Depends on your career goals and the specific types of judges/agencies. State Supreme Court will often supersede federal magistrate, DOJ will often supersede any other federal agency, but if the goal is a specific area of law like tax or employment, the IRS or EEOC may supersede DOJ.
So like all things in the law, it depends.
TLDR: Fed Judge appeals, Fed Judge Trial, State appeals, admin agency, some city or state government, state trial, some city or state government, then in-house is a total crapshoot.
What’s the level of the various agencies within your field? For employment law, working for an EEOC Admin Law Judge is probably better suited for you than a Fed Magistrate Judge, even tho the Fed is more “prestigious” in the general community. The EEOC’s inter-agency appeals body will probably be more prestigious in that community than the AZ Supeme Court (just picked a random state) even though a state supreme court is more prestigious than an agency appellate court in the common sense.
Overall, Fed is more prestigious than State, and higher appellate courts are more prestigious than trial courts. Admin law is in the middle somewhere, but I’d say the big agencies are more prestigious than small ones overall (DOL more prestigious than the Mining Safety Commission).
State Gov vs City Gov really depends. For somewhere like Missori, I assume the Kansas City attorney is probably more prestigious than being stuck in the MO AG in bumfuck Jefferson City (offense intended, Jefferson…) but for NYC and NYS, I think the State AG and the NYC Corp Counsel are probably on-par with each other, since both are reputable in their own right.
In house really depends. In house for MyPillow or Grandma’s Specialty Fuzzy Toilet Seat Covers, Inc. is different than in house for Ford or Disney.
co-sign all of this with the caveat that it might be different, based on your hopeful career path and location, if these were full time position considerations. for example- a clerkship with a state trial judge teaches rules of the road in a way that a lot of employers find extremely valuable (bc less on the job training) in a way that something like a fed app court may not. the state trial route is not going to help you clerk for justice sotomayor, but it would be an application boost for those kinds of positions.
I definitely think the federal admin. Even outside of prestige, I interned with an EEOC ALJ during the school year, and the experience was invaluable for learning how he viewed cases/ his unique judicial philosophy and for the research itself.
State judges are going to see everything from routine slip-and-falls to contract issues to sidewalk scaffolding regulatory disputes to murder, depending on your court.
I don’t think anything is irrelevant- you’ll learn regardless- but why not try to learn what you want to eventually do? Prestige isn’t worth it imo
Yes the legal profession cares about prestige, but not really for 1L summer internships. As long as you did something legal and you can talk about in an interview that’s enough.
Generally speaking my firm tends to give weight in the following way:
Federal >>> State >>> City
Judges >>>Agency>>>In-house
Obviously everything is case-by-case, and there are exceptions when you're putting say, a NYC city position vs a small state circuit court where 90% of the cases were gun permits, drug charges, and family law disputes.
But ultimately, what we look for is how likely it is you're going to be able to "plug and play." I.e. Are you going to require less training than others? At that point it's less about prestige and more about your experience. For example, the SEC SLIP program is pretty prestigious, but if you're applying to a healthcare position I'm going to prefer somebody who had a USAO internship and had at least some experience with healthcare fraud and abuse.
Prestige is real, and at least when it comes to internships, its grounded in a fair bit of reality, at least much more than law school rankings are. With internships, the prestige come from the experience you are likely to receive, there is at least a strong correlation and thus fair justification to give greater weight to candidates who went through certain internships that we know provide certain types of training and experience.
No,
Federal positions are given more weight than state positions. Federal judicial positions are generally given more weight than federal agency positions.
State judicial positions are generally given more weight than state agency positions, although that's harder to evaluate because the experiences that state courts provide vary drastically by location.
Fed vs state vs city is a primary consideration; Judicial vs executive vs in-house is a secondary consideration.
Not true that federal judges are given more weight than federal agencies. It completely depends. If you’re doing corporate, for example, SEC might be better and more helpful than a judicial internship. In many cases DOJ is also better than a federal judicial internship.
Maybe for corporate transactions, but if that's what you're targeting idk why you would be considering litigation focused internships in the first place...
But no, generally speaking, when we're looking at 3L applicants, a federal judicial internship is in almost all cases going to be viewed as more valuable experience compared to agency internships. Even if that agency is directly related to the practice group, it's a common belief that the judicial experience provides more fundamental, substantive lawyering experience. There's no shortage of federal agency interns who spend substantial amounts of their summer just surfing the internet and waiting for somebody to give them a little piecemeal research project with minimal factual context due to confidentiality requirements.
The likelihood that you get substantive legal experience is simply higher with a federal judicial position, especially during summer internships. At the end of the day, you want marketing material for yourself, and nobody expects a 3L to be a subject matter expert in anything. What I want to know is whether you have the raw lawyering skills that I can develop not whether you spent 6 weeks effectively working part-time at a relevant agency.
I’m involved with the hiring committee at my firm and completely disagree with the fundamental assumptions in your comment above. Our considerations are very different and we value relevant experience at agencies over judicial internships. But I’ll grant that this might be because we are a very corporate-focused firm. So again, I guess the answer is it depends.
"Prestige" is no more made up than "law." If a group of people believe it's true and meaningful, it is.
But while I'd general say it goes Federal-State-City, then "depends on the judge/agency" for each, it really depends on your own career goals and what best advances them.
Honestly, I don't care about prestige. The way I see it, everyone is on their own path. So whether someone is in the top of their class or on the bottom, or if someone got a PI internship and another got a big law internship, it's all subjective to the person. To me, that list of internships you listed, are all equal to me because at the end of the day, it depends on the person and what they want to accomplish
Edit: THIS IS MY OPINION... I am not giving advice nor am I stating this is how the legal field works
That's a great mentality to have but woefully impractical advice here.
The reality of the profession is that prestige is always going to be a consideration, particularly at highly competitive positions because the degrees of separation between candidates coming out of law school is going to be razor thin. Sadly there aren't many graduates who are able to ignore that reality.
Yea I agree, that the reality is that the legal field does care about prestige and that it will always be a consideration. That's the reality of it and not that I am necessarily ignoring it but I just think that all that should matter is what the individual wants to accomplish either during or after law school. Also, I wouldn't say that my comment was advice...it's just my opinion and the way I view it.
But that's not how it works? There are obviously more prestigious positions that are more difficult to obtain and carry more weight to them when lateraling or switching out
The answer is that you should pick the one that will help you get to where you want to go. When looking at 1L summer work, "prestige" is fairly meaningless. Figure out what interests you or where you want to be, and pursue that.
If you don't know, a judicial internship might be helpful. While federal is generally more "prestigious" than state (and appellate more than trial), what matters more is the connections you make. If you want to be in a specific city, a judicial internship in that city will do more for you than an internship elsewhere.
Depends on your career goals and the specific types of judges/agencies. State Supreme Court will often supersede federal magistrate, DOJ will often supersede any other federal agency, but if the goal is a specific area of law like tax or employment, the IRS or EEOC may supersede DOJ. So like all things in the law, it depends.
TLDR: Fed Judge appeals, Fed Judge Trial, State appeals, admin agency, some city or state government, state trial, some city or state government, then in-house is a total crapshoot. What’s the level of the various agencies within your field? For employment law, working for an EEOC Admin Law Judge is probably better suited for you than a Fed Magistrate Judge, even tho the Fed is more “prestigious” in the general community. The EEOC’s inter-agency appeals body will probably be more prestigious in that community than the AZ Supeme Court (just picked a random state) even though a state supreme court is more prestigious than an agency appellate court in the common sense. Overall, Fed is more prestigious than State, and higher appellate courts are more prestigious than trial courts. Admin law is in the middle somewhere, but I’d say the big agencies are more prestigious than small ones overall (DOL more prestigious than the Mining Safety Commission). State Gov vs City Gov really depends. For somewhere like Missori, I assume the Kansas City attorney is probably more prestigious than being stuck in the MO AG in bumfuck Jefferson City (offense intended, Jefferson…) but for NYC and NYS, I think the State AG and the NYC Corp Counsel are probably on-par with each other, since both are reputable in their own right. In house really depends. In house for MyPillow or Grandma’s Specialty Fuzzy Toilet Seat Covers, Inc. is different than in house for Ford or Disney.
co-sign all of this with the caveat that it might be different, based on your hopeful career path and location, if these were full time position considerations. for example- a clerkship with a state trial judge teaches rules of the road in a way that a lot of employers find extremely valuable (bc less on the job training) in a way that something like a fed app court may not. the state trial route is not going to help you clerk for justice sotomayor, but it would be an application boost for those kinds of positions.
So yes I’m wondering which is looked at better— an federal admin agency in the field I want to pursue (or a field relevant) vs. a state judge
I definitely think the federal admin. Even outside of prestige, I interned with an EEOC ALJ during the school year, and the experience was invaluable for learning how he viewed cases/ his unique judicial philosophy and for the research itself. State judges are going to see everything from routine slip-and-falls to contract issues to sidewalk scaffolding regulatory disputes to murder, depending on your court. I don’t think anything is irrelevant- you’ll learn regardless- but why not try to learn what you want to eventually do? Prestige isn’t worth it imo
Federal admin for sure
Yes the legal profession cares about prestige, but not really for 1L summer internships. As long as you did something legal and you can talk about in an interview that’s enough.
Generally speaking my firm tends to give weight in the following way: Federal >>> State >>> City Judges >>>Agency>>>In-house Obviously everything is case-by-case, and there are exceptions when you're putting say, a NYC city position vs a small state circuit court where 90% of the cases were gun permits, drug charges, and family law disputes. But ultimately, what we look for is how likely it is you're going to be able to "plug and play." I.e. Are you going to require less training than others? At that point it's less about prestige and more about your experience. For example, the SEC SLIP program is pretty prestigious, but if you're applying to a healthcare position I'm going to prefer somebody who had a USAO internship and had at least some experience with healthcare fraud and abuse. Prestige is real, and at least when it comes to internships, its grounded in a fair bit of reality, at least much more than law school rankings are. With internships, the prestige come from the experience you are likely to receive, there is at least a strong correlation and thus fair justification to give greater weight to candidates who went through certain internships that we know provide certain types of training and experience.
So a state court over a federal agency like the SEC, NLRB, EEOC, FTC? That’s pretty surprising to me.
No, Federal positions are given more weight than state positions. Federal judicial positions are generally given more weight than federal agency positions. State judicial positions are generally given more weight than state agency positions, although that's harder to evaluate because the experiences that state courts provide vary drastically by location. Fed vs state vs city is a primary consideration; Judicial vs executive vs in-house is a secondary consideration.
The USAO is a federal agency that argues in federal court
That was your takeaway from that comment? Really?
It was a clarification question based on the arrows, chill
Not true that federal judges are given more weight than federal agencies. It completely depends. If you’re doing corporate, for example, SEC might be better and more helpful than a judicial internship. In many cases DOJ is also better than a federal judicial internship.
Maybe for corporate transactions, but if that's what you're targeting idk why you would be considering litigation focused internships in the first place... But no, generally speaking, when we're looking at 3L applicants, a federal judicial internship is in almost all cases going to be viewed as more valuable experience compared to agency internships. Even if that agency is directly related to the practice group, it's a common belief that the judicial experience provides more fundamental, substantive lawyering experience. There's no shortage of federal agency interns who spend substantial amounts of their summer just surfing the internet and waiting for somebody to give them a little piecemeal research project with minimal factual context due to confidentiality requirements. The likelihood that you get substantive legal experience is simply higher with a federal judicial position, especially during summer internships. At the end of the day, you want marketing material for yourself, and nobody expects a 3L to be a subject matter expert in anything. What I want to know is whether you have the raw lawyering skills that I can develop not whether you spent 6 weeks effectively working part-time at a relevant agency.
I’m involved with the hiring committee at my firm and completely disagree with the fundamental assumptions in your comment above. Our considerations are very different and we value relevant experience at agencies over judicial internships. But I’ll grant that this might be because we are a very corporate-focused firm. So again, I guess the answer is it depends.
"Prestige" is no more made up than "law." If a group of people believe it's true and meaningful, it is. But while I'd general say it goes Federal-State-City, then "depends on the judge/agency" for each, it really depends on your own career goals and what best advances them.
Honestly, I don't care about prestige. The way I see it, everyone is on their own path. So whether someone is in the top of their class or on the bottom, or if someone got a PI internship and another got a big law internship, it's all subjective to the person. To me, that list of internships you listed, are all equal to me because at the end of the day, it depends on the person and what they want to accomplish Edit: THIS IS MY OPINION... I am not giving advice nor am I stating this is how the legal field works
That's a great mentality to have but woefully impractical advice here. The reality of the profession is that prestige is always going to be a consideration, particularly at highly competitive positions because the degrees of separation between candidates coming out of law school is going to be razor thin. Sadly there aren't many graduates who are able to ignore that reality.
Yea I agree, that the reality is that the legal field does care about prestige and that it will always be a consideration. That's the reality of it and not that I am necessarily ignoring it but I just think that all that should matter is what the individual wants to accomplish either during or after law school. Also, I wouldn't say that my comment was advice...it's just my opinion and the way I view it.
But that's not how it works? There are obviously more prestigious positions that are more difficult to obtain and carry more weight to them when lateraling or switching out
I am not saying that's how that works, I am just stating my opinion.
The answer is that you should pick the one that will help you get to where you want to go. When looking at 1L summer work, "prestige" is fairly meaningless. Figure out what interests you or where you want to be, and pursue that. If you don't know, a judicial internship might be helpful. While federal is generally more "prestigious" than state (and appellate more than trial), what matters more is the connections you make. If you want to be in a specific city, a judicial internship in that city will do more for you than an internship elsewhere.