Clerks Taking Questions Forum

(Seek and share information about clerkship applications, clerkship hiring timelines, and post-clerkship employment opportunities)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about clerkship applications and clerkship hiring. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:52 pm

Question, anonymous for obvious reasons:

I'm a 2L, T13 student, top 10%, secondary journal.

I've received a district court clerkship interview in a rural area I don't intend on working in. Should I take it, or wait for something else to come along?

nixy

Gold
Posts: 4446
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by nixy » Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:16 pm

Not sure how to answer that? It sounds like you don’t really want to work there and you want people to tell you that you don’t need to take it and will doubtless get something else more desirable. That could well be true, but clerkships are hard to predict, so it’s hard to say that with any certainty.

FWIW, I clerked in a district many would call “flyover” and work nowhere near there now. I don’t think the skills you develop (or recognition of them) really diminish by the district, though admittedly some judges will have more connections that are more useful to you than others.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:14 pm

Would someone with top grades at HYS + SDNY/DDC clerkship + 2/9 clerkship have trouble with getting a firm job in California without any ties (I'll likely be relocating to California immediately after clerking)? Wondering if it's necessary for me to pursue a Cal SCT clerkship or whether a Cal SCT clerkship would help.

Barrred

Bronze
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:49 pm

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by Barrred » Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:33 am

Anonymous User wrote:Would someone with top grades at HYS + SDNY/DDC clerkship + 2/9 clerkship have trouble with getting a firm job in California without any ties (I'll likely be relocating to California immediately after clerking)? Wondering if it's necessary for me to pursue a Cal SCT clerkship or whether a Cal SCT clerkship would help.
I assume your 2/9 clerkship is a 2, since a 9 is a tie to California even if chambers is outside California. But the answer is still no. You don't need CA ties with those stats, so long as you have a halfway decent reason that you want to be in California (i.e., can convince a CA firm/office that you aren't going to try to transfer to their NY office after a year of fun in the sun). Just apply broadly early during your second clerkship (late December/January), and you should do just fine. I think a Cal SCT clerkship would be overkill.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:19 pm

Barrred wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Would someone with top grades at HYS + SDNY/DDC clerkship + 2/9 clerkship have trouble with getting a firm job in California without any ties (I'll likely be relocating to California immediately after clerking)? Wondering if it's necessary for me to pursue a Cal SCT clerkship or whether a Cal SCT clerkship would help.
I assume your 2/9 clerkship is a 2, since a 9 is a tie to California even if chambers is outside California. But the answer is still no. You don't need CA ties with those stats, so long as you have a halfway decent reason that you want to be in California (i.e., can convince a CA firm/office that you aren't going to try to transfer to their NY office after a year of fun in the sun). Just apply broadly early during your second clerkship (late December/January), and you should do just fine. I think a Cal SCT clerkship would be overkill.
Thanks. I agree that it might be overkill, but would it actually help by giving me something on my resume that says "California"? Right now I have nothing pointing to California.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


Barrred

Bronze
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:49 pm

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by Barrred » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:38 pm

Anonymous User wrote: Thanks. I agree that it might be overkill, but would it actually help by giving me something on my resume that says "California"? Right now I have nothing pointing to California.
All things being equal, it would help to have Cal. Supreme Court on your resume to give you a tie to California for California firms. But all things are not equal. Clerking for a third year (for a state supreme court) will mean you are trying to get hired as a fourth year without any law firm experience. I think you are more likely to get a job as a third year with 2 prestigious clerkships + good grades from a good school, than as a fourth year (basically a lateral, but without experience) and 3 prestigious clerkships (one in California) + good grades from a good school. Others may disagree, but that's my take.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:08 pm

nixy wrote:Not sure how to answer that? It sounds like you don’t really want to work there and you want people to tell you that you don’t need to take it and will doubtless get something else more desirable. That could well be true, but clerkships are hard to predict, so it’s hard to say that with any certainty.

FWIW, I clerked in a district many would call “flyover” and work nowhere near there now. I don’t think the skills you develop (or recognition of them) really diminish by the district, though admittedly some judges will have more connections that are more useful to you than others.
So, take it?

LBJ's Hair

Silver
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:17 pm

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by LBJ's Hair » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:53 pm

Barrred wrote:
Anonymous User wrote: Thanks. I agree that it might be overkill, but would it actually help by giving me something on my resume that says "California"? Right now I have nothing pointing to California.
All things being equal, it would help to have Cal. Supreme Court on your resume to give you a tie to California for California firms. But all things are not equal. Clerking for a third year (for a state supreme court) will mean you are trying to get hired as a fourth year without any law firm experience. I think you are more likely to get a job as a third year with 2 prestigious clerkships + good grades from a good school, than as a fourth year (basically a lateral, but without experience) and 3 prestigious clerkships (one in California) + good grades from a good school. Others may disagree, but that's my take.
I have met many associates who regret doing two clerkships. Three seems completely insane, unless the third is a feeder and you're absolutely dead set on SCOTUS (which makes you insane, but in a different way I guess). Feel like if you want to demonstrate interest in CA, could just email alumni in the CA offices of firms you're interested in and let them know you're interested at moving out to SF/LA/wherever, ask to chat on the phone for a few minutes. Done.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:56 pm

Does it look odd to go law school > COA clerk > firm for 1 year > DC clerk? I'm currently on the COA (not 9th Cir) and a professor reached out with a promising DC opportunity in my home market (Cali). Would this look odd to employers? Will it be odd to come back as a 4th year with only 1 year of law firm experience? Thanks in advance.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Barrred

Bronze
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:49 pm

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by Barrred » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:48 am

Anonymous User wrote:Does it look odd to go law school > COA clerk > firm for 1 year > DC clerk? I'm currently on the COA (not 9th Cir) and a professor reached out with a promising DC opportunity in my home market (Cali). Would this look odd to employers? Will it be odd to come back as a 4th year with only 1 year of law firm experience? Thanks in advance.
The firm won't love it, but they will deal with it and give you an offer to come back if they like you. COA and Dist Ct are such different clerkships, while Dist Ct. is less "prestigious" than COA, its not a "step down" in the sense that employers would look at you funny for going COA to Dist Ct. because they both offer such different experiences, and there is no need to do them in any particular order.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:39 pm

I have met with some clerks and judges for formal and informal interviews in a region that seems to mainly offer two-year clerkships at the district level. I think the idea being, they train you the first year, then actually benefit from you the second year. I don't want to do a two-year.

Any tips on talking a judge down from two-year to a one-year? I thought maybe I could offer to take law school night classes before the clerkship that the Judge thinks might help; e.g., federal courts, advanced civ pro, etc. FYI, I'd be coming in with around three years litigation experience.

Anyone have experience persuading a judge to just take you for one year?

nixy

Gold
Posts: 4446
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by nixy » Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:37 pm

I really don't think offering to take night classes before starting is going to be at all helpful. Substantive law isn't really the hardest part of the learning curve.

User avatar
Elston Gunn

Gold
Posts: 3820
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by Elston Gunn » Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:53 pm

Barrred wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Does it look odd to go law school > COA clerk > firm for 1 year > DC clerk? I'm currently on the COA (not 9th Cir) and a professor reached out with a promising DC opportunity in my home market (Cali). Would this look odd to employers? Will it be odd to come back as a 4th year with only 1 year of law firm experience? Thanks in advance.
The firm won't love it, but they will deal with it and give you an offer to come back if they like you. COA and Dist Ct are such different clerkships, while Dist Ct. is less "prestigious" than COA, its not a "step down" in the sense that employers would look at you funny for going COA to Dist Ct. because they both offer such different experiences, and there is no need to do them in any particular order.
Key phrase being “if they like you.” I agree with this, but the odds of not getting an offer to come back will be a bit higher than if you were leaving to do the clerkship as a first year. Not saying you should be hugely worried about that—you’ll have great and not weird looking credentials when you’re done the second clerkship—but just be aware it isn’t a guarantee you’ll be able to go back to your firm.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


lavarman84

Platinum
Posts: 8502
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by lavarman84 » Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:38 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I have met with some clerks and judges for formal and informal interviews in a region that seems to mainly offer two-year clerkships at the district level. I think the idea being, they train you the first year, then actually benefit from you the second year. I don't want to do a two-year.

Any tips on talking a judge down from two-year to a one-year? I thought maybe I could offer to take law school night classes before the clerkship that the Judge thinks might help; e.g., federal courts, advanced civ pro, etc. FYI, I'd be coming in with around three years litigation experience.

Anyone have experience persuading a judge to just take you for one year?
I don't recommend it unless the judge expresses an openness to it. If you land with a kind judge, that judge might let you out a year early if you land a job you really want. But I expect most judges would be irritated if you applied for a two-year clerkship and tried to back out of the second year immediately after receiving the offer (or before receiving the offer). Judges generally have a reason for it. Basically, if you don't want a two-year clerkship, don't apply for them, unless you know the judge is flexible on that.
nixy wrote:I really don't think offering to take night classes before starting is going to be at all helpful. Substantive law isn't really the hardest part of the learning curve.
Agreed. Substantive law isn't the challenge for a new clerk. You can learn the substantive law on the job. Taking classes also won't really help you that much with the substantive law because when you're dealing with issues, they're almost always discrete issues. Classes mainly give you a big picture view.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by Anonymous User » Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:36 pm

Can someone chance me for district court clerkships? Clerkship office hasn't been very responsive in terms of what courts I should be applying to.

Sats:
2L at lower T14 (M/V/D/N/C)
3.5X GPA after 3 semesters
Law review (no eboard)
Moot court
Mock trial
1L judicial internship
DC V5 SA lined up
USAO externship during 2L
Won't be able to get three letters until May (will 2020 spots be filled by then)
Not close enough w/ any professors for calls etc.
Interested in DDC, EDVa, and DMd but I'll work anywhere.


Am I at all competitive for the above districts? Is it okay to wait until late may to apply? Should I just wait and go for 2021?

User avatar
coramnonjudice

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:34 am

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by coramnonjudice » Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:28 pm

Going back to litigating in federal court soon, and it made me wonder whether you all developed any pet peeves as far as litigants' behavior during your time as a law clerk? For instance, if a defendant filed a dispositive motion and attached only a portion of a deposition that was framed in a misleading way? Or if parties made ex parte calls to chambers making demands?

lavarman84

Platinum
Posts: 8502
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by lavarman84 » Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:35 pm

coramnonjudice wrote:Going back to litigating in federal court soon, and it made me wonder whether you all developed any pet peeves as far as litigants' behavior during your time as a law clerk? For instance, if a defendant filed a dispositive motion and attached only a portion of a deposition that was framed in a misleading way? Or if parties made ex parte calls to chambers making demands?
1. Don't act like the court is your babysitter for discovery issues. You and your opposing counsel need to stay on decent enough terms that you're not constantly coming to the court over petty bullshit. I'm fine with settling a couple legitimate discovery disputes, but there's a difference between legitimate disputes and lawyers acting like children.

2. Don't call chambers unless you have a question (that isn't substantive). Calling to make demands is always a bad idea. Calling to try to pressure the court to move faster is always a bad idea. Calling to try to get substantive information out of the law clerks (or other personnel) is a bad idea.

3. It could hurt your credibility if you filed a dispositive motion with only a portion of a deposition to mislead us, but it wouldn't anger me. It's your job to present your best case, and the opposition's job to present theirs. That sometimes entails some misleading or tricky arguments. As long as it isn't downright dishonest, we're good. It's my job (and your opponent's job) to catch those things.

4. Know the Local Rules and the Standing Orders. When you don't file things on time or don't comply with page limits, it doesn't reflect well on you. I work for a laid back judge, and I am laid back myself, so I give a lot of leeway on those things. That all said, if you've already pissed me off before making that mistake, you won't get that leeway.

5. Don't leave your case sitting on the docket. Judges and clerks want to get cases off the docket ASAP. If you settle a case (or can move for default judgment), don't drag your feet. Obviously, I'm not expecting same day dismissals, but I think it's reasonable to expect dismissal papers to be filed within 30 days.

6. Don't dump massive amounts of pages of exhibits and evidence on the court with your motions without making it easy to find the information you're citing (make sure to pincite in your motions/responses and have page numbers or some other easy way to find where the pincite is in the evidence). I'm not going to dig through 1000 pages of documents to try to find a few relevant excerpts.

7. Don't make me do all your work for you. If you're going to make an argument, cite law. Don't just make attorney argument and expect me to dig up the law. If the issue is novel, find analogies. Give me something to work with in your motion or response.

8. Don't be petty. This goes back to my first point. Don't insult or degrade the opposing lawyer in your motion and responses. I don't need to read that. It makes me respect you less. Don't object to things or file motions or oppose things just to piss off the other lawyer because you don't like him or her. When you do that, it results in me having to do more work. Guess who doesn't like you when that happens?

9. Make sure you know if you can file something without leave or if you need leave. It's not something that bothers me because I am laid back (same with my judge). Sometimes, I've just let it go because I don't think it's worth inconveniencing everybody for something that is going to be granted leave to file, but there are some judges who take it as a slap in the face and won't hesitate to smack you back.

10. Don't be an asshole to the law clerks. Most of us are trying hard, most of us have a lot of work to juggle, and most of us have a lot of credibility with our judge. If you get on our bad side, you risk ending up on the judge's shit-list. Most of us aren't on a power trip either. We just want the lawyers to respect our time, give us some direction and a starting point with your filings, and understand that the court moves at its own pace. That pace is generally dictated by the judge.

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


nixy

Gold
Posts: 4446
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by nixy » Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:43 pm

lavarman84 wrote:10. Don't be an asshole to the law clerks.
Frankly, for a lot of judges, you shouldn't be talking to the law clerks enough to be an asshole to them. There are plenty of judges that won't really care, but there are also judges who do not want the parties interacting with their clerks, like at all.

User avatar
mjb447

Silver
Posts: 1419
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:36 am

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by mjb447 » Thu Feb 28, 2019 11:00 am

My biggest pet peeves are essentially lavarman's #6 and 7. The court's job is to resolve issues and come to a well-reasoned decision, and we're good if you've given us the tools we need to do that. It's not the court's job to know the law or evidence relevant to your own case as well as you do, so if your support is just a gesture at a stack of documents or general legal principles, it's going to take a lot of the court's time and attention to untangle everything, and you're foisting supporting your argument off on someone who isn't as well positioned to do it and doesn't care which party wins.

I'll also generally agree with what lavarman said in #3 and what nixy said in the other thread, but I'll frame it in reverse: it's normal for parties to frame their evidence or law a little misleadingly or cagily (any time there's a "see" cite, and often when there's anything less than a direct quote, I basically assume that the party is citing something they only wish the cited doc said), such that it doesn't anger or surprise, but if you're going to be a repeat player in a particular case, there's some credibility to be gained by doing less of it.

Agree with #1 and 8 as well. The back-and-forth between the lawyers can sometimes be relevant (particularly on discovery issues, e.g., to explain why you didn't come to the court earlier or why your requests were timed or structured in a particular way), but even there try to keep your analysis detached, general, and related to the issues actually before the court - we usually don't need the play-by-play of several email chains going back two years mostly to explain how UNFAIR and UNPROFESSIONAL your opponent has been. Otherwise, we generally shouldn't know how well the lawyers are getting along. Relatedly, absent pretty extraordinary circumstances, you should never be filing (for example) an opposition or motion to strike because your opponent's filing will be/was a few days late or a few pages oversized.

SamuelDanforth

Bronze
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 5:05 pm

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by SamuelDanforth » Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:23 pm

Do chief judges of district courts get an extra clerk? I know COA chief judges do, but I haven't heard anything about this practice on the D.Ct.

Fireworks2016

Bronze
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 1:17 pm

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by Fireworks2016 » Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:37 pm

SamuelDanforth wrote:Do chief judges of district courts get an extra clerk? I know COA chief judges do, but I haven't heard anything about this practice on the D.Ct.
I'm pretty sure it depends on the caseload. The chief in my district only has two slots like the other Art. IIIs bc its a small district that doesn't get a ton of filings.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


User avatar
HillandHollow

Bronze
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:43 pm

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by HillandHollow » Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:07 am

SamuelDanforth wrote:Do chief judges of district courts get an extra clerk? I know COA chief judges do, but I haven't heard anything about this practice on the D.Ct.

The chief judge of my district does. Has 2 term, 1 career, a CM, and a JA.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jun 05, 2019 5:31 pm

I applied to clerkships a few months ago, and sent out a bunch of apps. I'd like to update them now with stronger grades, a couple honors and awards on my resume, and a new (and IMO much stronger) writing sample. It's easy enough to do all this on OSCAR, but I'm wondering if there's there a way to do this with paper applications without being obnoxious? Should I call chambers and ask them to disregard/shred my past app and mail in a new one? Just mail in the new one and flag that it's an update? I also now have a professor willing to call, but I'd rather not have them flag my app until it's the stronger one I could submit now. Any advice would be appreciated!

nixy

Gold
Posts: 4446
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by nixy » Wed Jun 05, 2019 5:41 pm

I think for paper you should just send in a paper update. But I wouldn’t ask to replace the writing sample. In fact I probably wouldn’t send that in - I think asking to shred your old one is overstepping, so you’d have to just add a second sample, and that might just be a little much. The other stuff is very legitimate updates. If you really do want to send the new sample, just send it as something to add, not replace.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Clerks Taking Questions

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:39 am

At what point should you re-apply to a judge? Like, if I applied for the 2020-2021 term, it's clear hiring has ended, and they're now advertising for 2021-2022, do I go ahead and send in a new application, or just assume they have my old one on file and if I didn't get it, there's a reason why? I'm asking about paper applications in particular.

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Judicial Clerkships”