Clerks Taking Questions Forum

[mjb447]

I am starting my fed clerkship in a week. Besides mailing in my HR forms, I haven't received really any information about compensation or benefits. I am supposed to attend a wedding the third week of september and I haven't been able to provide the couple a firm RSVP because I still don't have information on whether I'll be able to take vacation (and if so, whether I could take several days six weeks in). Any advice? Obviously not reaching out to the judge about this but I did ask HR about pto policy and received no response. I sort of can't put it off any longer.

There's probably no way around asking the judge. If chambers isn't on the Leave Act, there likely won't be any formal HR tracking of time off and all requests will go to the judge only. If the judge has opted into the Leave Act, you'll accumulate leave over time - not "several days" by six weeks in, particularly if you're new to fed service - and make a formal leave request to HR whenever you take leave (with unused leave paid out at the end of your clerkship), but it's still up to the judge whether you can actually take it or not, kind of like those law firms that boast generous or unlimited vacation that no one ever actually gets to take.

[Anonymous User]

For folks that have been on the hiring end, how bad would it seem if I couldn't come in for interview for at least two weeks?

[mjb447]

For folks that have been on the hiring end, how bad would it seem if I couldn't come in for interview for at least two weeks?

For me, it would be less that it "seems bad" or would be held against you and more that you risk the position not being available anymore and lose out on any other benefits of being an early interviewee. I guess if the judge is coming to the end of hiring for that cycle or hiring on a pretty accelerated schedule they might decide it's not worth having you come in, but hiring for a cycle usually takes more than two weeks IME.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I am starting my fed clerkship in a week. Besides mailing in my HR forms, I haven't received really any information about compensation or benefits. I am supposed to attend a wedding the third week of september and I haven't been able to provide the couple a firm RSVP because I still don't have information on whether I'll be able to take vacation (and if so, whether I could take several days six weeks in). Any advice? Obviously not reaching out to the judge about this but I did ask HR about pto policy and received no response. I sort of can't put it off any longer.

You'll probably have to ask the judge, but can you reach out to any current/former clerks to find out how the judge handles vacation? They should be able to give you a sense of whether/how it makes sense to ask.

[Anonymous User]

Please don't quote.

I am currently clerking for a SSC and will be clerking on DDC after that. Several professors with connections to CADC want me to apply to those judges afterward, though I do not think I have the credentials for Tatel/Garland/Kavanaugh. My goals are federal government or USAO, and I would be happy to stay in D.C. but also have family in California. Should I apply for CADC, or would it be better to do a COA clerkship in a new jurisdiction (like 9) where I would also possibly like to live?

[jd20132013]

Not sure why you need any appellate clerkship at all for your goals as you've articulated them

[Anonymous User]

Even for appellate divisions of DOJ/OSG path?

[Anonymous User]

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask, but I could use some advice about the usefulness of another clerkship. Out of law school I worked for a government agency for about a year and a half. I am clerking now in with a non-SDNY/DE Bankruptcy Judge. Ideally, I would be in a Bankruptcy/Restructuring group in a mid to large firm, but would be open to anything transactional. I think I would have a good shot if I applied for a NY/DE Bankruptcy clerkship. But, that would also put me 4-years out of law school when I would be going to the firm.

I'm sure it would be depend a lot on market conditions, but can anyone weigh in on whether I would be aged-out if I did another clerkship? Would it add that much if I did a SDNY/DE clerkship?

[clerk1251]

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask, but I could use some advice about the usefulness of another clerkship. Out of law school I worked for a government agency for about a year and a half. I am clerking now in with a non-SDNY/DE Bankruptcy Judge. Ideally, I would be in a Bankruptcy/Restructuring group in a mid to large firm, but would be open to anything transactional. I think I would have a good shot if I applied for a NY/DE Bankruptcy clerkship. But, that would also put me 4-years out of law school when I would be going to the firm.

I'm sure it would be depend a lot on market conditions, but can anyone weigh in on whether I would be aged-out if I did another clerkship? Would it add that much if I did a SDNY/DE clerkship?

I don't see much value in it for you. There's a saying about two year clerkships that goes something like "the first year is for you, the second year is for the judge." You learn and take away about as much value as there is to from your clerkship in the first year. If you wanted to use this as a stepping stone to move up to a D. Ct. or COA, then there would be an argument for doing so. However, given that you are interested in bankruptcy or transactional work, I wouldn't recommend doing that either.

As you also highlighted, you'll also run into a problem where you become to expensive for a firm to bring on. Considering you've never practiced at a firm before, it will be difficult for a firm to give you a chance as a fourth year - seeing as you would have missed a lot of the early firm experience that you build upon before becoming a more senior associate.

My personal opinion would be to go find a firm after your clerkship and skip trying to find a second clerkship.

[rpupkin]

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask, but I could use some advice about the usefulness of another clerkship. Out of law school I worked for a government agency for about a year and a half. I am clerking now in with a non-SDNY/DE Bankruptcy Judge. Ideally, I would be in a Bankruptcy/Restructuring group in a mid to large firm, but would be open to anything transactional. I think I would have a good shot if I applied for a NY/DE Bankruptcy clerkship. But, that would also put me 4-years out of law school when I would be going to the firm.

I'm sure it would be depend a lot on market conditions, but can anyone weigh in on whether I would be aged-out if I did another clerkship? Would it add that much if I did a SDNY/DE clerkship?

I think clerk1251's advice is correct as a general matter, but I'll caution that niche practice areas have their own norms. I'd find a way to get the opinions of folks in bankruptcy groups at mid to large firms.

It's possible—and probably likely—that the conventional wisdom about over-clerking applies to Bankruptcy/Restructuring practices. But it's also possible that a SDNY/DE Bankruptcy clerkship is so valuable that it offsets the drawbacks of having not practiced for four years. Get advice from multiple large-firm Bankruptcy attorneys before deciding.

[Anonymous User]

First day of work in a month. CoA. Do I wear a suit on the first day? Is this always the play for the first day? The other two clerks are coming in off of clerkships, so I don't want to be the only one in business casual, and I also don't want to be the only one in a suit. I assume wearing a suit w/tie on the first day is normal for those who identify as male

[rpupkin]

First day of work in a month. CoA. Do I wear a suit on the first day?

Definitely, and keep wearing the suit until it's clear that your judge is fine with more casual dress in chambers.

By the way, it's not that uncommon for judges to ask/expect their clerks to wear a suit every day. It's not the norm, but it's not unusual.

[mjb447]

First day of work in a month. CoA. Do I wear a suit on the first day? Is this always the play for the first day? The other two clerks are coming in off of clerkships, so I don't want to be the only one in business casual, and I also don't want to be the only one in a suit. I assume wearing a suit w/tie on the first day is normal for those who identify as male

Yeah, I would. You can always take off your jacket or tie if you're clearly overdressed in a suit, but you're pretty much stuck with business casual.

Also, I know of judges who require suits but none who require business casual. At worst, wearing a suit is going to put you out of step with chambers norms for a day, and no reasonable person is going to hold that against you. (Honestly, I might opt for a suit even if I remembered that during my interview everyone was in shirtsleeves. Just seems safer to me.)

[Anonymous User]

I have an interview coming up. That judge moves fairly quickly from interview to offer. After scheduling that interview, I was invited to interview by my top choice judge. The earliest I could schedule the interview with my top choice judge was for a week after the first interview. If I happen to get an offer from the first judge, is there any way I can delay accepting until after I interview with my top choice judge?

[anon sequitur]

I have an interview coming up. That judge moves fairly quickly from interview to offer. After scheduling that interview, I was invited to interview by my top choice judge. The earliest I could schedule the interview with my top choice judge was for a week after the first interview. If I happen to get an offer from the first judge, is there any way I can delay accepting until after I interview with my top choice judge?

It's up to the judge, but sounds unlikely. Why would a judge who moves fairly quickly from interview to offer be okay with giving you an extra week to "think things over" or whatever? Nobody would think this is anything but a request to interview with some other judge that you prefer more. I'd try to move things up with your preferred judge unless they made it very clear to you that there were no earlier appointments available.

[mjb447]

I have an interview coming up. That judge moves fairly quickly from interview to offer. After scheduling that interview, I was invited to interview by my top choice judge. The earliest I could schedule the interview with my top choice judge was for a week after the first interview. If I happen to get an offer from the first judge, is there any way I can delay accepting until after I interview with my top choice judge?

It's up to the judge, but sounds unlikely. Why would a judge who moves fairly quickly from interview to offer be okay with giving you an extra week to "think things over" or whatever? Nobody would think this is anything but a request to interview with some other judge that you prefer more. I'd try to move things up with your preferred judge unless they made it very clear to you that there were no earlier appointments available.

Yeah, a week's a pretty long time to sit on an offer - a lot of judges wouldn't let you do that regardless of the reason you provide.

[84651846190]

I have an interview coming up. That judge moves fairly quickly from interview to offer. After scheduling that interview, I was invited to interview by my top choice judge. The earliest I could schedule the interview with my top choice judge was for a week after the first interview. If I happen to get an offer from the first judge, is there any way I can delay accepting until after I interview with my top choice judge?

Be particularly careful if the two judges are on the same court. Judges are much better friends with themselves than they will ever be with you, and you wouldn't want to get off on the wrong foot with one judge, no matter who it is, if that judge knows the person you will eventually be clerking for. Be completely transparent about the situation.

I think clerkship advisers generally have it right when they tell applicants to accept the first offer.

[Anonymous User]

Got an interview with a flyover D.Ct. judge coming up. Former clerks had positive things to say about judge, but other clerks in the district say judge has negative reputation: demanding, mean, etc. I'll graduate in 2018 and am looking to clerk in 2018. 45 applications, 3 interviews invites so far (one denied, one still waiting to hear back, and this one). I already have a biglaw offer.

Putting the cart before the horse here in case I get an exploding offer: do I take a clerkship with a judge who makes clerks miserable or do I try my luck? Is a D.Ct clerkship still worth it for a litigator if it's in a flyover and for a jerk? Is there any polite way to do that? Alternatively, is there any way to feel out in the interview whether the reputation is true?

[GoneSouth]

Got an interview with a flyover D.Ct. judge coming up. Former clerks had positive things to say about judge, but other clerks in the district say judge has negative reputation: demanding, mean, etc. I'll graduate in 2018 and am looking to clerk in 2018. 45 applications, 3 interviews invites so far (one denied, one still waiting to hear back, and this one). I already have a biglaw offer.

Putting the cart before the horse here in case I get an exploding offer: do I take a clerkship with a judge who makes clerks miserable or do I try my luck? Is a D.Ct clerkship still worth it for a litigator if it's in a flyover and for a jerk? Is there any polite way to do that? Alternatively, is there any way to feel out in the interview whether the reputation is true?

I'd take what his former clerks said over what other clerks in the district have said personally.

[rpupkin]

I'd take what his former clerks said over what other clerks in the district have said personally.

I'm not sure I fully agree. Sure, former clerks of the judge are in a better position to comment on what it's like to work for the judge. But former clerks are often hesitant to speak critically of the judge for whom they clerked. It's certainly possible that the other clerks in the district are giving the OP a more accurate picture—or at least a piece of the picture that the judge's former clerks aren't offering.

OP—I'd probe a bit more about the judge's supposed negative reputation. Ask the other clerks how they know that the judge is mean. Sometimes, other clerks assume a judge is unpleasant to work for because the judge is cold toward them (or to counsel during argument), but that doesn't necessarily mean that the judge is mean to his own clerks.

[GoneSouth]

I'd take what his former clerks said over what other clerks in the district have said personally.

I'm not sure I fully agree. Sure, former clerks of the judge are in a better position to comment on what it's like to work for the judge. But former clerks are often hesitant to speak critically of the judge for whom they clerked. It's certainly possible that the other clerks in the district are giving the OP a more accurate picture—or at least a piece of the picture that the judge's former clerks aren't offering.

OP—I'd probe a bit more about the judge's supposed negative reputation. Ask the other clerks how they know that the judge is mean. Sometimes, other clerks assume a judge is unpleasant to work for because the judge is cold toward them (or to counsel during argument), but that doesn't necessarily mean that the judge is mean to his own clerks.

Right, this. Also depends on how well you know the former clerks, whether your trust that they would be level with you.

[jd20132013]

I'd take what his former clerks said over what other clerks in the district have said personally.

I'm not sure I fully agree. Sure, former clerks of the judge are in a better position to comment on what it's like to work for the judge. But former clerks are often hesitant to speak critically of the judge for whom they clerked. It's certainly possible that the other clerks in the district are giving the OP a more accurate picture—or at least a piece of the picture that the judge's former clerks aren't offering.

OP—I'd probe a bit more about the judge's supposed negative reputation. Ask the other clerks how they know that the judge is mean. Sometimes, other clerks assume a judge is unpleasant to work for because the judge is cold toward them (or to counsel during argument), but that doesn't necessarily mean that the judge is mean to his own clerks.

Agreed 100 percent with this

[mjb447]

I'd take what his former clerks said over what other clerks in the district have said personally.

I'm not sure I fully agree. Sure, former clerks of the judge are in a better position to comment on what it's like to work for the judge. But former clerks are often hesitant to speak critically of the judge for whom they clerked. It's certainly possible that the other clerks in the district are giving the OP a more accurate picture—or at least a piece of the picture that the judge's former clerks aren't offering.

OP—I'd probe a bit more about the judge's supposed negative reputation. Ask the other clerks how they know that the judge is mean. Sometimes, other clerks assume a judge is unpleasant to work for because the judge is cold toward them (or to counsel during argument), but that doesn't necessarily mean that the judge is mean to his own clerks.

Agreed 100 percent with this

+1

[ggocat]

Even assuming the judge is "mean," it's hard to say whether you should turn down. Having a bad boss for a year can be a good life experience. You will bond with your co clerks and will learn about what you perceive to be bad management. Maybe it will strengthen your character. Not to mention of course the potential career benefit.

But if you are the type to cry about hurt feels and you know you will be miserable in that situation, decline.

Really this is a personal choice. Reasonable people would make different decisions.

[jrf12886]

But if you are the type to cry about hurt feels . . .

Heh, you kinda sound like a boss I'd prefer not to work for.