Concurrent employment for two judges on different courts Forum

[ihadadream]

Hello. If federal judges were confident with your ability to hold down two jobs, do you think they would let you hold concurrent employment with another judge? For instance, say you had a 9-5 with one judge, but then worked full-time remotely as a pro se law clerk for a different federal district court.

Thanks for the information.

[kellyfrost]

Hello. If federal judges were confident with your ability to hold down two jobs, do you think they would let you hold concurrent employment with another judge? For instance, say you had a 9-5 with one judge, but then worked full-time remotely as a pro se law clerk for a different federal district court.

Thanks for the information.

I think you are thinking about this inversely.

Is a federal district court going to want a pro Se law clerk who already had a full time gig with another federal judge? No.

[mjb447]

I don't know how you could hold down a "9-5" with one employer and simultaneously work "full time" for another. Would you be working eighty-plus-hour weeks or just half-assing two things?

ETA to be as clear as possible, my answer is no, although mostly because I don't ever see your "if" statement being true.

[ihadadream]

First of all, both of the positions are pro se clerkships. Second, while I know it's unlikely, some courts actually struggle to get qualified pro se law clerks. Say there is a court that really wants the person. He agrees to work 40 hours a week for them, but also wants to work remotely for another court doing the same job. He says that he will not work on anything for the other court during his standard 40-hour work week.

I'm asking because I know that there are some telecommuting pro se law clerks (federal court) who also have their own law practices. I know this for a fact.

My question has more to do with the legality/ethics of it. Is there some kind of legal or ethical barrier that you guys/girls can think of?

Thanks!

[los blancos]

i'm asking because I know that there are some telecommuting pro se law clerks (federal court) who also have their own law practices. I know this for a fact.

This seems like a pretty blatant violation of judicial ethics code

[mjb447]

i'm asking because I know that there are some telecommuting pro se law clerks (federal court) who also have their own law practices. I know this for a fact.

This seems like a pretty blatant violation of judicial ethics code

Yeah, at pp 11-12 of http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/f ... ch03_0.pdf.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I really don't understand how this would be remotely feasible, or worthwhile.

[rpupkin]

I really don't understand how this would be remotely feasible, or worthwhile.

[jrf12886]

I really don't understand how this would be remotely feasible, or worthwhile.

Or ethical.

[rpupkin]

I really don't understand how this would be remotely feasible, or worthwhile.

Or ethical.

What's the ethical issue?

[jrf12886]

I really don't understand how this would be remotely feasible, or worthwhile.

Or ethical.

What's the ethical issue?

Under Canon 4(D), clerks are prohibited from practicing law (other than certain limited exceptions). I know clerking isn't technically considered practice of law so holding two clerkships may technically be ok. But the purpose of that prohibition seems to be limiting the clerk's legal work to that assigned by the judge. Taking on another legal position could be a violation depending on how the two judges read the rule.

[rpupkin]

I really don't understand how this would be remotely feasible, or worthwhile.

Or ethical.

What's the ethical issue?

Under Canon 4(D), clerks are prohibited from practicing law (other than certain limited exceptions). I know clerking isn't technically considered practice of law so holding two clerkships may technically be ok. But the purpose of that prohibition seems to be limiting the clerk's legal work to that assigned by the judge. Taking on another legal position could be a violation depending on how the two judges read the rule.

The bolded is more than just a technicality. I doubt any judge would read that rule as prohibiting a clerk from working for two judges at the same time. There are many, many reasons why a judge wouldn't want a clerk working simultaneously for another judge, but I don't think that ethical concerns would be among those reasons.

[jrf12886]

I really don't understand how this would be remotely feasible, or worthwhile.

Or ethical.

What's the ethical issue?

Under Canon 4(D), clerks are prohibited from practicing law (other than certain limited exceptions). I know clerking isn't technically considered practice of law so holding two clerkships may technically be ok. But the purpose of that prohibition seems to be limiting the clerk's legal work to that assigned by the judge. Taking on another legal position could be a violation depending on how the two judges read the rule.

The bolded is more than just a technicality. I doubt any judge would read that rule as prohibiting a clerk from working for two judges at the same time. There are many, many reasons why a judge wouldn't want a clerk working simultaneously for another judge, but I don't think that ethical concerns would be among those reasons.

That's fair. It's just something I would give some thought to in OP's position.

[mjb447]

I really don't understand how this would be remotely feasible, or worthwhile.

Or ethical.

What's the ethical issue?

Under Canon 4(D), clerks are prohibited from practicing law (other than certain limited exceptions). I know clerking isn't technically considered practice of law so holding two clerkships may technically be ok. But the purpose of that prohibition seems to be limiting the clerk's legal work to that assigned by the judge. Taking on another legal position could be a violation depending on how the two judges read the rule.

The bolded is more than just a technicality. I doubt any judge would read that rule as prohibiting a clerk from working for two judges at the same time. There are many, many reasons why a judge wouldn't want a clerk working simultaneously for another judge, but I don't think that ethical concerns would be among those reasons.

I work for a court where some judges share staff on a rotating basis (monthly or every few weeks), and there's frequently overlap for finishing up projects or getting ready for things that happen on specific dates (preparing for hearings, assisting with trial, etc.) during which a clerk might "simultaneously" work for both judges. If it's not totally permissible I think it's at least a grey area, and getting two judges to sign on for this "simultaneous full time" arrangement is probably going to be a bigger obstacle.

[rpupkin]

I work for a court where some judges share staff on a rotating basis (monthly or every few weeks), and there's frequently overlap for finishing up projects or getting ready for things that happen on specific dates (preparing for hearings, assisting with trial, etc.) during which a clerk might "simultaneously" work for both judges.

At least at the federal appellate level, the sharing of clerks is not that uncommon, particularly where one of the judges has senior status. To use a timely example, Neil Gorsuch clerked for Byron White and Anthony Kennedy at the same on SCOTUS.

These arrangements, though, generally happen where there are two judges on the same court, and where one of the judges has a reduced caseload for one reason or another. OP is talking about two different courts, with a full-time load at each court. I just don't think that will work.

[mjb447]

I work for a court where some judges share staff on a rotating basis (monthly or every few weeks), and there's frequently overlap for finishing up projects or getting ready for things that happen on specific dates (preparing for hearings, assisting with trial, etc.) during which a clerk might "simultaneously" work for both judges.

At least at the federal appellate level, the sharing of clerks is not that uncommon, particularly where one of the judges has senior status. To use a timely example, Neil Gorsuch clerked for Byron White and Anthony Kennedy at the same on SCOTUS.

These arrangements, though, generally happen where there are two judges on the same court, and where one of the judges has a reduced caseload for one reason or another. OP is talking about two different courts, with a full-time load at each court. I just don't think that will work.

Oh, sure; I was just noting re: "ethical issues" that clerk sharing is pretty uncontroversial in and of itself, even if it results in occasionally serving two masters simultaneously. Like I said upthread, I agree that the particular wrinkles in OP's situation (different courts and in particular two full-time caseloads) make this unfeasible, and I doubt two judges will sign on.

[rpupkin]

I work for a court where some judges share staff on a rotating basis (monthly or every few weeks), and there's frequently overlap for finishing up projects or getting ready for things that happen on specific dates (preparing for hearings, assisting with trial, etc.) during which a clerk might "simultaneously" work for both judges.

At least at the federal appellate level, the sharing of clerks is not that uncommon, particularly where one of the judges has senior status. To use a timely example, Neil Gorsuch clerked for Byron White and Anthony Kennedy at the same on SCOTUS.

These arrangements, though, generally happen where there are two judges on the same court, and where one of the judges has a reduced caseload for one reason or another. OP is talking about two different courts, with a full-time load at each court. I just don't think that will work.

Oh, sure; I was just noting re: "ethical issues" that clerk sharing is pretty uncontroversial in and of itself, even if it results in occasionally serving two masters simultaneously. Like I said upthread, I agree that the particular wrinkles in OP's situation (different courts and in particular two full-time caseloads) make this unfeasible, and I doubt two judges will sign on.

I understood you. I was just supporting what you were saying with some additional context.

[mjb447]

I work for a court where some judges share staff on a rotating basis (monthly or every few weeks), and there's frequently overlap for finishing up projects or getting ready for things that happen on specific dates (preparing for hearings, assisting with trial, etc.) during which a clerk might "simultaneously" work for both judges.

At least at the federal appellate level, the sharing of clerks is not that uncommon, particularly where one of the judges has senior status. To use a timely example, Neil Gorsuch clerked for Byron White and Anthony Kennedy at the same on SCOTUS.

These arrangements, though, generally happen where there are two judges on the same court, and where one of the judges has a reduced caseload for one reason or another. OP is talking about two different courts, with a full-time load at each court. I just don't think that will work.

Oh, sure; I was just noting re: "ethical issues" that clerk sharing is pretty uncontroversial in and of itself, even if it results in occasionally serving two masters simultaneously. Like I said upthread, I agree that the particular wrinkles in OP's situation (different courts and in particular two full-time caseloads) make this unfeasible, and I doubt two judges will sign on.

I understood you. I was just supporting what you were saying with some additional context.

Ah, gotcha. Picking up tone on TLS is not a strength of mine.

[ihadadream]

Thanks for the information.

For what it's worth, I don't see anything wrong with it.

[Anonymous User]

i'm asking because I know that there are some telecommuting pro se law clerks (federal court) who also have their own law practices. I know this for a fact.

This seems like a pretty blatant violation of judicial ethics code

Like me, I guess they don't know the rules. Or maybe they are not classified as a law clerk somehow?

[mjb447]

i'm asking because I know that there are some telecommuting pro se law clerks (federal court) who also have their own law practices. I know this for a fact.

This seems like a pretty blatant violation of judicial ethics code

Like me, I guess they don't know the rules. Or maybe they are not classified as a law clerk somehow?

The Code of Conduct applies to basically all non-judge employees of the judicial branch (including interns, externs, and volunteers), so an 'oversight' seems more likely.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Thanks for the information.

For what it's worth, I don't see anything wrong with it.

You don't see anything wrong with holding two 40-hour jobs at the same time?

[ihadadream]

Thanks for the information.

For what it's worth, I don't see anything wrong with it.

You don't see anything wrong with holding two 40-hour jobs at the same time?

Are you saying they would have to pay me overtime? I know know labor law.

[rpupkin]

Thanks for the information.

For what it's worth, I don't see anything wrong with it.

You don't see anything wrong with holding two 40-hour jobs at the same time?

Are you saying they would have to pay me overtime? I know know labor law.

I think the problem is that you don't know life.

Forget all about law or rules for a minute—how do you think this could work in a logistical sense?

[RaceJudicata]

Thanks for the information.

For what it's worth, I don't see anything wrong with it.

You don't see anything wrong with holding two 40-hour jobs at the same time?

Are you saying they would have to pay me overtime? I know know labor law.

I think the problem is that you don't know *know* life.

Forget all about law or rules for a minute—how do you think this could work in a logistical sense?