SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships 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: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:15 am

Anonymous User wrote:What do you make of the district judge feeder phenomenon? It looks like it's a set of two or three judges, so probably not enough to generalize from, but it's interesting for being so unusual.
This is OP. I think it's just a function of a few specific judges having strong connections with the Justices. But you're right. Too small a set to really know.

I do think SDNY and DDC are special in the Justices' eyes though.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:19 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote: This is OP.

"Why doesn't the Supreme Court take more clerks from the circuit it has to constantly reverse for getting patent law wrong?"

At the risk of being disrespectful, I invite you to draw your own conclusion.
Former CAFC clerk here. At the risk of being defensive, I think that the OP's insinuation is off the mark.

I don't think that the Supreme Court's reversals of the CAFC's decisions have anything to do with the lack of CAFC clerks on SCOTUS. Note that both Fletcher and Reinhardt on the Ninth Circuit get reversed frequently and yet still place clerks on SCOTUS. Clerks of CAFC judges have a slim chance at SCOTUS for the same reason that clerks of regional circuit non-feeder judges have a slim chance: the justices don't know the CAFC judges well and generally don't respect the credentials of the clerks they hire. The typical CAFC clerk looks very different than, say, the typical CADC clerk. The typical CAFC clerk has two to three years of experience as a patent litigator, perhaps some pre-law work experience in a technical field, and good (but usually not elite) law school grades.

It's not an accident that the one CAFC clerk to make it to SCOTUS came from Judge Dyk, who has a different background (and different hiring patterns) than most of his fellow CAFC judges. Dyk was a SCOTUS clerk himself and was a general appellate practitioner for years. He is friends with Justices Ginsburg and Scalia. Unlike many CAFC judges, Dyk has a preference for HYS grads, cares a lot about law school grades, and generally hires students coming right out of law school.

Perhaps other CAFC judges with CADC-ish credentials (maybe Taranto?) will position themselves to hire and groom potential SCOTUS clerkship candidates. But until that happens, you're probably not going to see CAFC clerks on SCOTUS. The soundness of the CAFC's substantive decisions on patent law aren't really a factor, imo.
This is OP. There are some fair points here. I was being a little critical. Let me revise my previous comments.

I think the CAFC focuses on different things that SCOTUS does, like practice and interest in patent law. Also CAFC does not all have the same connections with SCOTUS that many other COA judges do. I suspect Taranto will have better SCOTUS potential, yes. And like I said before, SCOTUS is a generalist's job, and CAFC clerks are pretty much never generalists.

That said, at the risk of pulling rank, I can say definitively that the CAFC is perceived by the SCOTUS bar as being hopelessly home-rule, pro-patent, and it gets reversed for reasons different than, e.g., a Reinhardt does. Reinhardt pulls crazy stuff, but there's often some support in the liberal side of the appellate bar for him. CAFC gets reversed because it is viewed as having slipped its leash to SCOTUS. It pulls wacky stuff that no one outside the patent world thinks could possibly be right. This actually has an effect on how CAFC is perceived outside the patent world, to the extent anyone cares to perceive it.

So, I'll give you more than half a point on your statements here. There's definitely a lot of truth to it. But look me in the proverbial eye and tell me Rader isn't crazy.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:22 am

Anonymous User wrote:You kinda touched on this already when you did the listing of qualified/not qualified candidates but generally speaking, is it even possible a person who is only cum laude at HYS to get a SCOTUS clerkship?

Alternatively, what about a sharp increase in grades? As in bombed first year but absolutely fabulous 2L and 3L?
This is OP. Depends on how fantastic and how big a bombing.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:28 am

This is OP. There have been many questions to the effect of "could I do it outside top 10% at HYS" and "are there any clerks of opposite ideological direction." I'll just aggregate and answer here.

Yes, sometimes outside 10% at HYS gets it. Actually that once in a while happens from anywhere. Usually these people have just fantastic connections and almost-good-enough grades. When I say "fantastic connections" I mean a combination of, you know, a great judge, a Congressman, a couple of name-brand professors, etc. My guidelines are designed to describe grades for people with standard "good connections" but nothing special. A feeder judge, couple of strong recommenders. If you have special connections, if the leader of FedSoc or ACS is behind you 100%, the requirements relax some. I'm trying to describe the main line of cases.

The "hiring the other side" phenomenon was until very recently essentially exclusively something conservatives did in hiring liberals. Once in a while Justice Scalia would do this, and occasionally still does. Same with Chief Justice Roberts. Liberal Justices almost never do this, though Breyer might for a VERY well-credentialed one. Justice Sotomayor has hired one conservative recently. Too early to tell if that's a trend.

This is rare and basically reflects a difference between jurisprudence and politics. Justices want you to share their jurisprudence. They're a bit more flexible on politics. But how often do you see really honest liberals that are strong textualists, or really serious conservatives willing to look at broad consequences of a ruling to override statutory requirements, and so on?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:30 am

Anonymous User wrote:You've talked a lot about "institutional support" in this thread. In your experience, does that mostly begin at the SCOTUS application stage, or do you think T14 schools typically push hard for their top students to get feeder clerkships? In other words: I know individual professors/recommenders make calls and write letters throughout the application process, but I'm wondering if deans and administrators tend to get involved at any point before the SCOTUS stage. Is there a difference between HYS and the rest of the T14 in this regard?

I ask as a T14 (non-HYS) student wondering if I should be trying to leverage my school's administrative support in applying for COA clerkships, or if that's not standard until one applies for SCOTUS (and has a realistic shot). Thanks for any insight!
This is OP. It starts at the COA process, but it's a reinforcing cycle. Your school will push the best prospective candidates to feeder COAs. But even if your school doesn't give you the time of day at the feeder COA judge stage, if you get one, you're suddenly on the map.

Not really much of a difference between HYS and rest of T14, except HYS knows it can support 5-10 candidates per cycle where most of T14 can support 1-4.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:32 am

Desert Fox wrote:Would just barely getting cum laude at NW then working a few years in big law doing IP lit make me anywhere near competitive for fed cir.?
This is OP. This is hard to say. I think CAFC is more willing to forgive lower grades than other COAs. What's barely getting cum laude at NW mean for class rank? top 1/4? top 1/3?

Maybe our CAFC clerk can say. My instincts are that you have an outside chance if you have strong phone calls behind you.

09042014

Diamond
Posts: 18203
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by 09042014 » Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:36 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Would just barely getting cum laude at NW then working a few years in big law doing IP lit make me anywhere near competitive for fed cir.?
This is OP. This is hard to say. I think CAFC is more willing to forgive lower grades than other COAs. What's barely getting cum laude at NW mean for class rank? top 1/4? top 1/3?

Maybe our CAFC clerk can say. My instincts are that you have an outside chance if you have strong phone calls behind you.
NW purposely makes it impossible to figure it out, but it's really top50%, but it's a 3.65 GPA. After 1L that's like top 25%, but there is massive grade inflation. I'm not sure if courts are aware or not. I don't think our career services tells them. I'm sure most COA get enough applications from NW to figure out there is massive grade inflation going on, but I'm not sure if fed cir does.

If I get serious about I'll talk with people I work with who clerked there and figure if I even have a shot.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:39 am

Desert Fox wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Would just barely getting cum laude at NW then working a few years in big law doing IP lit make me anywhere near competitive for fed cir.?
This is OP. This is hard to say. I think CAFC is more willing to forgive lower grades than other COAs. What's barely getting cum laude at NW mean for class rank? top 1/4? top 1/3?

Maybe our CAFC clerk can say. My instincts are that you have an outside chance if you have strong phone calls behind you.
NW purposely makes it impossible to figure it out, but it's really top50%, but it's a 3.65 GPA. After 1L that's like top 25%, but there is massive grade inflation. I'm not sure if courts are aware or not. I don't think our career services tells them. I'm sure most COA get enough applications from NW to figure out there is massive grade inflation going on, but I'm not sure if fed cir does.

If I get serious about I'll talk with people I work with who clerked there and figure if I even have a shot.
This is OP. I think CAFC clerk can answer this more. I'm surprised it's top 50%. That seems pretty incredible. But was news to me; I would have guessed top 1/3 or so. So if that's well known elsewhere it's surprising.

Every school now is trying to make it hard to determine what their latin honors mean. It's a similar strategy to HYS trying to blur who is #1.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:41 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Posted a bit ago but am interested in seeing how grade improvement over the 3 yrs of law school factors into the decision.

Meaning, do shitty 1L year but really really good 2L and 3L. Is it treated like something positive or is it automatically DQing because of one bad year.
I assume it depends on how shitty your 1L year was and how really really good your 2L and 3L year was, what law school you went to, and what your rank ended up being (in addition to all the rest, recommendations, etc.). Can you be more specific?
Sure, HLS. Below median 1L yr (think less than 4 H). Straight H's 2L and and 3L

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Jun 14, 2014 12:02 pm

OP, I would like to get a better understanding of how non-HYS transcripts are assessed. In particular, I'm curious about the relative importance of (a) class standing, measured against one's peers, vs. (b) the strength of one's transcript compared to top graduates from the same school in years past.

For example, let's pretend I'm #1 in my graduating class at Penn. Let's also pretend that many (but not most) Penn graduates in my position landed SCOTUS clerkships in the last decade. Compared to many of those prior graduates, my transcript is not quite as strong. While I bested my classmates, I didn't pull of the sort of fireworks display achieved by some past Penn SCOTUS clerks.

It's likely hard to generalize, but when it comes to reviewing transcripts (and assuming the justice is willing to hire outside of HYS), how important is (b)? Do the specific grades on one's transcript matter much when, compared to the applicant's school peers, he/she came out on top?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Jun 14, 2014 12:18 pm

Just finished 1L at HLS and I think I'm somewhere in the top 5-10% range. Not sure if I'm even competitive, but there's buzz about CADC and other feeders starting to hire late Summer/early Fall but it's all a mystery to me. Specifically, I'm afraid of missing out on the earlier judges because I don't have huge name profs with feeder ties going to bat for me (as of now). Any recommendations about how to maximize chances after only one year of school, and doing so remotely? Or even just a list of some judges who tend to do early hiring would be super helpful.

User avatar
Holly Golightly

Gold
Posts: 4602
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:30 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Holly Golightly » Sat Jun 14, 2014 12:22 pm

Is the work as much fun and as awesome as it is in my head or does the stress take away from the awesomeness?

Can you shed any light generally on the opinion-drafting process or is that too confidential?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Jun 14, 2014 12:25 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Posted a bit ago but am interested in seeing how grade improvement over the 3 yrs of law school factors into the decision.

Meaning, do shitty 1L year but really really good 2L and 3L. Is it treated like something positive or is it automatically DQing because of one bad year.
I assume it depends on how shitty your 1L year was and how really really good your 2L and 3L year was, what law school you went to, and what your rank ended up being (in addition to all the rest, recommendations, etc.). Can you be more specific?
Sure, HLS. Below median 1L yr (think less than 4 H). Straight H's 2L and and 3L
Any DS? Did you manage to snag magna? Have you clerked?

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Jun 14, 2014 12:42 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Posted a bit ago but am interested in seeing how grade improvement over the 3 yrs of law school factors into the decision.

Meaning, do shitty 1L year but really really good 2L and 3L. Is it treated like something positive or is it automatically DQing because of one bad year.
I assume it depends on how shitty your 1L year was and how really really good your 2L and 3L year was, what law school you went to, and what your rank ended up being (in addition to all the rest, recommendations, etc.). Can you be more specific?
Sure, HLS. Below median 1L yr (think less than 4 H). Straight H's 2L and and 3L
Any DS? Did you manage to snag magna? Have you clerked?
No DS. No magna (in order to snag magna I woulda needed 1/3 of my 2L and 3L grades to be DS and I havent gotten any). Clerked for non feeder COA and thinking about doing another clerkship.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:04 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote: I assume it depends on how shitty your 1L year was and how really really good your 2L and 3L year was, what law school you went to, and what your rank ended up being (in addition to all the rest, recommendations, etc.). Can you be more specific?
Sure, HLS. Below median 1L yr (think less than 4 H). Straight H's 2L and and 3L
Any DS? Did you manage to snag magna? Have you clerked?
No DS. No magna (in order to snag magna I woulda needed 1/3 of my 2L and 3L grades to be DS and I havent gotten any). Clerked for non feeder COA and thinking about doing another clerkship.
Not OP, but I think it would really be an uphill battle. As OP stated recently, if you're outside top 10% at HYS you're probably going to need really exceptional recommendations or something else to be competitive.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Jun 14, 2014 2:06 pm

I find this thread interesting. But all these "Can I get a scotus clerkship with (obviously mediocre credentials)?" questions are getting a little old. I suspect OP is being generous in not shooting them down, but before you ask, consider this: if you were a Justice, would you hire somebody who 1) got beaten by only 50 people in their class (but I'm top 10% at Harvard!) or 2) bombed a year of law school or 3) had a rough admissions cycle or etc.? Probs not. You'd choose from one of 100 superstars without those flaws. So unless you're close to the rubric he laid out earlier or have some other specific question I'd sit back and enjoy the academic exercise that this is for most of us.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Jun 14, 2014 5:09 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:You've talked a lot about "institutional support" in this thread. In your experience, does that mostly begin at the SCOTUS application stage, or do you think T14 schools typically push hard for their top students to get feeder clerkships? In other words: I know individual professors/recommenders make calls and write letters throughout the application process, but I'm wondering if deans and administrators tend to get involved at any point before the SCOTUS stage. Is there a difference between HYS and the rest of the T14 in this regard?

I ask as a T14 (non-HYS) student wondering if I should be trying to leverage my school's administrative support in applying for COA clerkships, or if that's not standard until one applies for SCOTUS (and has a realistic shot). Thanks for any insight!
This is OP. It starts at the COA process, but it's a reinforcing cycle. Your school will push the best prospective candidates to feeder COAs.
Thanks for the response. I asked the original question because this has not been my experience at my T14 school. Perhaps I've failed to say the magic "I'm interested in feeders" words. But beyond asking for "any and all advice you might have in applying to clerkships -- thanks!" how does one trigger the kind of institutional support you've talked about? In other words, it seems presumptuous to ask a dean you hardly know to call around for you...I would have thought, based on what you've said, that the school takes this upon itself. I know the obvious response is to say I'm not one of the school's chosen few, but forget about me: I haven't heard of my school doing this for anyone. Are there some T14 schools that are just systematically less pushy on behalf of their students? Is there any way to get around this problem?

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

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


Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:17 am

Anonymous User wrote:OP, I would like to get a better understanding of how non-HYS transcripts are assessed. In particular, I'm curious about the relative importance of (a) class standing, measured against one's peers, vs. (b) the strength of one's transcript compared to top graduates from the same school in years past.

For example, let's pretend I'm #1 in my graduating class at Penn. Let's also pretend that many (but not most) Penn graduates in my position landed SCOTUS clerkships in the last decade. Compared to many of those prior graduates, my transcript is not quite as strong. While I bested my classmates, I didn't pull of the sort of fireworks display achieved by some past Penn SCOTUS clerks.

It's likely hard to generalize, but when it comes to reviewing transcripts (and assuming the justice is willing to hire outside of HYS), how important is (b)? Do the specific grades on one's transcript matter much when, compared to the applicant's school peers, he/she came out on top?
This is OP. Good eye. #1 is #1. Comparison across years does not come out through transcripts. And besides that, you're dealing with such tiny variances that no one takes them very seriously. (Assume a 4.33 scale.) What's the meaningful difference between 4.15, 4.17, and 4.19 GPA? None really. Probably one A+ vs. A. Nothing serious. (Or 3.99 vs. 3.97 vs. 3.95.) The place where the Justices distinguish between years is with judges' and faculty's recommendations. "This is the best student I've had in the last five years" counts for a lot precisely because it gives a trans-class comparison. So I think (a) matters more than (b). B, however, can help make someone that's not #1, or not otherwise exceptional, stand out. If you're only, say, top 10% in your class but Judge Kavanaugh calls up the Court and says you're a truly fantastic clerk, that's going to matter. Or Larry Tribe. And so on.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:20 am

Anonymous User wrote:Just finished 1L at HLS and I think I'm somewhere in the top 5-10% range. Not sure if I'm even competitive, but there's buzz about CADC and other feeders starting to hire late Summer/early Fall but it's all a mystery to me. Specifically, I'm afraid of missing out on the earlier judges because I don't have huge name profs with feeder ties going to bat for me (as of now). Any recommendations about how to maximize chances after only one year of school, and doing so remotely? Or even just a list of some judges who tend to do early hiring would be super helpful.
This is OP. You are competitive, especially if you land LR. Top 5-10% after 1L year means that if you work very hard you can be in the top couple of % (or, if you get lucky, top few students) at graduation. If you are serious about SCOTUS you are a viable candidate if you work yourself to death for the next two years.

Choose classes with big-name professors, participate a lot, go to office hours a lot, write a note on a topic one of them cares about, and do some kind of supervised/senior research project with one of them. That's the easiest way to cultivate a relationship in your position.

On judges... with grades/school that good you're simply a live shot on the paperwork. Go with proverbial war with the army you have. You're top 5-10% at HYS. You have a chance at a feeder based on recs + grades. Blanket CA2, CADC, and feeders. Cross fingers and hope you get lucky. Luck is an enormous portion of this game.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:26 am

Anonymous User wrote:I find this thread interesting. But all these "Can I get a scotus clerkship with (obviously mediocre credentials)?" questions are getting a little old. I suspect OP is being generous in not shooting them down, but before you ask, consider this: if you were a Justice, would you hire somebody who 1) got beaten by only 50 people in their class (but I'm top 10% at Harvard!) or 2) bombed a year of law school or 3) had a rough admissions cycle or etc.? Probs not. You'd choose from one of 100 superstars without those flaws. So unless you're close to the rubric he laid out earlier or have some other specific question I'd sit back and enjoy the academic exercise that this is for most of us.
This is OP. Thank you for this considerate response. I am trying to answer all questions that I can because this is probably a once-in-this-board's-lifetime event and I don't want anyone to feel like they're missing out. But I laid down the guidelines above for a reason.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you non-magna HYS grads don't get it. In fact, I know of one lower t14 that was not even top 15% that got it once. That clerk had a spectacular set of other factors going in his/her favor. There are outliers by nature. If you're barely top 10% but you go clerk for a CADC judge that calls up a Justice and says: "Look, this clerk of mine is simply brilliant," you're going to get the job, or at least an interview. But in the main run of cases, if you're not top 5% of HYS, top few people at t14, or #1 outside t14, you're not going to get a close look. OTHER THINGS can get you a close look. If a Senator calls on your behalf... someone's going to pay attention. But if I start making that reservation for everyone then I have to ask a series of kind of abstruse and specific questions, right? The answer to any one of which would be highly personally identifying.

So just assume that it's a strong presumption against you if you aren't within the grade bands I outlined above, but if you have factors like these:

- Nationally known faculty recommenders (think McConnell, Tribe, Calabresi, Yoo, Karlan, etc.)
- Politically significant recommenders (high-ups in Congress, leaders of FedSoc/ACS, judiciary committee people especially)
- A long publication history of good publications in good placements ("have you read my piece in the Harvard Law Review?")
- A feeder clerkship or two very prestigious clerkships with VERY strong recommendations (think phone call here, minimum)
- An incredibly compelling life story (think literal war hero or former venture capitalist)

Then you can probably get in the door anyway.

But look, if you think making SCOTUS the traditional way is hard (top 5%, top couple people, #1), making it the unusual way is -- harder. There are transfer students who get it. There are nontrad students who get it. But what do you think these people had to have going for them to top, say, a Sears Prize winner who DIDN'T get it? (Sears Prize winners do not always get SCOTUS clerkships.)

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:30 am

This is OP again. To soften the blow on "obviously mediocre credentials" just a little, please remember that someone with "mediocre credentials" for SCOTUS, e.g. top 10% at HYS, someone that has a shot but quite a remote one... has glittering credentials for any other purpose.

If you are close but no cigar, you will still have your pick of wonderful law jobs. You have the capacity to have a great life. Or at least as great a life as you can with a successful career.

Here's the honestly terrifying thing about getting a SCOTUS clerkship, and this is the most personal thing I'll share in this thread. Getting it creates a terrible realization. People who work for things like SCOTUS clerkships almost exclusively identify by their professional accomplishments. Getting this means you've made it. You have the job you've always wanted. You've "succeeded." To answer a question asked above, the work is as cool as you could dream. It's a fantastic job, though a very hard one. You even get enough money, if you go private practice, to pay off the heavy debt law school is now.

But it means if you aren't happy with your career, or yourself, that's on you. That's your fault. It means you have everything you dreamed of and more. If you can't make a good life with that, that's not because you weren't given a fair shot. It's a lot to internalize. It makes you confront that your happiness is your responsibility, and makes you unable to deflect onto: "well, if only I had..." anymore.

That's the hardest part of the job.

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!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:32 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:You've talked a lot about "institutional support" in this thread. In your experience, does that mostly begin at the SCOTUS application stage, or do you think T14 schools typically push hard for their top students to get feeder clerkships? In other words: I know individual professors/recommenders make calls and write letters throughout the application process, but I'm wondering if deans and administrators tend to get involved at any point before the SCOTUS stage. Is there a difference between HYS and the rest of the T14 in this regard?

I ask as a T14 (non-HYS) student wondering if I should be trying to leverage my school's administrative support in applying for COA clerkships, or if that's not standard until one applies for SCOTUS (and has a realistic shot). Thanks for any insight!
This is OP. It starts at the COA process, but it's a reinforcing cycle. Your school will push the best prospective candidates to feeder COAs.
Thanks for the response. I asked the original question because this has not been my experience at my T14 school. Perhaps I've failed to say the magic "I'm interested in feeders" words. But beyond asking for "any and all advice you might have in applying to clerkships -- thanks!" how does one trigger the kind of institutional support you've talked about? In other words, it seems presumptuous to ask a dean you hardly know to call around for you...I would have thought, based on what you've said, that the school takes this upon itself. I know the obvious response is to say I'm not one of the school's chosen few, but forget about me: I haven't heard of my school doing this for anyone. Are there some T14 schools that are just systematically less pushy on behalf of their students? Is there any way to get around this problem?
This is OP.

I think every t14 school has a way of pushing its special candidates. Just come out and say it: "I want a feeder clerkship because I hope to clerk for the Supreme Court." Don't come off as a jerk. But be assertive. Fortune favors the bold.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:53 pm

Anonymous User wrote:This is OP again. To soften the blow on "obviously mediocre credentials" just a little, please remember that someone with "mediocre credentials" for SCOTUS, e.g. top 10% at HYS, someone that has a shot but quite a remote one... has glittering credentials for any other purpose.

If you are close but no cigar, you will still have your pick of wonderful law jobs. You have the capacity to have a great life. Or at least as great a life as you can with a successful career.

Here's the honestly terrifying thing about getting a SCOTUS clerkship, and this is the most personal thing I'll share in this thread. Getting it creates a terrible realization. People who work for things like SCOTUS clerkships almost exclusively identify by their professional accomplishments. Getting this means you've made it. You have the job you've always wanted. You've "succeeded." To answer a question asked above, the work is as cool as you could dream. It's a fantastic job, though a very hard one. You even get enough money, if you go private practice, to pay off the heavy debt law school is now.

But it means if you aren't happy with your career, or yourself, that's on you. That's your fault. It means you have everything you dreamed of and more. If you can't make a good life with that, that's not because you weren't given a fair shot. It's a lot to internalize. It makes you confront that your happiness is your responsibility, and makes you unable to deflect onto: "well, if only I had..." anymore.

That's the hardest part of the job.
Just wanted to say this was a fantastic post.
Anonymous User wrote: - Nationally known faculty recommenders (think McConnell, Tribe, Calabresi, Yoo, Karlan, etc.)
I'm the between-realistic-and-strong wanting-to-avoid-DC applicant from before. At risk of outing myself, who would you recommend targeting at Chicago? Geof Stone, David Strauss?

canoe

New
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:30 pm

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by canoe » Sun Jun 15, 2014 1:19 pm

canoe wrote:Thanks for this OP. Much appreciated.

You mentioned how HYS internally calculate their #1 students for clerkship purposes. Since HS have grades beyond just H, such as DS or book awards, I can see how this would be possible. But for Y, since they don't have any grades beyond H, what happens when there are multiple students with all H's? I can imagine dean minow calling up judges and selling the fay diploma recipient but wouldn't this be harder to do at Yale since Yale's grade system leads to less distinction between the top 5-10 students who have all H's?

I've always theorized that b/c of this, it's 'better' (at least for SC clerkship purposes) to go to harvard if you know you can become the top student. Of course, this is faulty thinking b/c you can't ever know how well you will do at any one law school.
bump. wasn't sure if you intentionally skipped it OP but in that case, feel free to ignore. :)

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jun 15, 2014 1:23 pm

This is OP. Thank you. I'm glad you appreciated it.

I'll go out a little on a limb for you here. Those two are good. But a comprehensive answer depends on which Justices you might be a good fit for. Eric Posner is good regardless, and accessible. Bernard Harcourt if you're liberal. Adam Mortara has a close relationship with Justice Thomas. Todd Henderson doesn't have special clout, but writes good letters and makes good phone calls. Joking aside, Will Baude surely has serious connections with the Chief. But what you really want is an in with UC's clerkship guru.

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”