Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Speaking of JLCs, I have a question. To what extent is being a JLC helpful to one's career? Am on track to get a first class honours but of course things are very fluid and may change since I've not graduated. But wanted to think of options.
Is being a JLC something one must absolutely do if given the chance? If you look at the background of those conferred SCs, appointed to the Supreme Court and even taking higher office in politics, many of them have been JLCs. This is despite only a small number of people becoming JLCs each year, or so my seniors tell me. I'm sure these were ridiculously clever people to begin with as your post above suggests. But does time as a JLC train one's mind in a way that law school and practice does not that gives one an even stronger edge in life and in the profession? And should it be something I should push myself to get if I intend to be in litigation, to academia or even aspire to politics [don't judge me]?
|
It's just easy marketing. Most lawyers suck at marketing themselves, but with JLC you get a "free pass" so to speak. If you are good at branding yourself, or you can get into an int firm from the start, the benefits of being a JLC markedly drops.
You also get to work with HC judges which means they'll remember you 15 years down the road when you're hoping to get nominated for SC, or even to recommend you for a certain role.
Also, bigger firms tend to give you the bigger case because it's more palatable to clients that an ex-JLC is on the case, as opposed to a "normal" associate. Again, this is just easy marketing.
Most lawyers from bigger firms, after a while, have generally the same skillset. The SC and non-SC in say b4 are basically exactly the same in terms of their skill level, except that one person managed to market themselves better as a "top" litigator. Being a JLC gives you that bump to market yourself.