Top Law Schools

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Kozinski? Arrogant?

ernie wrote:Just keeps getting worse...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... e0c4a24618

goddamn who took that picture of him from like right below the chin

always amazed at the super villanous-looking photos they dig up of people when stories like these break

JusticeJackson wrote:some of my old friends have been accused of actual crimes (i.e. beyond just being incredibly creepy). My continued contact with someone that’s been accused of burglary isn’t an endorsement of the alleged burglary

this is gross

IDK I understand loyalty and someone giving you a chance when no one else would. And I can see that affecting someone's choices. Especially if they have a prof who really went to bat for them. They might just need more time to decide because they're not surrounded by people for whom this choice is "obvious"

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

jd20132013 wrote:in some ways this is the best punishment we were likely to get for him, lol. Make him do all that work himself

Word on the street (I was the anon above that first reported them quitting) is that he is called senior associates and former clerks looking for immediate help. Hard to imagine it will be too successful as that group has little to gain. Have been trying to get the scoop on why 3 left and not 4, no avail.

CA9 clerk here. The three clerks that packed up and left went to T10 law schools. The clerk still working for him went to a lower-ranked school. I believe he's staying (for now) in part because he is concerned about whether other opportunities will be available to him.

Saying more would out him, but the remaining clerk already has something lined up for 2018. (went to LS with him).

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

jd20132013 wrote:in some ways this is the best punishment we were likely to get for him, lol. Make him do all that work himself

Word on the street (I was the anon above that first reported them quitting) is that he is called senior associates and former clerks looking for immediate help. Hard to imagine it will be too successful as that group has little to gain. Have been trying to get the scoop on why 3 left and not 4, no avail.

CA9 clerk here. The three clerks that packed up and left went to T10 law schools. The clerk still working for him went to a lower-ranked school. I believe he's staying (for now) in part because he is concerned about whether other opportunities will be available to him.

Saying more would out him, but the remaining clerk already has something lined up for 2018. (went to LS with him).

I don't have any opinion on whether or not it makes sense to worry about "outing" him, since presumably enough people already know who he is that it doesn't matter. But since you may know him (not "her", shocking) do you have any thoughts on why he's staying? Hard to imagine whatever clerkship he has lined up next would kick him to the curb if he doesn't finish out kozinski. Unless it's Kennedy...

I don't see why anyone on this thread needs to know why a particular Kozinski clerk is sticking around (or the clerk's gender or school rank for that matter). What does this have to do with the thread topic?

runinthefront wrote:I don't see why anyone on this thread needs to know why a particular Kozinski clerk is sticking around (or the clerk's gender or school rank for that matter). What does this have to do with the thread topic?

TLS's love for juicy gossip will always win out over another topic, no matter how irrelevant the gossip might be.

flashdril wrote:

JusticeJackson wrote:some of my old friends have been accused of actual crimes (i.e. beyond just being incredibly creepy). My continued contact with someone that’s been accused of burglary isn’t an endorsement of the alleged burglary

this is gross

yeah

I remember reading this thread when I started applying to clerkships. What really scared me about just submitting 100+ apps on OSCAR indiscriminately is getting a clerkship where the judge turned out to be someone I did not feel comfortable working for/with. I don't mean that I need a judge who thinks the way I think or who is 100% politically correct...I just did not want to get stuck working for someone who I sincerely felt harassed or physically uncomfortable/unsafe/scared around. I've been in that situation before pre-law school and I don't want to do it again, especially working for a judge where you have little to know recourse.

When I saw this thread title, I was really excited. Then I read all the immediately negative comments about how it was just gossip, it was a rumor mill, etc. It seemed like most of the thread was devoted to debating the merits of it, and arguing about how applicants can find this information other ways.

I go to a TTT...we don't really send people to clerkships often. We don't have the resources where I have someone coaching me on who to avoid. Obviously I am not someone being considered for a 9th cir. clerkship, but I mean more generally - we don't have a list of past clerks that have gone to that judge or an idea of someone's reputation, outside of the few judges in our immediate area. So I was sad that instead of this thread being a useful resource, it became a debate on the merits of such a resource.

I hope that in light of the 15 women who have now come forward, maybe this thread can become a resource. Because the bottom line is, the cost benefit is completely worth it: some anonymous posts on a message board that may not always be true or may be exaggerated vs a woman being warned of a potential unwelcoming work environment. Each person has to decide whether they want to take tips from TLS and that is their decision, but at least there would be a starting point. I personally got extremely lucky, and landed a clerkship with one of the few judges near my school who I had met previously.

Anonymous User wrote:Because the bottom line is, the cost benefit is completely worth it: some anonymous posts on a message board that may not always be true or may be exaggerated vs a woman being warned of a potential unwelcoming work environment.

You're approaching this from the perspective of an applicant. Ok. But there are very real costs to spreading false and disparaging comments--both for the accused and the accuser. And there are very real costs to being associated with someone who has been accused of sexual misconduct. There is a reason people in Hollywood didn't speak up about Weinstein. And there is a reason that Kozinski's clerks quit.

Kozinski just retired.

That escalated quickly, but perhaps not quickly enough

actuator wrote:

flashdril wrote:

JusticeJackson wrote:some of my old friends have been accused of actual crimes (i.e. beyond just being incredibly creepy). My continued contact with someone that’s been accused of burglary isn’t an endorsement of the alleged burglary

this is gross

yeah

Since we're here, let me put in a word for justice Jackson.

I don't find this gross at all. It must be nice to have only friends who've been on the straight and narrow all their lives.

Where I part ways from Justice Jackson is the analogy to Kosinski--who isn't a friend of his clerks. It's a business relationship

jd20132013 wrote:

actuator wrote:

flashdril wrote:

JusticeJackson wrote:some of my old friends have been accused of actual crimes (i.e. beyond just being incredibly creepy). My continued contact with someone that’s been accused of burglary isn’t an endorsement of the alleged burglary

this is gross

yeah

Since we're here, let me put in a word for justice Jackson.

I don't find this gross at all. It must be nice to have only friends who've been on the straight and narrow all their lives.

Where I part ways from Justice Jackson is the analogy to Kosinski--who isn't a friend of his clerks. It's a business relationship

Kozinski remains good friends with a number of his clerks

wrote it quickly, so this is my fault, but was referring to
The current clerk who didn't quit, which is who I think
Justice jacksons original post referred to

Doesn’t matter since he resigned effective immediately

Mostly on topic for this thread, I wanted to share this article that one of my faculty advisors sent to me as I apply for clerkships: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 2b4f5cb731

It talks about the potential for abuse posed by clerkships and that one of the ways to address it is to reduce the pressure on accepting an offer if you get one. My advisor gave me the same advice and said it's bunk that students are just expected to accept it and not be able to say no, an interview is a 2 way street and if after the interview you don't think the judge would be right for you, it's okay to turn an offer down. There's obviously a culture shift that has to happen for that to be acceptable to schools and judges, but anyway, thought I'd share.

^ I agree with this. I think the idea that you have to accept an offer is bunk (and TBF I think it’s less common an expectation than CSOs believe, but that’s obviously anecdotal).

^

My roommate in 3L had declined a clerkship offer and the career services / clerkship office was nasty about it. Made him feel awful. He accepted his next offer immediately and even though his second offer was a better fit for him I think he actually regrets rejecting the first because he was made to feel so bad about it. Bull.

Yeah, to my knowledge, all the judges I've worked with or for would prefer the spot go to a candidate who wants the job and thinks s/he'll be a good fit in chambers. I'm sure there are few judges out there who care, though.

jd20132013 wrote:

actuator wrote:

flashdril wrote:

JusticeJackson wrote:some of my old friends have been accused of actual crimes (i.e. beyond just being incredibly creepy). My continued contact with someone that’s been accused of burglary isn’t an endorsement of the alleged burglary

this is gross

yeah

Since we're here, let me put in a word for justice Jackson.

I don't find this gross at all. It must be nice to have only friends who've been on the straight and narrow all their lives.

Where I part ways from Justice Jackson is the analogy to Kosinski--who isn't a friend of his clerks. It's a business relationship

that's not what was gross about this.

what was gross about this was:
1) minimizing what Kosinski did, which in many cases bordered on if not outright was sexual assault, as being "creepy"
2) suggesting that remaining friends with someone who allegedly committed a burglary is the same as continuing a relationship with someone who has a decades-long pattern of dehumanizing women around him, let alone what's been said about his treatment of LGBT people.

I don't judge the clerk who stayed at all (although now it's a moot point, and really Kosinski resigning effectively through this guy who stuck with him under the bus). I'm not in the situation, can't say what I'd do if I was, and even then it would depend a lot on the facts.

But Kosinski isn't just creepy.

ggocat wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Because the bottom line is, the cost benefit is completely worth it: some anonymous posts on a message board that may not always be true or may be exaggerated vs a woman being warned of a potential unwelcoming work environment.

You're approaching this from the perspective of an applicant. Ok. But there are very real costs to spreading false and disparaging comments--both for the accused and the accuser. And there are very real costs to being associated with someone who has been accused of sexual misconduct. There is a reason people in Hollywood didn't speak up about Weinstein. And there is a reason that Kozinski's clerks quit.

We are talking about (likely anonymous) posts on a message board. I do not think anonymous posts on a message board are going to carry "very real costs" to federal judges who are appointed for life. The first post in this board was in March I believe. Maybe someone else is aware of the costs of those posts, and I would be interested to hear them, but nothing actually happened to anyone named in this thread until women came forward publicly to news outlets.

You also keep saying "someone accused of sexual misconduct" but you're using people who have, at this point, had numerous women publicly verifying claims (Weinstein, Kozinski.) So if you want to keep saying accused that is fine, but you cannot seriously compare Kozinski's clerks quitting after 15 women publicly came forward with stories of harassment to a clerk whose has anonymous posts about him on a forum online?

Anonymous User wrote:We are talking about (likely anonymous) posts on a message board. I do not think anonymous posts on a message board are going to carry "very real costs" to federal judges who are appointed for life.

If they did, Latham would have filed for bankruptcy already.

I got some pushback from my school for canceling an accepted interview with a COA judge after I talked to one of his/her former clerks and heard some not so great things. It seemed pretty clear that the school cared more about its own reputation than my best interests and really left a sour taste in my mouth.

The process puts students in a really tough spot. It's impossible to talk to someone who knows/worked for every judge you apply to, so you're stuck with relying on Google/other online info, which is often pretty sparse. And then when you get offered an interview, you don't have time to do more in-depth research before deciding whether to accept, and you may not even have time to talk to a former clerk before the interview, at which point the judge might offer you on the spot and your school will expect you to accept.

I don't have any idea how to make the process better (other than to remove the stigma from rejecting offers/interviews), but the current system is not good.