Should You Clerk? An Honest Look at Judicial Clerkships in Canada

Clerking has a certain glow around it. People speak of it the way they speak of a prestigious fellowship, and for some lawyers it genuinely is a defining year. But glow is a poor basis for a career decision. A clerkship is a real job with real tradeoffs, and it suits some people far better than others. My aim here is to strip away the mystique and give you an honest picture, so you can decide whether it fits the career you actually want, rather than the one that sounds impressive at a dinner party.

What a clerkship actually is

A judicial clerk, sometimes called a law clerk, works directly for a judge for a fixed term, usually a year. Canada has clerkship programs at various levels of court, from provincial superior and appellate courts up to the highest levels of the federal system. The exact structure, application process, and duties vary by court, and I will speak in general terms here rather than pretend every court runs the same way, because they do not.

What the courts have in common is the core of the role: you support a judge in the work of deciding cases. You are close to the reasoning, close to the drafting, and close to the moment where arguments become decisions. For a certain kind of person, that proximity is thrilling. For another kind of person, it is a year of intense reading and writing spent outside the practice of law they were eager to begin.

What clerks actually do all day

The daily work is less dramatic than the reputation suggests, and that is not a criticism. It is deep, careful, unglamorous work, and it is exactly what makes the year valuable.

• Legal research. You dig into the questions raised by the cases before the judge, tracing lines of authority and figuring out how the law actually applies to a specific dispute.
• Writing bench memoranda. Before a hearing, clerks often prepare memos that summarize the issues, the parties' positions, and the relevant law, giving the judge a clear map of what is coming.
• Reviewing materials. You read the parties' written arguments and the record closely, sometimes an enormous volume of it, and distil what matters.
• Assisting with judgments. Depending on the court and the judge, clerks may help with research and drafting on reasons for decision, always under the judge's direction and subject to the judge's own judgment.
• Discussing the cases. Some of the most valuable hours are simply talking through hard problems with a judge who has spent decades thinking about them.

If you love the analytical core of law, the puzzle of a genuinely difficult question, this is a very good year. If what drew you to law was the courtroom, the client, or the deal, you may find yourself missing the parts of the job that clerking sets aside.

Who it suits

Clerkships reward a specific temperament. In my experience the people who thrive share a few traits.

They love writing and research for their own sake, not as a chore on the way to something else. They are comfortable working quietly and independently, often on a single hard problem for days. They are drawn to appellate-style thinking, the questions of principle rather than the mechanics of running a file. And they tend to be planning a career where that skill set pays off: litigation, especially appellate work, academia, policy, or a practice built on complex legal analysis.

A clerkship is a magnifying glass on legal reasoning. If reasoning is the part of law you love, the year is a gift. If it is the part you tolerate, be honest with yourself about that before you apply.

None of this makes clerking "better" than the alternatives. A student who is energized by client contact and the pace of a busy practice is not missing anything by skipping it. They are simply built for a different first year.

The genuine pros

Let me be fair to the case for clerking, because it is strong.

You will become a markedly better legal writer and researcher. There is no faster way to sharpen those skills than a year of doing them at a high level with expert feedback. You will see, up close, how judges actually think, which is knowledge that quietly improves everything you do in litigation afterward. You will build a relationship with a judge that often lasts a career, and a reference from that relationship carries real weight. And in some corners of the profession, particularly appellate litigation and academia, a clerkship opens doors that are harder to open otherwise.

The honest cons

Now the other side, which people mention less often.

A clerkship delays the start of your practice by a year. That is a year of not building a practice, not developing client-facing skills, and, at some courts, earning less than you might in private practice. For many people the tradeoff is worth it. For some it is not, and it is worth doing that math honestly rather than assuming the prestige justifies any cost.

There is also the risk of a mismatch. If you clerk because it sounds impressive rather than because the work suits you, a year of solitary research can feel long. And a clerkship can subtly narrow expectations, both your own and other people's, toward a certain kind of career. That is fine if it is the career you want. It is worth noticing if it is not.

Finally, the skills you build are specific. They are superb for litigation and analysis. They do less for you if your future is in transactional work, in-house counsel, or a practice built more on relationships and commercial judgment than on written argument. If you are weighing very different paths, our comparisons of Bay Street and small firm practice and the in-house counsel path may help you see where a clerkship does and does not fit.

How clerkships can shape a career

The clearest effect is on litigators. Former clerks often carry an intuition for how judges read arguments, which shows up in sharper factums and cleaner oral advocacy for years afterward. In academia, a clerkship is close to a standard step and signals a serious research orientation. In policy and government legal work, the analytical depth transfers well.

But shape is not the same as destiny. Plenty of excellent litigators never clerked, and plenty of former clerks moved happily into work that has nothing to do with appellate reasoning. Treat the clerkship as one strong ingredient in a career, not as the recipe.

The basics of applying

Application processes differ by court, so your first task is simply to gather accurate information from the courts you are interested in and from your school's career office, which usually tracks the timelines. In general terms, though, a few things hold true across the board.

1. Start early. Clerkship deadlines can fall well ahead of the term you would begin, and the strongest applications are prepared, not rushed.
2. Grades and writing matter. These are research and writing roles, so academic record and a strong writing sample carry real weight.
3. References count. A professor or lawyer who can speak specifically to your analytical ability is worth far more than a big name who barely knows you.
4. Know why you want it. In an interview, "it sounds prestigious" is transparent and weak. A specific, honest account of why the work appeals to you is what lands.

So, should you?

Here is the version I give students who ask me directly. If you love the reasoning at the heart of law, if you write well and want to write better, and if you are heading toward litigation, academia, or complex analytical work, a clerkship may be one of the best years of your career. If you are drawn to clients, deals, and the rhythm of practice, or if a year of delay carries a real cost for you, it is entirely reasonable to skip it and lose nothing.

The wrong reason to clerk is prestige. The right reason is fit. Get honest about which kind of lawyer you are becoming, and the answer usually reveals itself. When you are ready to look at where different paths lead, browse the current openings to see the range of work out there.