I graduated last year from a mid-Tier 1 US JD in the top 5% of my class. I've published twice, once a student Note, and I'm clerking for a federal judge. I'd love to teach law some day, preferably constitutional law among other subjects, but I know that's a tough route coming from a mid-Tier 1.

I thought an LLM or a BCL would be great, and I thought, why not apply to Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, and Oxford, or bust. I'm still kicking it around, but I wanted some input about that plan overall, or if it's really worth it to expand beyond those schools.

Additionally, I have a fair amount of law school debt, and I'm married with a young child. That complicates my decision overall (particularly living overseas for a year with a family). I just feel like if I don't get into a big LLM or BCL program, I might as well just skip it and move on, hoping for the best. I'm not sure the debt is otherwise worth it.

Any thoughts you have would be appreciated, and I'll follow up with more information to clarify. I'm new to all this, so anything you can say would be helpful.

Top 5% from a a mid tier 1 school!?

That's pretty good. That's summa and order of the coif probably from a top 20-30 law school!

Combined with a journal and a federal clerkship!

What the heck are you worrying about?

Most large law firms will want you. I'd work at a biglaw for a few years and then apply to do the LLM at someplace like you mention.

Having said that, I know top 10% grads from my school - mid tier 1 too - class of 2002 - and they are already teaching civ pro at the same or other tier 1 schools, without an LLM. Federal clerkships and a few years at biglaw, combined with their prior academics, were all they needed - and that's what most tier 1 teaching faculties will be looking for.

I'm not worried about biglaw; I have that lined up. Is it really better to go work for a while, then get an LLM? Is it important to work before trying to teach? I think the teaching market is more difficult to get into than you let on to be--if you're not at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, NYU, or Chicago, your chances are extremely slim that you'll enter the teaching market.

Obviously the rules are fl;exible and depend on a number of contingencies, but my view is:

1) unless you are doing a PHD, Dphil, JSD after the LLM, or al;ready have at least a master's in another, related subject (like economics) before doing the LLM, then you are very unlikely to get a full time tenure track teaching job with just the LLM;

2) however, if you did five or so years of big law, then I think that plus the LLM will likely be enough to get a teachig job, though probably not at a top tier school...

My friend graduated in the top 10 students in our class in 2002 - tier 1 school ranked circa 30 - did a federal circuit clerkship followed by 4 years in biglaw - and now teaches 1L civ pro at the same school having started this fall semester 2007. With those credentials, no LLM was required. I'd say you'd need an impressive LLM or SJD if you want to teach at a school ranked higher than the one you graduated from.

However, I still think top 10% from a Tier 1 combined with a federal circuit clerkship will get you a teaching job before any LLM will.

Most professors don't get tenure until after a few years teaching under a contract, and tenure is based on teaching quality, publications, and of course whether you are liked by the faculty.

Highly commercial subjects like corporations, securities etc are probably easier to get if you have biglaw experience (or good government experience eg SEC) in those areas - combinded with the aforementioned academics etc

Dear all,

From reading the replies to this post, I thought I'd give a bit of insight into an observation I've made when it comes to getting onto the academic "career-ladder".
First of all I think it is important to differentiate between teaching law in the U.S. and teaching in the U.K. . I think explains the comment above made by equity's darling about one having to possess a doctorate in law to teach, which seems to be the case in the U.K.. However I've noticed that this is not necessarily so in the U.S.. Further a LL.M. in the U.S. does for U.S. law students consitute their eighth year of studies, and thus should be viewed differently than doing an LL.M. in the UK after just three years of undergrad law. This is not to say that the LL.M. degrees offerred at the top establishments in the U.K. are any less demanding, or of a lesser standard than those in the U.S., simply that they are regarded differently in different law-teaching/learning cultures.
Secondly, while I can see that it might be useful to develop a pattern or formula which one is to follow to get into teaching law (e.g. must get good grades, publish, relevant work experience, etc.), in my view it is a gross over-generalisation. Rather I find it useful to simply boil it down to the fact that one needs to truely be engaged with the study of law, rather than be attracted by the idea of studying law. If with your abilities you will commit yourself to reflection and intellectual inquiry into studying law, the rest will ensue. Obviously it helps knowing how to express this reflection (i.e. through publishing, conferences), but the medium shouldn't be your goal.
It could be that these thoughts are springing from pure naivety, but as for that, and all the above, I give the floor to you,

Cheers

Paavo

Paavo:

A US law degree is a doctorate in law. It's call a JD i.e. Juris Doctorate.

technically, that is true; but I believe that by 'doctorate' he means a degree earned at the PHD level, which, in law, goes by the name of PHD, JSD, or DPHIL.

Bottom line for academics in Canada seems to be, in addition to an LLB / JD:

1) Have a PHD or equivalent (without much experience); or
2) Have an LLM or equivalent, with severals years of signifiant legal work experience (NGO, big law, Gov't, depending on specialty); or
3) Have an LLM plus numerous peer reviewd publications.

If you look at recent (ie last few years) hires at all the law schools in canada, these are the unmistakble patterns of qualifications...

Dear underemploed lawyer,

You are completely correct, sorry for the mistake. I did mean that which equity's darling clarified with "doctorate", i.e. PhD-level studies (SJD, JSD, DPhil as mentioned above) in law. Thanks for the clear-up,

Paavo