job (not very likely) or (b) you are being very poorly managed (vastly more likely). Let me repeat:if you are working with partners that have you working 3000 hours a year to bill 2000, those partners are incomprehensibly incompetent managers. Stop reading this post and start finding new people to work with. Right now.

(2) Regarding the clerks, there is certainly some "bling factor," but it isn't in recruiting new associates. Smart law students who aren't Supreme Court clerks, or at least close in credentials, often avoid places that brag about their clerks. They know that they may end up as second class citizens.

The real bling factor is in winning business. Clients with large appellate cases are comfortable picking firms with clerks. If I am a GC, it is a risk reduction strategy with management--who is going to question my decision to pick a firm with many top flight clerks? Same for a board of directors. Furthermore, having clerks sends a signal that a firm has a top flight appellate practice. $200K isn't that high a price to pay if it helps land significant business.

(3) From the clerk's perspective, $200K is a lot of money. From the firm's perspective, it really isn't. Frankly, you could get all 36 clerks for $7.2 million and they could all be busts. Large firms (like other multimillion dollar businesses) make $7.2 million mistakes all the time. Additionally, bad associate hires costs at least 200K by the time they get weeded out through the system. By contrast, a clerk is a fairly safe bet even if he/she only hangs around for a little while.

(4) While you have to pay $200K to get the clerk, you didn't have to pay the clerk two years salary. Clerks come in as (at least) third year associates, bill as third year associates and, especially if they are in appellate-type groups, can perform as third year associates. Two years of training are skipped. So the investment is material, but it is a substitute for another type of investment.

(5) Clerk influence. This is vastly overrated by the public. Even setting aside the two year rule, Carter Phillips (discussed in the article) doesn't need a clerk's name on a brief to get attention. He can do that by himself. It's the skills that are expected to go with the clerk, not some nefarious influence, that drive the price.

(6) Lastly, attrition. Clearly it's not great if a clerk hangs around for 10 months and leaves. But it may not be a bad thing if the clerk leaves after three or four years. Firm gets the bling factor, generally gets a few years of top flight work, and ends up with a high placed contact somewhere. Finally, like other lawyers, some clerks who are very fine associates end up not terribly good partners. The legal and academic skills needed to become a clerk are not necessarily correlated with the management and business skills that make good partners. So departures may in fact be a very healthy thing for all involved.

In short, $200K seems like a shocking amount of money at first blush. It is debated at all firms, including mine. But when you consider you are getting one of only 36 people branded as cream of the crop, it's not surprising bonuses have reached this point. Indeed, they will surely go higher.

--LuxLawyer

(To reply, click here.)

(3/12)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Assessing Sarah Palin
| Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, John Podesta and others weigh in.
Colbert King: She's No HillaryEditorial: Is She Ready for This?
PLUS » PostPartisan: Quick Takes from Opinions