On Plan Clerkships 2011

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. 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: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:50 pm

I went on an interview with a dist. ct. judge last Friday, off plan. He said he was interviewing around 12 people for 2 slots. I believe Friday was the first day of interviews.

I know at least 4 interviews were conducted last Friday (my day). I am wondering when I will hear back, as they surely must be close to finished with the 8 other interviews by today, or at the latest by tomorrow.

Will I hear back by this Friday, Sept. 16th?? Or do they take time after interviews and sit on apps for a while?????????

Getting anxious.. thanks in advance


I interviewed with a district judge the last week in August. I was told that I was the first of eight interviews for two spots, and that the last interview was at the end of the week before Labor Day. I was also told that Judge would be out the week of Labor Day, so I wouldn't hear until this week. True to his word, Judge called on Monday. So 2+ weeks between the interview and the offer. (Yes, G.T.L. Rev., I'm who you think I am.)

traydeuce
Posts: 680
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:07 pm

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby traydeuce » Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:53 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I just read through the entire thread and didn't see any mention of any S.D. Cal judges, which are my first choice.

Anyone?


People who got calls from S.D. Cal. judges are too cool to post on TLS. But be assured, they exist. Actually, I know someone who took an off-plan 2012 clerkship in Riverside, over a month ago.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:06 am

sd cal -- moskowitz has hired a 2011 hls grad for one spot, and prefers clerks with one year of experience.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:25 am

If a judge has already heard from the big shots on your school's clerkship committee, but has not heard from your recommenders, really worth it to push your recommenders to make calls before the interview? I asked but got no reply, so I was wondering if I should go track down the one who's actually on campus. (Leaving aside the awkwardness of tracking him down. We have a fine relationship and sometimes he doesn't check his email.)

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:42 am

Is it too late to apply for clerkships? I'm thinking about tossing my resume to a few magistrates in the area.

User avatar
leobowski
Posts: 511
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:11 am

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby leobowski » Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:07 am

Anonymous User wrote:Is it too late to apply for clerkships? I'm thinking about tossing my resume to a few magistrates in the area.


Yup. It's a bit more complicated than "tossing your resume." You should have had recommenders, a flawless writing sample, etc. lined up months ago.

Lower-level state clerkships may be a different story though

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:16 am

People who got calls from S.D. Cal. judges are too cool to post on TLS. But be assured, they exist. Actually, I know someone who took an off-plan 2012 clerkship in Riverside, over a month ago.


Riverside is in the Central District. But you're right, those hires were done by early August.

traydeuce
Posts: 680
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:07 pm

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby traydeuce » Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:30 am

Anonymous User wrote:
People who got calls from S.D. Cal. judges are too cool to post on TLS. But be assured, they exist. Actually, I know someone who took an off-plan 2012 clerkship in Riverside, over a month ago.


Riverside is in the Central District. But you're right, those hires were done by early August.


So I realized after I posted. I just looked at a map of California and Riverside looked pretty southern... I forgot that CA is the most populous state ever and the Southern District was just San Diego and its environs.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:33 am

just noticed my 2 words in my small caps'd journal name in my CL were not capitalized so when put into the oscar CL editor it looks glaringly wrong.

i had like 10 people look at my god damn CL and no one noticed it. it seemed absolutely flawless, so i didn't bother checking it once put into the editor, and there's no way of doing small caps in it (as far as i can tell).

fucking unbelievable amount of time--mine and my recommenders'--completely wasted. i only sent out one paper app who a recommender was friends with, so that is the only thing keeping me from losing any and all hope at this point.

fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:53 am

Anonymous User wrote:just noticed my 2 words in my small caps'd journal name in my CL were not capitalized so when put into the oscar CL editor it looks glaringly wrong.

i had like 10 people look at my god damn CL and no one noticed it. it seemed absolutely flawless, so i didn't bother checking it once put into the editor, and there's no way of doing small caps in it (as far as i can tell).

fucking unbelievable amount of time--mine and my recommenders'--completely wasted. i only sent out one paper app who a recommender was friends with, so that is the only thing keeping me from losing any and all hope at this point.

fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu


If it's any consolation, my paper apps' writing sample (and I sent about forty paper apps) was littered with mistakes. Unsurprisingly, I didn't get any calls from paper judges, though I did get this Tuesday screener last week from a 3d Cir. judge before he had the chance to really look at my sample. It was a bench memo that a clerk edited. I more or less restored all the stuff he cut, so it ended up being basically all my work. But there were, unavoidably, some edits that stayed in because I didn't really have a copy with tracked changes, just my original draft, which I didn't want to use because it was misformatted, and his edit. Now, keep in mind that the clerk in question was an absolutely brilliant guy who wrote a stellar opinion in probably one of the four biggest con law cases of the year. (When I say stellar, that means it's not the Hull-Dubina clusterfuck.) And also a terrific editor, though he wasn't quite on the level of another clerk in that chambers who helped coauthor the Bluebook. Well, in spite of being so brilliant and such a good editor, he made, among others, the following mistakes:

1. Wrote 28. U.S.C. 2254 instead of 28 U.S.C. 2254
2. Wrote that "the court's statement that "erroneous evidentiary rulings unlikely to affect the outcome of the case did not deprive defendant of effective assistance of appellate counsel" suggests that the court adjudicated _____'s ineffectiveness claim on the merits." Now, as you can see, that sentence is nonsensical - an evidentiary ruling can't deprive anyone of effective assistance of counsel, no matter how unlikely or likely to affect the outcome of a trial. What the court, in fact, wrote was that "FAILURE TO APPEAL erroneous evidentiary rulings... did not deprive defendant of effective assistance," which makes sense and which does, in fact, suggest that the court adjudicated the ineffectiveness claim. The way he quotes them, it seems like the author of the opinion just let his dog sit on the keyboard and no one was really adjudicating anything. I, of course, had the quote right the first time, but he inexplicably edited it into mush and I didn't notice until I re-edited it for OSCAR apps.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:30 am

I don't know about other chambers, but in ours we didn't heavily scutinize writing samples til right before/after the actual interview time. And when you've got a bunch of former law review maniacs, an error can be found in pretty much any sample that cites something besides "Id." The bad ones are where words are misspelled/omitted or there are formatting mistakes bc those are things that anybody would see right away.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:10 pm

Thought this might be helpful. Interviews with Gettleman, Zagel and Aspen. All ND IL.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

traydeuce
Posts: 680
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:07 pm

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby traydeuce » Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:14 pm

Yeah in one chambers where I externed, they had these cute writing sample-reading jam sessions and they were the deciding factor. I don't know about close scrutiny, but they were pretty into the quality of the writing/arguments.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:35 pm

Are the N.D. Ill. judges still calling, or are these update from calls that went out a couple days ago?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:28 pm

I am on pins and needles waiting to hear back.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:29 pm

Just to add on, what about C.D. Ill. judges? Are they still calling? Anyone heard back besides McDade?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:32 pm

Is the post-interview call from recommenders really important? Does it ever annoy the judge?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:05 pm

Any offers to report?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:44 pm

Great question...which nobody will answer...

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:59 pm

Offer in M.D. Pa.

Pretty happy about it :D

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:03 pm

Congrats!!!!!!!

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:13 pm

Garland shows on Oscar as "expired" should we assume offers went out today?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:10 pm

Any SDNY?

lolwat
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:30 pm

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby lolwat » Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:13 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Garland shows on Oscar as "expired" should we assume offers went out today?


Expired just means he isn't accepting anymore applications, which probably does mean he's made or is making offers, but not necessarily. "Filled" is the bad one.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: On Plan Clerkships 2011

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:18 pm

If I got a call at 10:03 EDT on "phone call day," which starts at 10 am, is that a good thing? Unfortunately, my last name begins with A/B/C/D - so maybe they were going down the list alphabetically?

Done with my interview as of 10 minutes ago. I took the Thursday afternoon slot, which was the first one they had open. They told me I was the first candidate interviewed. But again - this could go back to the alphabetical order last name thing. Also, no on the spot offer. Judge will interview everybody else and get back to me next week.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.