Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

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: 304474
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Apr 02, 2017 1:01 pm

The rumors about Kosinski aren't just rumors, they are for the most part true. At this point tbh, given the number of people who have clerked for him through the years, anyone looking to clerk CoA who doesn't know Kosinski is a horrible person either 1) didn't do their due diligence, or 2) wasn't qualified to clerk for him so didn't bother to look.

I think TLS definitely is a place to discuss things like this, especially outrageous behaviors. It is one thing to say that some judges are overly strict, or maybe have a temper, in which case it may be a bit unfair to out the judge to applicants. It is another thing when a judge is downright horrible to work for, especially with the hush hush culture surrounding clerkship applications. Clerks and former clerks generally won't let applicants they don't know well in on the negative aspects of their clerkships, so any other resource that allows applicants to get further information is welcome.

With regards to the rumor mill (and its consequences for unfairly targeted people) vs. actually valuable information, I agree with what others have mentioned here. An applicant reading these forums should have enough judgment to separate credible stuff from the rest.

wwwcol
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:57 am

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby wwwcol » Sun Apr 02, 2017 1:07 pm

Anonymous User wrote:With regards to the rumor mill (and its consequences for unfairly targeted people) vs. actually valuable information, I agree with what others have mentioned here. An applicant reading these forums should have enough judgment to separate credible stuff from the rest.


On what should the prospective applicant base his judgment? The absence of grammatical mistakes? The plausibility of the story? The degrees of separation claimed by the anonymous poster?

Anonymous User
Posts: 304474
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Apr 02, 2017 1:41 pm

There can be a high cost to asking people if Judge or Employer X is a sexual harasser, etc., as asking the question can mark you as oversensitive. In other words, it’s not always a good rule, when doing due diligence on prospective employers, to always ask, “are there things I should be especially concerned about as a female/black/gay/etc.” employee. Forums like this can help prospective clerks, or people who are mentoring prospective clerks, know when it is worth risking an (unfair) credibility hit to just ask those high-cost questions about a specific judge.

Separately, FWIW, I’ve worked for a sexual harasser (a professor). And most of my female friends have worked for at least one sexual harasser (in all types of industries, including law). In my experience, there’s a reason oft-repeated rumors like this spread but never seem to get substantiated with media reports or other publicized actions. It’s because people don’t feel empowered to circulate the information using names and specifics, so they get circulated as rumors. I recognize the risk of unfair targeting in situations like this. But again, in my experience, rumors that are as plentiful as the ones about Kozinski almost always turn out to be true, or—even more often—just the tip of the iceberg.

User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 5658
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby rpupkin » Sun Apr 02, 2017 1:53 pm

Anonymous User wrote:The rumors about Kosinski aren't just rumors, they are for the most part true.

If you're so comfortable representing that these rumors are true, then why is this post anonymous? You're a coward.

hiima3L
Posts: 911
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:26 pm

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby hiima3L » Sun Apr 02, 2017 4:07 pm

I was going to clerk for Kozinski but then I saw he not only underlines cites, he omits the underline under the "v." and spaces in between. What a cretin.

RaceJudicata
Posts: 1643
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:51 pm

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby RaceJudicata » Sun Apr 02, 2017 4:12 pm

rpupkin wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:The rumors about Kosinski aren't just rumors, they are for the most part true.

If you're so comfortable representing that these rumors are true, then why is this post anonymous? You're a coward.


Bingo.

Anonymous User
Posts: 304474
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:21 pm

rpupkin wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:The rumors about Kosinski aren't just rumors, they are for the most part true.

If you're so comfortable representing that these rumors are true, then why is this post anonymous? You're a coward.


It's great that I don't even have to tell you why. Someone already did.

Anonymous User wrote:There can be a high cost to asking people if Judge or Employer X is a sexual harasser, etc., as asking the question can mark you as oversensitive. In other words, it’s not always a good rule, when doing due diligence on prospective employers, to always ask, “are there things I should be especially concerned about as a female/black/gay/etc.” employee. Forums like this can help prospective clerks, or people who are mentoring prospective clerks, know when it is worth risking an (unfair) credibility hit to just ask those high-cost questions about a specific judge.

Separately, FWIW, I’ve worked for a sexual harasser (a professor). And most of my female friends have worked for at least one sexual harasser (in all types of industries, including law). In my experience, there’s a reason oft-repeated rumors like this spread but never seem to get substantiated with media reports or other publicized actions. It’s because people don’t feel empowered to circulate the information using names and specifics, so they get circulated as rumors. I recognize the risk of unfair targeting in situations like this. But again, in my experience, rumors that are as plentiful as the ones about Kozinski almost always turn out to be true, or—even more often—just the tip of the iceberg.


This is why. This profession actively discourages taking a stand against authority. It is also obsessed with prestige, and tremendously deferential of those who have achieved the required level of influence. So people are afraid to ask, and most of those who know negative information about legal personalities, whether they be judges, professors, partners at firms, etc., are afraid to offer, for fear of repercussions. Call that cowardly if you want (and you're right, it pretty much is), but this is why I see the role this forum plays as important. I self-selected into a firm at OCI in some part based on my triage of the rumors about firms I read by browsing through dozens of threads on this website, and I'd say the majority of the rumors I was able to verify turned out to be true. I understand the concern about anonymous gossip, but given the way our profession works I don't really know of better way to get somewhat accurate answers about jobs or the people you'll be working with short of personally knowing, and trusting, people in the know.

User avatar
bretby
Posts: 360
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 5:15 pm

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby bretby » Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:The rumors about Kosinski aren't just rumors, they are for the most part true.

If you're so comfortable representing that these rumors are true, then why is this post anonymous? You're a coward.


It's great that I don't even have to tell you why. Someone already did.

Anonymous User wrote:There can be a high cost to asking people if Judge or Employer X is a sexual harasser, etc., as asking the question can mark you as oversensitive. In other words, it’s not always a good rule, when doing due diligence on prospective employers, to always ask, “are there things I should be especially concerned about as a female/black/gay/etc.” employee. Forums like this can help prospective clerks, or people who are mentoring prospective clerks, know when it is worth risking an (unfair) credibility hit to just ask those high-cost questions about a specific judge.

Separately, FWIW, I’ve worked for a sexual harasser (a professor). And most of my female friends have worked for at least one sexual harasser (in all types of industries, including law). In my experience, there’s a reason oft-repeated rumors like this spread but never seem to get substantiated with media reports or other publicized actions. It’s because people don’t feel empowered to circulate the information using names and specifics, so they get circulated as rumors. I recognize the risk of unfair targeting in situations like this. But again, in my experience, rumors that are as plentiful as the ones about Kozinski almost always turn out to be true, or—even more often—just the tip of the iceberg.


This is why. This profession actively discourages taking a stand against authority. It is also obsessed with prestige, and tremendously deferential of those who have achieved the required level of influence. So people are afraid to ask, and most of those who know negative information about legal personalities, whether they be judges, professors, partners at firms, etc., are afraid to offer, for fear of repercussions. Call that cowardly if you want (and you're right, it pretty much is), but this is why I see the role this forum plays as important. I self-selected into a firm at OCI in some part based on my triage of the rumors about firms I read by browsing through dozens of threads on this website, and I'd say the majority of the rumors I was able to verify turned out to be true. I understand the concern about anonymous gossip, but given the way our profession works I don't really know of better way to get somewhat accurate answers about jobs or the people you'll be working with short of personally knowing, and trusting, people in the know.


The slavish deference to judges in this thread is very surprising and also weird. That sharing troubling experiences with people in positions of tremendous power could come at high personal cost to junior people is not a readily understood and acceptable reason why some people might choose to do anonymously on an internet board baffles. As does some misplaced desire to protect the reputation of very powerful people at the expense of vulnerable people. As much as I hate to play the straight white man card, I don't understand how some of the people in this thread can be so up in arms at the idea of this thread unless they have never experienced harassment, sexual or otherwise.

User avatar
bearsfan23
Posts: 1755
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:19 pm

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby bearsfan23 » Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:37 pm

rpupkin wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:The rumors about Kosinski aren't just rumors, they are for the most part true.

If you're so comfortable representing that these rumors are true, then why is this post anonymous? You're a coward.


Good point rpupkin. Somebody should potentially destroy their legal career by posting non-anon just because you want them to. People who could clerk for kozinski are generally smart enough to do more research than just listen to people on TLS, but talking about judges' behavior is a valuable part of this forum.

And this isn't new stuff about Kozinski. Based on the way people I know who have clerked for him have described his behavior to me, I think many people wouldn't be comfortable working there.

But this topic clearly bothers you, almost like we're talking about your former boss or something

User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 5658
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby rpupkin » Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:46 pm

bretby wrote:The slavish deference to judges in this thread is very surprising and also weird.

Where is the "slavish deference to judges" in this thread? Note that both Nony and I shared our negative impressions of Kozinski—under our own user names. For what it's worth, I would never clerk for Kozinski because of how he treats his clerks. I am not "slavishly" devoted to him or any other judge.

My issue is with the use of the TLS anon feature to pass along rumors. Look, we're all anonymous here in a sense—we're not posting under our real names. But there's value in forcing posters to attach their TLS user names to their statements. As the defenders of the "it's fine to post rumors" approach have pointed out, the readers of the posts need to assess for themselves whether the posts are credible. That assessment is much easier to make if the "TLS identity" of the poster is known. If, for example, Nony or mjb447 posted a critical comment about a judge, I think most of us would tend to take it seriously, as they're both long-time posters with a track record of being thoughtful and careful. But if, by contrast, certain other TLS posters shared critical comments (I'm going to be kind enough not to use examples here), I think most of us would be quite skeptical.

The purpose of the anonymous feature is to protect you in circumstances where you're revealing personal information that might make it possible for someone to identify you in real life. Its purpose is not to make it easier for you to say controversial things without any accountability in the TLS community. I think the anon posters in this thread are using the anon feature for the latter purpose. It's inappropriate.
Last edited by rpupkin on Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Hikikomorist
terminally incel
Posts: 7736
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 12:05 pm

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby Hikikomorist » Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:53 pm

These are federal judges, so I don't see why they'd need to be coddled. As for protecting the readers, I think they can discount for the anonymity of the source if they wish. People post stuff about firms all the time, and that information is often less identifiable than personal anecdotes about shitty judges would be. There's a difference between an organization and a person in terms of harm to reputation, but I think it's negligible when we're talking about federal judges.

User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 5658
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby rpupkin » Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:56 pm

Hikikomorist wrote:These are federal judges, so I don't see why they'd need to be coddled.

I don't think they should be coddled either. To be clear, if you anonymously posted "X is a blatant homophobe," I would be critical of your use of anon regardless of the identity of X. This isn't about protecting federal judges.

Npret
Posts: 1163
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby Npret » Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:01 pm

rpupkin wrote:
bretby wrote:The slavish deference to judges in this thread is very surprising and also weird.

Where is the "slavish deference to judges" in this thread? Note that both Nony and I shared our negative impressions of Kozinski—under our own user names. For what it's worth, I would never clerk for Kozinski because of how he treats his clerks. I am not "slavishly" devoted to him or any other judge.

My issue is with the use of the TLS anon feature to pass along rumors. Look, we're all anonymous here in a sense—we're not posting under our real names. But there's value in forcing posters to attach their TLS user names to their statements. As the defenders of the "it's fine to post rumors" approach have pointed out, the readers of the posts need to assess for themselves whether the posts are credible. That assessment is much easier to make if the "TLS identity" of the poster is known. If, for example, Nony or mjb447 posted a critical comment about a judge, I think most of us would tend to take it seriously, as they're both long-time posters with a track record of being thoughtful and careful. But if, by contrast, certain other TLS posters shared critical comments (I'm going to be kind enough not to use examples here), I think most of us would be quite skeptical.

The purpose of the anonymous feature is to protect you in circumstances where you're revealing personal information that might make it possible for someone to identify you in real life. Its purpose is not to make it easier for you to say controversial things without any accountability in the TLS community. I think the anon posters in this thread are using the anon feature for the latter purpose. It's inappropriate.


How do you know that they won't be outed and possibly harmed professionally? Serious question. Not trolling or dismissing you.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 29198
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:16 pm

I think my concern is really that people who actually have information worth knowing aren't going to want to post it here regardless of whether they post anon or under their account, because the more valuable the information is, the more specific it would be, and the more specific the information is, the more it will identify you regardless of whether you post anon. I actually think that I'd be more open about my experiences with someone who contacted me IRL than I would here. That being the case, what's going to get circulated here would be generalities and speculation. I'm not worried about protecting federal judges so much as that I question the value of what would get posted. (To be honest, I find a lot of the anonymous posting about firms doesn't accomplish much more than freaking people out, too.)

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 10200
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby jbagelboy » Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:31 am

I agree with rpupkin as a general matter with regard to anonymous posting. Anonymous posting should be reserved for comments that specifically implicate your professional experience or knowledge, not casual non-specific observations or rumors where you are just using the anonymous feature because you don't want people to make an unflattering association with your handle. (None of us are perfect, but that's the ambition.) I do think we've seen some improvement, this thread not withstanding, since last year though, which is positive--and a credit to our mods.

Npret
Posts: 1163
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby Npret » Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:43 am

jbagelboy wrote:I agree with rpupkin as a general matter with regard to anonymous posting. Anonymous posting should be reserved for comments that specifically implicate your professional experience or knowledge, not casual non-specific observations or rumors where you are just using the anonymous feature because you don't want people to make an unflattering association with your handle. (None of us are perfect, but that's the ambition.) I do think we've seen some improvement, this thread not withstanding, since last year though, which is positive--and a credit to our mods.


But how do you know that anonymous people won't be outed? I think I'm missing something.

I understand don't bother posting if you're saying something like "oh the rumor at my school was" or "I heard that…."

Anonymous User
Posts: 304474
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:39 pm

Npret wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:I agree with rpupkin as a general matter with regard to anonymous posting. Anonymous posting should be reserved for comments that specifically implicate your professional experience or knowledge, not casual non-specific observations or rumors where you are just using the anonymous feature because you don't want people to make an unflattering association with your handle. (None of us are perfect, but that's the ambition.) I do think we've seen some improvement, this thread not withstanding, since last year though, which is positive--and a credit to our mods.


But how do you know that anonymous people won't be outed? I think I'm missing something.

I understand don't bother posting if you're saying something like "oh the rumor at my school was" or "I heard that…."


Yeah, you guys are great but as someone who has fairly easily identifiable information associated to my handle, and who will be clerking after graduation, there's no way I am going to say anything negative that can easily be tied to me IRL. Anonymous posting in this context isn't used to avoid having an unflattering association with your handle, it's used to eliminate the risk someone retaliating against you for saying what's going on.

Really, I don't understand how people don't see the value of this thread. Clerkship hiring is INCREDIBLY opaque, and it can be very difficult to figure out the personality of who you'll be working for before you actually start clerking. That's why you have threads like "I hate my clerkship" going on for pages. And again, I think we're all smart enough to distinguish between the one-time "Judge X is so mean" comment and repeated warnings from multiple people about the way a particular judge behaves. Not everyone has the benefit of close connections with former clerks or of an active career services office.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 10200
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby jbagelboy » Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:54 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Npret wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:I agree with rpupkin as a general matter with regard to anonymous posting. Anonymous posting should be reserved for comments that specifically implicate your professional experience or knowledge, not casual non-specific observations or rumors where you are just using the anonymous feature because you don't want people to make an unflattering association with your handle. (None of us are perfect, but that's the ambition.) I do think we've seen some improvement, this thread not withstanding, since last year though, which is positive--and a credit to our mods.


But how do you know that anonymous people won't be outed? I think I'm missing something.

I understand don't bother posting if you're saying something like "oh the rumor at my school was" or "I heard that…."


Yeah, you guys are great but as someone who has fairly easily identifiable information associated to my handle, and who will be clerking after graduation, there's no way I am going to say anything negative that can easily be tied to me IRL. Anonymous posting in this context isn't used to avoid having an unflattering association with your handle, it's used to eliminate the risk someone retaliating against you for saying what's going on.

Really, I don't understand how people don't see the value of this thread. Clerkship hiring is INCREDIBLY opaque, and it can be very difficult to figure out the personality of who you'll be working for before you actually start clerking. That's why you have threads like "I hate my clerkship" going on for pages. And again, I think we're all smart enough to distinguish between the one-time "Judge X is so mean" comment and repeated warnings from multiple people about the way a particular judge behaves. Not everyone has the benefit of close connections with former clerks or of an active career services office.


I think you missed the point. If you have personal knowledge of information you are sharing in a post that's sensitive or likely to out you for whatever reason, the anonymous feature is perfectly appropriate, even encouraged. On the other hand, if you're just relaying something you read online or that is substantially disconnected from you and not information you obtained because of some special relationship to its source, I don't see the risks or the added value of the comment. In other words, if the only reason you know something is because it was conveyed to you in a way that would make it more likely that you would be identified by sharing it on TLS, you should post it anonymously. Comments like yours here that don't contain any such information and just make general statements, not sure why it needs to be anonymous. As for retaliation, what about you just posted would make you subject to possible retaliation? What about your post contains anything sensitive or specific to your knowledge or experience?

I'm sensitive to the "outing" point. Many people I know IRL know what my TLS handle is. And so I can see that saying, "I heard judge x or professor y is a child molester", even if you are just spreading a common rumor, could expose you to some form of censure. However, this brings us back to the question, what is the value in you making that comment? Should TLS provide a feature that protects your ability to make such a comment when it adds no value in the on-topics?

User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 5658
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby rpupkin » Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:56 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Really, I don't understand how people don't see the value of this thread. Clerkship hiring is INCREDIBLY opaque, and it can be very difficult to figure out the personality of who you'll be working for before you actually start clerking. That's why you have threads like "I hate my clerkship" going on for pages. And again, I think we're all smart enough to distinguish between the one-time "Judge X is so mean" comment and repeated warnings from multiple people about the way a particular judge behaves. Not everyone has the benefit of close connections with former clerks or of an active career services office.

I just don't agree that clerkship hiring is INCREDIBLY opaque. I did not have close connections with any former clerks when I applied for clerkships, and I didn't really use my career services office, but I had no problem finding out information about the judges once I was called in for interviews. My sources of information did not include anonymously-spread, third-hand internet rumors.

As I said in one of the first posts of this thread, I don't have a problem with someone sharing a personal anecdote--to use Hikikomorist's term--in an anonymous post. But that's not what's going on in this thread. Instead, people are just repeating rumors they've heard from others.

As for Npret's point that a TLS poster could ultimately be outed and thus embarrassed or shamed, that's basically an argument for permitting anonymous posting for all posts in all threads. Sure, TLS could adopt such an anon policy, but I suspect it would have a negative effect on the quality of discussion. As jbagelboy indicated a couple posts back, the quality (and tone) of threads generally improves when anonymous posting is limited.

Npret
Posts: 1163
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby Npret » Mon Apr 03, 2017 2:10 pm

rpupkin wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Really, I don't understand how people don't see the value of this thread. Clerkship hiring is INCREDIBLY opaque, and it can be very difficult to figure out the personality of who you'll be working for before you actually start clerking. That's why you have threads like "I hate my clerkship" going on for pages. And again, I think we're all smart enough to distinguish between the one-time "Judge X is so mean" comment and repeated warnings from multiple people about the way a particular judge behaves. Not everyone has the benefit of close connections with former clerks or of an active career services office.

I just don't agree that clerkship hiring is INCREDIBLY opaque. I did not have close connections with any former clerks when I applied for clerkships, and I didn't really use my career services office, but I had no problem finding out information about the judges once I was called in for interviews. My sources of information did not include anonymously-spread, third-hand internet rumors.

As I said in one of the first posts of this thread, I don't have a problem with someone sharing a personal anecdote--to use Hikikomorist's term--in an anonymous post. But that's not what's going on in this thread. Instead, people are just repeating rumors they've heard from others.

As for Npret's point that a TLS poster could ultimately be outed and thus embarrassed or shamed, that's basically an argument for permitting anonymous posting for all posts in all threads. Sure, TLS could adopt such an anon policy, but I suspect it would have a negative effect on the quality of discussion. As jbagelboy indicated a couple posts back, the quality (and tone) of threads generally improves when anonymous posting is limited.

No I'm not saying all threads. I asked how do you know someone in the relatively small world of clerking won't be outed?
Not allowing anonymous posting means that sensitive information just won't be shared. Is that better?

You probably don't remember several years ago, a poster here who had created valuable clerkship threads and even started a website was outed and I seem to recall harassed or by his classmates at Chicago. He ended up deleting his entire existence along with all the helpful info.
Last edited by Npret on Mon Apr 03, 2017 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 5658
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby rpupkin » Mon Apr 03, 2017 2:24 pm

Npret wrote:No I'm not saying all threads. I asked how do you know someone in the relatively small world of clerking won't be outed?
Not allowing anonymous posting means that sensitive information just won't be shared. Is that better?

There continues to be a disconnect here. Do you understand that I am not (and JBagel and Nony are not) taking issue with the use of anonymous posting to share something about one's own clerkship experience?

Barrred
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:49 pm

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby Barrred » Mon Apr 03, 2017 2:30 pm

Npret wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Really, I don't understand how people don't see the value of this thread. Clerkship hiring is INCREDIBLY opaque, and it can be very difficult to figure out the personality of who you'll be working for before you actually start clerking. That's why you have threads like "I hate my clerkship" going on for pages. And again, I think we're all smart enough to distinguish between the one-time "Judge X is so mean" comment and repeated warnings from multiple people about the way a particular judge behaves. Not everyone has the benefit of close connections with former clerks or of an active career services office.

I just don't agree that clerkship hiring is INCREDIBLY opaque. I did not have close connections with any former clerks when I applied for clerkships, and I didn't really use my career services office, but I had no problem finding out information about the judges once I was called in for interviews. My sources of information did not include anonymously-spread, third-hand internet rumors.

As I said in one of the first posts of this thread, I don't have a problem with someone sharing a personal anecdote--to use Hikikomorist's term--in an anonymous post. But that's not what's going on in this thread. Instead, people are just repeating rumors they've heard from others.

As for Npret's point that a TLS poster could ultimately be outed and thus embarrassed or shamed, that's basically an argument for permitting anonymous posting for all posts in all threads. Sure, TLS could adopt such an anon policy, but I suspect it would have a negative effect on the quality of discussion. As jbagelboy indicated a couple posts back, the quality (and tone) of threads generally improves when anonymous posting is limited.

No I'm not saying all threads. I asked how do you know someone in the relatively small world of clerking won't be outed?
Not allowing anonymous posting means that sensitive information just won't be shared. Is that better?


There is a difference between (A) being "outed" because someone recognizes information you posted online and is thereby able to tie your TLS handle to your actual identity, and (B) being "outed" as someone who spreads rumors online because somebody has independently tied your TLS handle to your actual identity. My understanding of their argument is that TLS's anonymous posting feature is designed to protect your actual identity from being tied to your TLS handle, and not to protect your TLS handle (and, to the extent someone has already tied your actual identity to your TLS handle, your actual identity) from criticism/negative attention for something you post online.

Anonymous User
Posts: 304474
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Apr 03, 2017 2:33 pm

I have a female classmate who recently clerked for a well-respected judge (not Judge Kozinski), who sexually harasses his female clerks. This classmate did mounds of due diligence before accepting the clerkship with this long-serving judge, as our law school regularly sends clerks to him and employs former clerk(s) of his. Yet while former clerks described ways in which the clerkship was not ideal, nobody warned her about this particular aspect of it. She now wonders if vague observations from former clerks that the clerkship could be "lonely" and "challenging"--observations that the former clerks had somewhat substantiated with other, non-harassment-related examples--may have also been code that she failed to pick up on.

With apologies, I don't feel comfortable sharing the Judge's name on this forum, as this is my classmate's "story to tell," and not mine. For similar reasons, I don't feel comfortable sharing the details of the harassment. I recognize that in not sharing the Judge's name, I'm perpetuating the problem that she faced: that due diligence is not always comprehensive. And I recognize that in not sharing the details, I'm making it more difficult for others to assess my claims. But I hope that sharing the above story offers some evidence about how opaque the process can be. I'm sharing this story anonymously because I am already concerned that the content of this post might help someone identify this classmate, and I don't want other information about, e.g., where I go to law school, to aid such a person.

Barrred
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:49 pm

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby Barrred » Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I have a female classmate who recently clerked for a well-respected judge (not Judge Kozinski), who sexually harasses his female clerks. This classmate did mounds of due diligence before accepting the clerkship with this long-serving judge, as our law school regularly sends clerks to him and employs former clerk(s) of his. Yet while former clerks described ways in which the clerkship was not ideal, nobody warned her about this particular aspect of it. She now wonders if vague observations from former clerks that the clerkship could be "lonely" and "challenging"--observations that the former clerks had somewhat substantiated with other, non-harassment-related examples--may have also been code that she failed to pick up on.

With apologies, I don't feel comfortable sharing the Judge's name on this forum, as this is my classmate's "story to tell," and not mine. For similar reasons, I don't feel comfortable sharing the details of the harassment. I recognize that in not sharing the Judge's name, I'm perpetuating the problem that she faced: that due diligence is not always comprehensive. And I recognize that in not sharing the details, I'm making it more difficult for others to assess my claims. But I hope that sharing the above story offers some evidence about how opaque the process can be. I'm sharing this story anonymously because I am already concerned that the content of this post might help someone identify this classmate, and I don't want other information about, e.g., where I go to law school, to aid such a person.


Regarding the meta-debate going on about anonymity, I think all would agree that this is a valid use of the anon feature, as the poster is using it to protect his identity while posting specific information that otherwise might be more easily linked to its original source (who is not many degrees of separation removed from the poster), not attempting to protect his identity from being negatively associated with a specific post.

jd20132013
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid

Postby jd20132013 » Mon Apr 03, 2017 4:27 pm

Seems to me the anon post also provides a pretty strong anecdote on the substantive point




Return to “Judicial Clerkships”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.