A growing number of law graduates are spending years moving from one judicial clerkship to another before entering private practice, academia, or government service—a trend that legal scholars say is quietly reducing opportunities for aspiring clerks across the country.
New research by three law professors argues that so-called “clerkship stacking” has transformed what was once a short-term professional stepping stone into an extended career track. Instead of completing a single clerkship, some graduates now undertake two, three, or even four consecutive positions under different judges, occupying slots that might otherwise be available to a broader pool of candidates.
Judicial clerkships remain among the most prestigious opportunities available to newly graduated lawyers. Typically lasting a year, these positions allow young attorneys to work closely with judges, gain insider knowledge of the legal system, and strengthen their credentials for future employment.
While clerk salaries are relatively modest by legal industry standards, the long-term financial rewards can be substantial. Major law firms frequently offer significant bonuses to former clerks, with the largest incentives reserved for those who have served at the highest levels of the federal judiciary.
The study suggests that the rise of clerkship stacking disproportionately affects students who lack access to elite legal networks. Graduates from less prominent law schools, first-generation lawyers, and those facing financial constraints may find themselves at a disadvantage. For many, delaying entry into higher-paying legal jobs for several years simply is not a practical option.
Researchers traced the roots of the trend to the upper tiers of the federal judiciary, where multiple clerkships gradually became a common credential for candidates seeking the most competitive positions. Over time, the practice spread beyond those circles and has accelerated markedly during the past decade and a half.
Interviews with more than 130 judges revealed widespread perceptions that clerkship stacking has become increasingly common. Judges reported seeing more applicants who arrive with prior clerkship experience, creating a cycle in which former clerks gain an edge over first-time candidates.
The study points to several factors behind the shift. Online application systems make it easier than ever for students to apply to large numbers of judges. At the same time, judges faced with an overwhelming volume of applications often view previous clerkship experience as evidence that a candidate can succeed in the role.
Another factor is the growing attention paid to judges known for sending clerks to especially prestigious positions. Aspiring lawyers frequently target these highly regarded judges, hoping to strengthen their chances of securing future opportunities. As competition intensifies, some judges make offers years in advance, prompting students to accept early commitments while continuing to pursue other clerkships in the meantime.
The result, according to the researchers, is a system that increasingly rewards those who understand its unwritten rules. A credential once capable of opening doors for talented newcomers is becoming more difficult to access for candidates without insider knowledge, established connections, or the financial flexibility to spend years accumulating judicial experience.
The authors argue that clerkship stacking has evolved from an individual career strategy into a broader structural issue—one that is reshaping who gains access to some of the legal profession’s most influential early-career opportunities.
