Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=275738
I think you are thinking about this inversely.ihadadream wrote:Hello. If federal judges were confident with your ability to hold down two jobs, do you think they would let you hold concurrent employment with another judge? For instance, say you had a 9-5 with one judge, but then worked full-time remotely as a pro se law clerk for a different federal district court.
Thanks for the information.
This seems like a pretty blatant violation of judicial ethics codei'm asking because I know that there are some telecommuting pro se law clerks (federal court) who also have their own law practices. I know this for a fact.
Yeah, at pp 11-12 of http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/f ... ch03_0.pdf.los blancos wrote:This seems like a pretty blatant violation of judicial ethics codei'm asking because I know that there are some telecommuting pro se law clerks (federal court) who also have their own law practices. I know this for a fact.
A. Nony Mouse wrote:I really don't understand how this would be remotely feasible, or worthwhile.
Or ethical.A. Nony Mouse wrote:I really don't understand how this would be remotely feasible, or worthwhile.
What's the ethical issue?jrf12886 wrote:Or ethical.A. Nony Mouse wrote:I really don't understand how this would be remotely feasible, or worthwhile.
Under Canon 4(D), clerks are prohibited from practicing law (other than certain limited exceptions). I know clerking isn't technically considered practice of law so holding two clerkships may technically be ok. But the purpose of that prohibition seems to be limiting the clerk's legal work to that assigned by the judge. Taking on another legal position could be a violation depending on how the two judges read the rule.rpupkin wrote:What's the ethical issue?jrf12886 wrote:Or ethical.A. Nony Mouse wrote:I really don't understand how this would be remotely feasible, or worthwhile.
The bolded is more than just a technicality. I doubt any judge would read that rule as prohibiting a clerk from working for two judges at the same time. There are many, many reasons why a judge wouldn't want a clerk working simultaneously for another judge, but I don't think that ethical concerns would be among those reasons.jrf12886 wrote:Under Canon 4(D), clerks are prohibited from practicing law (other than certain limited exceptions). I know clerking isn't technically considered practice of law so holding two clerkships may technically be ok. But the purpose of that prohibition seems to be limiting the clerk's legal work to that assigned by the judge. Taking on another legal position could be a violation depending on how the two judges read the rule.rpupkin wrote:What's the ethical issue?jrf12886 wrote:Or ethical.A. Nony Mouse wrote:I really don't understand how this would be remotely feasible, or worthwhile.
That's fair. It's just something I would give some thought to in OP's position.rpupkin wrote:The bolded is more than just a technicality. I doubt any judge would read that rule as prohibiting a clerk from working for two judges at the same time. There are many, many reasons why a judge wouldn't want a clerk working simultaneously for another judge, but I don't think that ethical concerns would be among those reasons.jrf12886 wrote:Under Canon 4(D), clerks are prohibited from practicing law (other than certain limited exceptions). I know clerking isn't technically considered practice of law so holding two clerkships may technically be ok. But the purpose of that prohibition seems to be limiting the clerk's legal work to that assigned by the judge. Taking on another legal position could be a violation depending on how the two judges read the rule.rpupkin wrote:What's the ethical issue?jrf12886 wrote:Or ethical.A. Nony Mouse wrote:I really don't understand how this would be remotely feasible, or worthwhile.
I work for a court where some judges share staff on a rotating basis (monthly or every few weeks), and there's frequently overlap for finishing up projects or getting ready for things that happen on specific dates (preparing for hearings, assisting with trial, etc.) during which a clerk might "simultaneously" work for both judges. If it's not totally permissible I think it's at least a grey area, and getting two judges to sign on for this "simultaneous full time" arrangement is probably going to be a bigger obstacle.rpupkin wrote:The bolded is more than just a technicality. I doubt any judge would read that rule as prohibiting a clerk from working for two judges at the same time. There are many, many reasons why a judge wouldn't want a clerk working simultaneously for another judge, but I don't think that ethical concerns would be among those reasons.jrf12886 wrote:Under Canon 4(D), clerks are prohibited from practicing law (other than certain limited exceptions). I know clerking isn't technically considered practice of law so holding two clerkships may technically be ok. But the purpose of that prohibition seems to be limiting the clerk's legal work to that assigned by the judge. Taking on another legal position could be a violation depending on how the two judges read the rule.rpupkin wrote:What's the ethical issue?jrf12886 wrote:Or ethical.A. Nony Mouse wrote:I really don't understand how this would be remotely feasible, or worthwhile.
At least at the federal appellate level, the sharing of clerks is not that uncommon, particularly where one of the judges has senior status. To use a timely example, Neil Gorsuch clerked for Byron White and Anthony Kennedy at the same on SCOTUS.mjb447 wrote: I work for a court where some judges share staff on a rotating basis (monthly or every few weeks), and there's frequently overlap for finishing up projects or getting ready for things that happen on specific dates (preparing for hearings, assisting with trial, etc.) during which a clerk might "simultaneously" work for both judges.
Oh, sure; I was just noting re: "ethical issues" that clerk sharing is pretty uncontroversial in and of itself, even if it results in occasionally serving two masters simultaneously. Like I said upthread, I agree that the particular wrinkles in OP's situation (different courts and in particular two full-time caseloads) make this unfeasible, and I doubt two judges will sign on.rpupkin wrote:At least at the federal appellate level, the sharing of clerks is not that uncommon, particularly where one of the judges has senior status. To use a timely example, Neil Gorsuch clerked for Byron White and Anthony Kennedy at the same on SCOTUS.mjb447 wrote: I work for a court where some judges share staff on a rotating basis (monthly or every few weeks), and there's frequently overlap for finishing up projects or getting ready for things that happen on specific dates (preparing for hearings, assisting with trial, etc.) during which a clerk might "simultaneously" work for both judges.
These arrangements, though, generally happen where there are two judges on the same court, and where one of the judges has a reduced caseload for one reason or another. OP is talking about two different courts, with a full-time load at each court. I just don't think that will work.
I understood you. I was just supporting what you were saying with some additional context.mjb447 wrote:Oh, sure; I was just noting re: "ethical issues" that clerk sharing is pretty uncontroversial in and of itself, even if it results in occasionally serving two masters simultaneously. Like I said upthread, I agree that the particular wrinkles in OP's situation (different courts and in particular two full-time caseloads) make this unfeasible, and I doubt two judges will sign on.rpupkin wrote:At least at the federal appellate level, the sharing of clerks is not that uncommon, particularly where one of the judges has senior status. To use a timely example, Neil Gorsuch clerked for Byron White and Anthony Kennedy at the same on SCOTUS.mjb447 wrote: I work for a court where some judges share staff on a rotating basis (monthly or every few weeks), and there's frequently overlap for finishing up projects or getting ready for things that happen on specific dates (preparing for hearings, assisting with trial, etc.) during which a clerk might "simultaneously" work for both judges.
These arrangements, though, generally happen where there are two judges on the same court, and where one of the judges has a reduced caseload for one reason or another. OP is talking about two different courts, with a full-time load at each court. I just don't think that will work.
Ah, gotcha. Picking up tone on TLS is not a strength of mine.rpupkin wrote:I understood you. I was just supporting what you were saying with some additional context.mjb447 wrote:Oh, sure; I was just noting re: "ethical issues" that clerk sharing is pretty uncontroversial in and of itself, even if it results in occasionally serving two masters simultaneously. Like I said upthread, I agree that the particular wrinkles in OP's situation (different courts and in particular two full-time caseloads) make this unfeasible, and I doubt two judges will sign on.rpupkin wrote:At least at the federal appellate level, the sharing of clerks is not that uncommon, particularly where one of the judges has senior status. To use a timely example, Neil Gorsuch clerked for Byron White and Anthony Kennedy at the same on SCOTUS.mjb447 wrote: I work for a court where some judges share staff on a rotating basis (monthly or every few weeks), and there's frequently overlap for finishing up projects or getting ready for things that happen on specific dates (preparing for hearings, assisting with trial, etc.) during which a clerk might "simultaneously" work for both judges.
These arrangements, though, generally happen where there are two judges on the same court, and where one of the judges has a reduced caseload for one reason or another. OP is talking about two different courts, with a full-time load at each court. I just don't think that will work.
Like me, I guess they don't know the rules. Or maybe they are not classified as a law clerk somehow?los blancos wrote:This seems like a pretty blatant violation of judicial ethics codei'm asking because I know that there are some telecommuting pro se law clerks (federal court) who also have their own law practices. I know this for a fact.
The Code of Conduct applies to basically all non-judge employees of the judicial branch (including interns, externs, and volunteers), so an 'oversight' seems more likely.Anonymous User wrote:Like me, I guess they don't know the rules. Or maybe they are not classified as a law clerk somehow?los blancos wrote:This seems like a pretty blatant violation of judicial ethics codei'm asking because I know that there are some telecommuting pro se law clerks (federal court) who also have their own law practices. I know this for a fact.
You don't see anything wrong with holding two 40-hour jobs at the same time?ihadadream wrote:Thanks for the information.
For what it's worth, I don't see anything wrong with it.
Are you saying they would have to pay me overtime? I know know labor law.A. Nony Mouse wrote:You don't see anything wrong with holding two 40-hour jobs at the same time?ihadadream wrote:Thanks for the information.
For what it's worth, I don't see anything wrong with it.
I think the problem is that you don't know life.ihadadream wrote:Are you saying they would have to pay me overtime? I know know labor law.A. Nony Mouse wrote:You don't see anything wrong with holding two 40-hour jobs at the same time?ihadadream wrote:Thanks for the information.
For what it's worth, I don't see anything wrong with it.
rpupkin wrote:I think the problem is that you don't know *know* life.ihadadream wrote:Are you saying they would have to pay me overtime? I know know labor law.A. Nony Mouse wrote:You don't see anything wrong with holding two 40-hour jobs at the same time?ihadadream wrote:Thanks for the information.
For what it's worth, I don't see anything wrong with it.
Forget all about law or rules for a minute—how do you think this could work in a logistical sense?