http://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1960584&mc=9&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1960955&forum_id=2#20802820)

COA clerks often bail because they go to hypercompetitive superprestigious firms where the expectations can never be met and good organizers from T14 schools with more common sense dominate the case management skills and the SCOTUS/FEEDER clerks dominate the brief writing.

These COA clerks usually say, fuck this, and go to boutiques or AUSA or in house or teach or whatever. Most would never consider going to a low tier vault firm like the one I am at.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1960955&forum_id=2#20802998)

coa clerks do both, like any other associate at these firms. the problem is that the guys who did not clerk and graduated top of their class at USC are often really fucking good at case management, staying on top of shit, navigating the biglaw firm, and are also good enough at brief writing. some smart COA clerks are just too smart for their own good and lack common sense and are poor at case management and poor at writing briefs in the way a partner wants them to be written. and up to a certain level brief writing is all the same, no one can tell. a lot of these COA clerks and YLS grads just dont have the gunner grinder striver mentality necessary to do what it takes to succeed in biglaw. a large part of working at these super prestigious firms is carefully navigating through a minefield of vicious partners, bounced filings, typos, missed deadlines, bad first impressions, etc.

the really sharp super geniuses though can bang out briefs in no time and make them sing and all that shit and are just clearly better than anyone else's stuff. these people are very rare though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1960955&forum_id=2#20803064)

you learn how much time to spend on certain arguments, structure, what not to say, what works with partners and what doesn't, the art of intros, etc... just a lot of stuff that isn't necessarily intellectual but part of the art of writing a good brief. for example, once a partner gave me back comments and said "This introduction SUCKS. This is why . . . . and this is what you do instead ...." And another time he called and screamed at me saying "why did you put this in the declaration instead of that? Stupid, the court will notice, the opposing will notice and this will fuck us." Small anecdotes but hopefully you get the picture.

if you have westlaw, look up a motion to dismiss written by Munger Tolles and compare it to one written by Sheppard Mullin on the same topic and you will get a sense for what I mean.

anyway, you need to learn all that stuff before you make your move over to the bottom tier amlaw 100 firm because u will lose all learning, u will basically stagnate in terms of writing skills. you wont learn shit. if you go there as a first year, you will learn bad habits and your briefs will look as shitty as everyone else's and you won't stand out. to be fair, at the bottom tier mega firm people often cant recognize quality of argument, or wont get it, but they usually are able to see that a brief is well-structured and not full of run on sentences and pointless clunky rhethoric in a way they are not used to seeing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1960955&forum_id=2#20803312)

other things are like, saying shit that is dismissive of the court's prior ruling, making nearly baseless motions, making baseless arguments that cause you to lose credibility with the judge, getting too hot with ad hominems in a motion you write the first time before judge in new case, etc...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1960955&forum_id=2#20803439)