NJ Supreme Court Forum

[Anonymous User]

Any info on applying, specific judges (specifically new Murphy appointees), general experience/prestige, etc.

[Anonymous User]

New Jersey is among the more well-respected state supreme courts in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic region, so it's a good option. Federal of any type (except may be magistrate?) is of course going to be more prestigious though.

[soft blue]

A friend from law school clerked there. She wanted to stay in New Jersey and be a prosecutor; she thought it was a good experience that was well-respected by state/federal prosecutors and the connections came in handy.

[Anonymous User]

Any info on applying, specific judges (specifically new Murphy appointees), general experience/prestige, etc.

The justices hire as a court, meaning everyone does it at roughly the same time. This is usually mid-June. The specific date is searchable on the judiciary website. The application components are roughly the same but there is some variation among the justices (e.g., two writing samples versus one; undergrad transcript versus law school only).

As for what each justice looks for, there is a great deal of variation here. None of the justices--thanks to NJ's appointment process--are ideologues and so generally don't hire hardcore left/right clerks. Some have more interest in career plans (e.g., place more weight on public interest careers) than others. In terms of credentials, the Chief Justice has historically been the most picky. He doesn't appear to set any kind of threshold but in recent years clerks have been top 3-4 students at Rutgers or SH and then top 10-20% at T14s. The other justices are less strict. Justice Wainer-Apter has hired some well-credential clerks, but it's too early in her tenure to say whether that's representative of her hiring standards or just how things shook out in the past two years. Overall, some connection to NJ seems important, though neither necessary nor sufficient.

In terms of prestige, like with any clerkship, it's hard to articulate what that means exactly. In NY/NJ/PA, SCONJ clerkships carry a substantial amount of weight. This cashes out for those in big- and mid-law as appellate opportunities. For those in public interest, it can mean oral arguments in your first year post-clerkship. But what weight does the clerkship carry during an interview in the San Francisco office of a top 4-5 firm? Probably as much as a district court clerkship or random court of appeals clerkship. Again, hard to grasp what prestige really means or why it matters. Is it supposed to get your application pulled from the proverbial stack or is it intended for people at cocktail parties to recognize how brilliant your are?

For those interested in public interest work, especially impact litigation, notice that many of the major players are pivoting to state courts to litigate abortion rights, criminal justice issues, voting rights, etc. under state constitutions. It's hard to see how a clerkship on, e.g., the fourth circuit or DC circuit situates you for that kind of work. But a state supreme court clerkship offers a unique perspective--on top of generic appellate experience--that is increasingly in demand by groups like the ACLU, Center for Reproductive Rights, Brennan Center, etc. I don't know if you'd call that prestige, skills, value, or something else, but perhaps something to consider.

[Anonymous User]

A state supreme court clerkship -- even in a place like NY -- is roughly equivalent in pickiness, usefulness and prestige to a federal magistrate clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

The above poster makes a good point about public interest work and SSC clerkships - the ACLU has launched a State Supreme Court initiative, for example. I’m not sure that NJ will be a hotbed for impact litigation since it doesn’t strike me as a particularly progressive court (such as the Washington SSC), and NJ isn’t a red state with a lot of atrocious laws/policies to challenge. Not a bad job if you have any interest in staying in NJ though. Noriega and especially Wainer Apter seem great for anyone with a public-interest focus, and having done federal district/COA clerkships, I think clerking on an SSC would’ve been fun because you’re not bound (or at least not as bound) by the drivel coming out of SCOTUS these days.

I hate that prestige is such a thing in this profession, but outside of NJ, a federal district court (and especially court of appeals) clerkship will carry more weight because most employers still think of federal clerkships as more “prestigious.” I’m not sure how many firms that give clerkship bonuses for federal clerkships also do for SSCs—at least some do not, but I don’t know if it’s a majority or a substantial minority. But clerking on the NJ SSC would probs help you get a district court or CA3 clerkship later.

[Anonymous User]

To the poster suggesting magistrates and SSCs are the same in pickiness, etc., that's easily falsifiable. Liu and Kruger on the Cal supreme court have consistently hired people with SCOTUS-level credentials. As to utility of the job, it obviously depends. For most jobs, the poster is probably correct. But from personal experience, if, eg, you want to work in a state PDs office, having a clerkship on the state's supreme court will, with almost no exceptions, place your application ahead of comparable candidates who clerked for a federal magistrate.

As for the poster discussing relevance of NJ supreme court to impact lit. Assuming that court is not "progressive" (why do you say it isn't?), wouldn't a clerkship on a respected, but not ideological (using your framing) court be more valuable? You can see what arguments persuade judges who, again, per your suggestion, haven't already made up their minds. That seems more helpful to me, but then again I'm not an impact litigator.

[Anonymous User]

To the poster suggesting magistrates and SSCs are the same in pickiness, etc., that's easily falsifiable. Liu and Kruger on the Cal supreme court have consistently hired people with SCOTUS-level credentials. As to utility of the job, it obviously depends. For most jobs, the poster is probably correct. But from personal experience, if, eg, you want to work in a state PDs office, having a clerkship on the state's supreme court will, with almost no exceptions, place your application ahead of comparable candidates who clerked for a federal magistrate.

As for the poster discussing relevance of NJ supreme court to impact lit. Assuming that court is not "progressive" (why do you say it isn't?), wouldn't a clerkship on a respected, but not ideological (using your framing) court be more valuable? You can see what arguments persuade judges who, again, per your suggestion, haven't already made up their minds. That seems more helpful to me, but then again I'm not an impact litigator.

I feel pretty confident saying that clerking on an SSC in a prestigious state like NJ or states like CA/TX/NY/few others that have good reps (I think Alaska, Utah and Colorado are particularly well regarded) is more "prestigious" and "harder to get" in an abstract sense than most magistrate courts and some district courts. I think Kruger and Liu are probably harder to get than most COAs but at the end of the day I think most employers will have a mindset that COA trumps all.

[Anonymous User]

The California Supreme Court (and especially Liu and Kruger) are a cut above other SSCs, so it’s not really accurate to use them as the comparison. I also think SSCs carry more weight in their region - I’m skeptical that firms in the Bay Area would know enough about a faraway SSC like NJ or PA to find them more prestigious than an NDCA magistrate clerkship (and they’d probably think the NDCA magistrate clerkship is more useful). And of course clerking for an SSC would help with any job that mostly appears in that state’s courts (like the state PD office).

To the poster above, none of us are meaning to denigrate your NJ SSC clerkship - sounds like it was a great experience, and it’s definitely good credential to have on a resume. I do think the traditional view of SSCs being less prestigious than federal clerkships is starting to change in some cases (like with the Cal SSC), and there are niches that recognize the unique benefits of the experience.

[lavarman84]

As for the poster discussing relevance of NJ supreme court to impact lit. Assuming that court is not "progressive" (why do you say it isn't?), wouldn't a clerkship on a respected, but not ideological (using your framing) court be more valuable? You can see what arguments persuade judges who, again, per your suggestion, haven't already made up their minds. That seems more helpful to me, but then again I'm not an impact litigator.

The "progressive" point struck me as less about the quality of the clerkship and more about how likely those sorts of progressive orgs would be to structure litigation strategy around trying to get cases to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone know how Wainer Apter is as a boss? Or what she looks for in clerks?

[Anonymous User]

Anyone know how Wainer Apter is as a boss? Or what she looks for in clerks?

I've heard anecdotally that she's a great boss, though the stories I heard were from her time as head of the civil rights division rather than her time as a justice, so take it with the appropriate grains of salt.

As for what she looks for, I have no direct knowledge and she's only in her third year on the court so it's hard to draw significant inferences based on passed hiring. Based on her background, I'd assume a strong applicant would have good grades, NJ ties, and a demonstrated interest in public interest or public service.