Clerkship Competitiveness for Lit Boutiques Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm not sure how true this is. SLS median (i.e. ~30% Hs) doesn't get COA clerkships a lot, but it can and does happen--even without FedSoc. Now they won't get 2/9/DC, but with local ties or an interesting background, 5/6/10 happens fairly regularly.

Is 5/6/10 supposed to mean something or is it just a non-exhaustive list of "other" circuits? Sometimes I can't keep up with the perceived prestige tiers around this industry. I would have guessed "where FedSoccers want to go" but it didn't include the 11th so it can't be that.

Fed Soc candidates desire the 6th far more than the 2nd, and it's not even close. Thapar is arguably the most sought-after judge for top fed-soc candidates right now. And Sutton and Kethledge are some of the most selective conservative jurists in the country. Murphy and Readler are also going to be ranked highly on every fed-soc list. COA prestige rankings are always dumb, but if we must engage in this nonsense, I am putting the 2nd Circuit at median at best right now, especially for top conservative candidates.

Recently Gruender on the 8th got a top fed soc student at my law school, whicj just speaks to circuit rankings in this realm are silly

I disagree that circuit rankings are silly, and if I was looking at two resumes, the first with a 2/9/DC clerk and the second with an appellate clerkship elsewhere, both with judges I have never heard of, I would assume the first was better credentialed because I would assume they landed a more competitive clerkship.

This goes out the window once you recognize the judge and are familiar with their own competitiveness, and it ceases to matter entirely in certain (highly politicized) contexts when, e.g., some future Ted Cruz wannabe would go clerk for Ho before any other judge in the country.

But in a vacuum, in standard-firm-hiring, without judge context, circuits matter.

Well, you would be making some really dumb assumptions. Circuit prestige plays virtually no role in generic biglaw hiring. And at the really selective firms the people hiring are familiar with individual judges. The Ninth Circuit is also not even a more competitive clerkship on average anymore. There are like 40 judges on that court at this point. It's must harder to land a clerkship in some of the other circuits that encompass major metropolitan areas and actually have most of the judges based in that area, like the 7th or the 3rd.

[Anonymous User]

I'm not sure how true this is. SLS median (i.e. ~30% Hs) doesn't get COA clerkships a lot, but it can and does happen--even without FedSoc. Now they won't get 2/9/DC, but with local ties or an interesting background, 5/6/10 happens fairly regularly.

Is 5/6/10 supposed to mean something or is it just a non-exhaustive list of "other" circuits? Sometimes I can't keep up with the perceived prestige tiers around this industry. I would have guessed "where FedSoccers want to go" but it didn't include the 11th so it can't be that.

Fed Soc candidates desire the 6th far more than the 2nd, and it's not even close. Thapar is arguably the most sought-after judge for top fed-soc candidates right now. And Sutton and Kethledge are some of the most selective conservative jurists in the country. Murphy and Readler are also going to be ranked highly on every fed-soc list. COA prestige rankings are always dumb, but if we must engage in this nonsense, I am putting the 2nd Circuit at median at best right now, especially for top conservative candidates.

Recently Gruender on the 8th got a top fed soc student at my law school, whicj just speaks to circuit rankings in this realm are silly

I disagree that circuit rankings are silly, and if I was looking at two resumes, the first with a 2/9/DC clerk and the second with an appellate clerkship elsewhere, both with judges I have never heard of, I would assume the first was better credentialed because I would assume they landed a more competitive clerkship.

This goes out the window once you recognize the judge and are familiar with their own competitiveness, and it ceases to matter entirely in certain (highly politicized) contexts when, e.g., some future Ted Cruz wannabe would go clerk for Ho before any other judge in the country.

But in a vacuum, in standard-firm-hiring, without judge context, circuits matter.

Well, you would be making some really dumb assumptions. Circuit prestige plays virtually no role in generic biglaw hiring. And at the really selective firms the people hiring are familiar with individual judges. The Ninth Circuit is also not even a more competitive clerkship on average anymore. There are like 40 judges on that court at this point. It's must harder to land a clerkship in some of the other circuits that encompass major metropolitan areas and actually have most of the judges based in that area, like the 7th or the 3rd.

Coming from a CA9 clerk, very true and I really wish people would stop with this 2/9/DC thing. DC is the only circuit where the court itself affects how competitive the application process is.

[Anonymous User]

I'm not sure how true this is. SLS median (i.e. ~30% Hs) doesn't get COA clerkships a lot, but it can and does happen--even without FedSoc. Now they won't get 2/9/DC, but with local ties or an interesting background, 5/6/10 happens fairly regularly.

Is 5/6/10 supposed to mean something or is it just a non-exhaustive list of "other" circuits? Sometimes I can't keep up with the perceived prestige tiers around this industry. I would have guessed "where FedSoccers want to go" but it didn't include the 11th so it can't be that.

Fed Soc candidates desire the 6th far more than the 2nd, and it's not even close. Thapar is arguably the most sought-after judge for top fed-soc candidates right now. And Sutton and Kethledge are some of the most selective conservative jurists in the country. Murphy and Readler are also going to be ranked highly on every fed-soc list. COA prestige rankings are always dumb, but if we must engage in this nonsense, I am putting the 2nd Circuit at median at best right now, especially for top conservative candidates.

Recently Gruender on the 8th got a top fed soc student at my law school, whicj just speaks to circuit rankings in this realm are silly

I disagree that circuit rankings are silly, and if I was looking at two resumes, the first with a 2/9/DC clerk and the second with an appellate clerkship elsewhere, both with judges I have never heard of, I would assume the first was better credentialed because I would assume they landed a more competitive clerkship.

This goes out the window once you recognize the judge and are familiar with their own competitiveness, and it ceases to matter entirely in certain (highly politicized) contexts when, e.g., some future Ted Cruz wannabe would go clerk for Ho before any other judge in the country.

But in a vacuum, in standard-firm-hiring, without judge context, circuits matter.

Well, you would be making some really dumb assumptions. Circuit prestige plays virtually no role in generic biglaw hiring. And at the really selective firms the people hiring are familiar with individual judges. The Ninth Circuit is also not even a more competitive clerkship on average anymore. There are like 40 judges on that court at this point. It's must harder to land a clerkship in some of the other circuits that encompass major metropolitan areas and actually have most of the judges based in that area, like the 7th or the 3rd.

Coming from a CA9 clerk, very true and I really wish people would stop with this 2/9/DC thing. DC is the only circuit where the court itself affects how competitive the application process is.

True, I clerked CADC and we refer to the rest as “numbered circuits” for a reason

[Anonymous User]

Well, you would be making some really dumb assumptions. Circuit prestige plays virtually no role in generic biglaw hiring. And at the really selective firms the people hiring are familiar with individual judges. The Ninth Circuit is also not even a more competitive clerkship on average anymore. There are like 40 judges on that court at this point. It's must harder to land a clerkship in some of the other circuits that encompass major metropolitan areas and actually have most of the judges based in that area, like the 7th or the 3rd.

Coming from a CA9 clerk, very true and I really wish people would stop with this 2/9/DC thing. DC is the only circuit where the court itself affects how competitive the application process is.

True, I clerked CADC and we refer to the rest as “numbered circuits” for a reason

I didn't clerk on a COA, but at my district court clerk orientation I did get to hear a COA judge advise deep suspicion of any opinion out of "a circuit divisible by 3."

[Anonymous User]

Well, you would be making some really dumb assumptions. Circuit prestige plays virtually no role in generic biglaw hiring. And at the really selective firms the people hiring are familiar with individual judges. The Ninth Circuit is also not even a more competitive clerkship on average anymore. There are like 40 judges on that court at this point. It's must harder to land a clerkship in some of the other circuits that encompass major metropolitan areas and actually have most of the judges based in that area, like the 7th or the 3rd.

Coming from a CA9 clerk, very true and I really wish people would stop with this 2/9/DC thing. DC is the only circuit where the court itself affects how competitive the application process is.

True, I clerked CADC and we refer to the rest as “numbered circuits” for a reason

I didn't clerk on a COA, but at my district court clerk orientation I did get to hear a COA judge advise deep suspicion of any opinion out of "a circuit divisible by 3."

What's wrong with the 3d? Never heard this criticism of the circuit as a whole.

[Anonymous User]

Is 5/6/10 supposed to mean something or is it just a non-exhaustive list of "other" circuits? Sometimes I can't keep up with the perceived prestige tiers around this industry. I would have guessed "where FedSoccers want to go" but it didn't include the 11th so it can't be that.

Fed Soc candidates desire the 6th far more than the 2nd, and it's not even close. Thapar is arguably the most sought-after judge for top fed-soc candidates right now. And Sutton and Kethledge are some of the most selective conservative jurists in the country. Murphy and Readler are also going to be ranked highly on every fed-soc list. COA prestige rankings are always dumb, but if we must engage in this nonsense, I am putting the 2nd Circuit at median at best right now, especially for top conservative candidates.

Recently Gruender on the 8th got a top fed soc student at my law school, whicj just speaks to circuit rankings in this realm are silly

I disagree that circuit rankings are silly, and if I was looking at two resumes, the first with a 2/9/DC clerk and the second with an appellate clerkship elsewhere, both with judges I have never heard of, I would assume the first was better credentialed because I would assume they landed a more competitive clerkship.

This goes out the window once you recognize the judge and are familiar with their own competitiveness, and it ceases to matter entirely in certain (highly politicized) contexts when, e.g., some future Ted Cruz wannabe would go clerk for Ho before any other judge in the country.

But in a vacuum, in standard-firm-hiring, without judge context, circuits matter.

Well, you would be making some really dumb assumptions. Circuit prestige plays virtually no role in generic biglaw hiring. And at the really selective firms the people hiring are familiar with individual judges. The Ninth Circuit is also not even a more competitive clerkship on average anymore. There are like 40 judges on that court at this point. It's must harder to land a clerkship in some of the other circuits that encompass major metropolitan areas and actually have most of the judges based in that area, like the 7th or the 3rd.

Coming from a CA9 clerk, very true and I really wish people would stop with this 2/9/DC thing. DC is the only circuit where the court itself affects how competitive the application process is.

True, I clerked CADC and we refer to the rest as “numbered circuits” for a reason

I swear this forum exists in a state of mind when it comes to prestige ranking that simply does not exist in the real world. It's sort of a nice window into the thoughts and feelings of the most insecure people though and also—I'll admit—it occasionally provides some good advice. Anyways, I don't think anyone cares that much about where the circuits rank. Obviously it's better to clerk for the circuit you practice in and extra points if the person hiring you knows or has had good experiences with the judge.

[Anonymous User]

Well, you would be making some really dumb assumptions. Circuit prestige plays virtually no role in generic biglaw hiring. And at the really selective firms the people hiring are familiar with individual judges. The Ninth Circuit is also not even a more competitive clerkship on average anymore. There are like 40 judges on that court at this point. It's must harder to land a clerkship in some of the other circuits that encompass major metropolitan areas and actually have most of the judges based in that area, like the 7th or the 3rd.

Coming from a CA9 clerk, very true and I really wish people would stop with this 2/9/DC thing. DC is the only circuit where the court itself affects how competitive the application process is.

True, I clerked CADC and we refer to the rest as “numbered circuits” for a reason

I didn't clerk on a COA, but at my district court clerk orientation I did get to hear a COA judge advise deep suspicion of any opinion out of "a circuit divisible by 3."

Several points:

1. Circuits in more "desirable" areas do get more applications, making them more competitive overall. All else equal, most clerks would prefer New York to Birmingham. All else isn't equal, though, and elite employers look at the name of the judge, not the name of the circuit.

2. CADC was once in a league of its own. Not as much anymore. It still has great judges (Srinivasan, Katsas, Pillard, Millett), but it has been weighed down by many unimpressive appointments.

3. I can't think of any reason for criticizing CA3/CA6/CA9 specifically. CA3 has the second-best commercial docket behind CA2. CA6 is arguably the preeminent circuit for thoughtful. conservative jurisprudence with Sutton, Thapar, and Kethledge. CA9 is, well, CA9. It does its own thing.

[Anonymous User]

I didn't clerk on a COA, but at my district court clerk orientation I did get to hear a COA judge advise deep suspicion of any opinion out of "a circuit divisible by 3."

What's wrong with the 3d? Never heard this criticism of the circuit as a whole.

Several points:

1. Circuits in more "desirable" areas do get more applications, making them more competitive overall. All else equal, most clerks would prefer New York to Birmingham. All else isn't equal, though, and elite employers look at the name of the judge, not the name of the circuit.

2. CADC was once in a league of its own. Not as much anymore. It still has great judges (Srinivasan, Katsas, Pillard, Millett), but it has been weighed down by many unimpressive appointments.

3. I can't think of any reason for criticizing CA3/CA6/CA9 specifically. CA3 has the second-best commercial docket behind CA2. CA6 is arguably the preeminent circuit for thoughtful. conservative jurisprudence with Sutton, Thapar, and Kethledge. CA9 is, well, CA9. It does its own thing.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offer this as an endorsement, just an example of one assessment of circuits floating in the ether that I always thought was funny. Should also probably have mentioned that this was over 10 years ago, so likely out of date now (except about the 9th, of course, lol).

That said, I found a piece online from 2017 that had the top 4 most-reversed circuits, from most to least, as the 6th Circuit, the 3rd, the 11th, and the 9th. So the phrase may have been more accurate back when this particular judge coined it. (Anecdotally, I also feel like I've run across a LOT of crappy 6th Cir opinions, although it could just be confirmation bias.)

I agree that a judge in NYC is going to get more applications than one in Birmingham. But I don't agree that therefore you can make assumptions about the quality of a 2d Circuit clerk vs a 11th Circuit clerk, or that the 2d Circuit is more "prestigious." Given how important calls can be to get pulled from a massive pile, clerking on the 2d Cir (in Manhattan, at least, rather than Albany or Burlington) can be a sign of connectedness, or access to prof networks, more than ability (which admittedly may play a role in determining prestige). But then, I'd take clerking in Burlington over Manhattan any day, too.

[Anonymous User]

Well, you would be making some really dumb assumptions. Circuit prestige plays virtually no role in generic biglaw hiring. And at the really selective firms the people hiring are familiar with individual judges. The Ninth Circuit is also not even a more competitive clerkship on average anymore. There are like 40 judges on that court at this point. It's must harder to land a clerkship in some of the other circuits that encompass major metropolitan areas and actually have most of the judges based in that area, like the 7th or the 3rd.

Coming from a CA9 clerk, very true and I really wish people would stop with this 2/9/DC thing. DC is the only circuit where the court itself affects how competitive the application process is.

True, I clerked CADC and we refer to the rest as “numbered circuits” for a reason

I didn't clerk on a COA, but at my district court clerk orientation I did get to hear a COA judge advise deep suspicion of any opinion out of "a circuit divisible by 3."

Several points:

1. Circuits in more "desirable" areas do get more applications, making them more competitive overall. All else equal, most clerks would prefer New York to Birmingham. All else isn't equal, though, and elite employers look at the name of the judge, not the name of the circuit.

2. CADC was once in a league of its own. Not as much anymore. It still has great judges (Srinivasan, Katsas, Pillard, Millett), but it has been weighed down by many unimpressive appointments.

3. I can't think of any reason for criticizing CA3/CA6/CA9 specifically. CA3 has the second-best commercial docket behind CA2. CA6 is arguably the preeminent circuit for thoughtful. conservative jurisprudence with Sutton, Thapar, and Kethledge. CA9 is, well, CA9. It does its own thing.

I don’t think we thought that we were better on CADC solely because of the quality of the judges on our circuit. It was also the clerks. But more importantly, our docket. The cases are simply different, the advocates are different, and the attention paid to each case is different. You have a very heavy con law and admin law docket, with elite practitioners, and a scotus type docket in terms of raw volumes so everyone goes super deep. I agree that several of the new appointees have polluted the circuit though.

[Anonymous User]

Well, you would be making some really dumb assumptions. Circuit prestige plays virtually no role in generic biglaw hiring. And at the really selective firms the people hiring are familiar with individual judges. The Ninth Circuit is also not even a more competitive clerkship on average anymore. There are like 40 judges on that court at this point. It's must harder to land a clerkship in some of the other circuits that encompass major metropolitan areas and actually have most of the judges based in that area, like the 7th or the 3rd.

Coming from a CA9 clerk, very true and I really wish people would stop with this 2/9/DC thing. DC is the only circuit where the court itself affects how competitive the application process is.

True, I clerked CADC and we refer to the rest as “numbered circuits” for a reason

I didn't clerk on a COA, but at my district court clerk orientation I did get to hear a COA judge advise deep suspicion of any opinion out of "a circuit divisible by 3."

Several points:

1. Circuits in more "desirable" areas do get more applications, making them more competitive overall. All else equal, most clerks would prefer New York to Birmingham. All else isn't equal, though, and elite employers look at the name of the judge, not the name of the circuit.

2. CADC was once in a league of its own. Not as much anymore. It still has great judges (Srinivasan, Katsas, Pillard, Millett), but it has been weighed down by many unimpressive appointments.

3. I can't think of any reason for criticizing CA3/CA6/CA9 specifically. CA3 has the second-best commercial docket behind CA2. CA6 is arguably the preeminent circuit for thoughtful. conservative jurisprudence with Sutton, Thapar, and Kethledge. CA9 is, well, CA9. It does its own thing.

I don’t think we thought that we were better on CADC solely because of the quality of the judges on our circuit. It was also the clerks. But more importantly, our docket. The cases are simply different, the advocates are different, and the attention paid to each case is different. You have a very heavy con law and admin law docket, with elite practitioners, and a scotus type docket in terms of raw volumes so everyone goes super deep. I agree that several of the new appointees have polluted the circuit though.

Oh also because of our exclusive statutory jurisdiction, we make a lot of nationwide law. No other circuit besides the fed circuit does this. With cert grant rates so low, we were making longstanding binding national law on important subjects (eg speech now and such). This lends itself to scotus level analysis and rule formulation.

[Anonymous User]

I didn't clerk on a COA, but at my district court clerk orientation I did get to hear a COA judge advise deep suspicion of any opinion out of "a circuit divisible by 3."

What's wrong with the 3d? Never heard this criticism of the circuit as a whole.

Several points:

1. Circuits in more "desirable" areas do get more applications, making them more competitive overall. All else equal, most clerks would prefer New York to Birmingham. All else isn't equal, though, and elite employers look at the name of the judge, not the name of the circuit.

2. CADC was once in a league of its own. Not as much anymore. It still has great judges (Srinivasan, Katsas, Pillard, Millett), but it has been weighed down by many unimpressive appointments.

3. I can't think of any reason for criticizing CA3/CA6/CA9 specifically. CA3 has the second-best commercial docket behind CA2. CA6 is arguably the preeminent circuit for thoughtful. conservative jurisprudence with Sutton, Thapar, and Kethledge. CA9 is, well, CA9. It does its own thing.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offer this as an endorsement, just an example of one assessment of circuits floating in the ether that I always thought was funny. Should also probably have mentioned that this was over 10 years ago, so likely out of date now (except about the 9th, of course, lol).

That said, I found a piece online from 2017 that had the top 4 most-reversed circuits, from most to least, as the 6th Circuit, the 3rd, the 11th, and the 9th. So the phrase may have been more accurate back when this particular judge coined it. (Anecdotally, I also feel like I've run across a LOT of crappy 6th Cir opinions, although it could just be confirmation bias.)

I agree that a judge in NYC is going to get more applications than one in Birmingham. But I don't agree that therefore you can make assumptions about the quality of a 2d Circuit clerk vs a 11th Circuit clerk, or that the 2d Circuit is more "prestigious." Given how important calls can be to get pulled from a massive pile, clerking on the 2d Cir (in Manhattan, at least, rather than Albany or Burlington) can be a sign of connectedness, or access to prof networks, more than ability (which admittedly may play a role in determining prestige). But then, I'd take clerking in Burlington over Manhattan any day, too.

Judge Pryor and Judge Newsom are both in Birmingham. Both currently feed more than than the entire second circuit combined. So, no, a judge in nyc is not necessarily going to get more applications than one in Birmingham.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, I didn't mean to offer this as an endorsement, just an example of one assessment of circuits floating in the ether that I always thought was funny. Should also probably have mentioned that this was over 10 years ago, so likely out of date now (except about the 9th, of course, lol).

That said, I found a piece online from 2017 that had the top 4 most-reversed circuits, from most to least, as the 6th Circuit, the 3rd, the 11th, and the 9th. So the phrase may have been more accurate back when this particular judge coined it. (Anecdotally, I also feel like I've run across a LOT of crappy 6th Cir opinions, although it could just be confirmation bias.)

I agree that a judge in NYC is going to get more applications than one in Birmingham. But I don't agree that therefore you can make assumptions about the quality of a 2d Circuit clerk vs a 11th Circuit clerk, or that the 2d Circuit is more "prestigious." Given how important calls can be to get pulled from a massive pile, clerking on the 2d Cir (in Manhattan, at least, rather than Albany or Burlington) can be a sign of connectedness, or access to prof networks, more than ability (which admittedly may play a role in determining prestige). But then, I'd take clerking in Burlington over Manhattan any day, too.

Judge Pryor and Judge Newsom are both in Birmingham. Both currently feed more than than the entire second circuit combined. So, no, a judge in nyc is not necessarily going to get more applications than one in Birmingham.

I assumed "average judge" (and not feeders) was implied.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, I didn't mean to offer this as an endorsement, just an example of one assessment of circuits floating in the ether that I always thought was funny. Should also probably have mentioned that this was over 10 years ago, so likely out of date now (except about the 9th, of course, lol).

That said, I found a piece online from 2017 that had the top 4 most-reversed circuits, from most to least, as the 6th Circuit, the 3rd, the 11th, and the 9th. So the phrase may have been more accurate back when this particular judge coined it. (Anecdotally, I also feel like I've run across a LOT of crappy 6th Cir opinions, although it could just be confirmation bias.)

I agree that a judge in NYC is going to get more applications than one in Birmingham. But I don't agree that therefore you can make assumptions about the quality of a 2d Circuit clerk vs a 11th Circuit clerk, or that the 2d Circuit is more "prestigious." Given how important calls can be to get pulled from a massive pile, clerking on the 2d Cir (in Manhattan, at least, rather than Albany or Burlington) can be a sign of connectedness, or access to prof networks, more than ability (which admittedly may play a role in determining prestige). But then, I'd take clerking in Burlington over Manhattan any day, too.

Judge Pryor and Judge Newsom are both in Birmingham. Both currently feed more than than the entire second circuit combined. So, no, a judge in nyc is not necessarily going to get more applications than one in Birmingham.

I assumed "average judge" (and not feeders) was implied.

It's complicated right because there are a lot of judges on the second and ninth circuit—particularly Biden/Trump judges— who, frankly, are not competitive in the traditional sense (grades, writing ability, school, etc...) and instead hire more for things such as URM/Fed Soc/Connections/Public Interest background/(insert whatever). This is incredibly obvious with the clerk quality. However, a clerkship is still a clerkship and it provides value. But, I also think a lot of this analysis misses the point. You, as a candidate, are more than your clerkship (and I mean that in an objective sense and not in an inspirational/sappy way). Let's say you have two candidates. Both go to the same school. One is on law review, top 10%, and clerked in the 11th circuit; the other is not on law review, top 33%, and clerked in the second circuit NYC. Both aren't feeder judges. The 11th circuit candidate is still clearly the stronger candidate in my opinion. Things get harrier when you're comparing one candidate without a federal circuit clerkship and one candidate with one.

[Anonymous User]

It's complicated right because there are a lot of judges on the second and ninth circuit—particularly Biden/Trump judges— who, frankly, are not competitive in the traditional sense (grades, writing ability, school, etc...) and instead hire more for things such as URM/Fed Soc/Connections/Public Interest background/(insert whatever). This is incredibly obvious with the clerk quality. However, a clerkship is still a clerkship and it provides value. But, I also think a lot of this analysis misses the point. You, as a candidate, are more than your clerkship (and I mean that in an objective sense and not in an inspirational/sappy way). Let's say you have two candidates. Both go to the same school. One is on law review, top 10%, and clerked in the 11th circuit; the other is not on law review, top 33%, and clerked in the second circuit NYC. Both aren't feeder judges. The 11th circuit candidate is still clearly the stronger candidate in my opinion. Things get harrier when you're comparing one candidate without a federal circuit clerkship and one candidate with one.

I absolutely agree with this. It's why I was pushing back earlier in this thread on the idea that if you, an employer, are looking at two candidates, which circuit they clerked in has some kind of objective value in a vacuum.

I'd say that however people "rank" circuits, your hypothetical 11th Cir candidate is stronger than your hypothetical 2d Cir candidate. If you want to flip the qualifications, so the 2d Cir clerk was on law review and top 10%, then the 2d Cir candidate is clearly the stronger applicant, but it's not because they clerked in the 2d Cir.

If literally the *only* thing you knew about these 2 candidates was that one clerked in the 11th Cir and the other in the 2d (neither for feeders), then *maybe* you could assume that there was more competition for the 2d Cir position, and so that candidate had stronger qualifications. But even putting aside the problems with that assumption (which are many), no one's ever going to be comparing two applicants this way. It's just not a useful heuristic.

(This is also why every year, there are people in the post-clerkship hiring thread panicking about getting jobs, because they thought a clerkship was going to have a bigger effect on their job prospects than it actually did. A clerkship is a great thing to have on your resume, but because you are more than your clerkship, it doesn't radically transform you, either. The people who panic almost universally end up in decent to great jobs, because there are reasons they got a clerkship to start with, but they expected the process to be easier.)

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, I didn't mean to offer this as an endorsement, just an example of one assessment of circuits floating in the ether that I always thought was funny. Should also probably have mentioned that this was over 10 years ago, so likely out of date now (except about the 9th, of course, lol).

That said, I found a piece online from 2017 that had the top 4 most-reversed circuits, from most to least, as the 6th Circuit, the 3rd, the 11th, and the 9th. So the phrase may have been more accurate back when this particular judge coined it. (Anecdotally, I also feel like I've run across a LOT of crappy 6th Cir opinions, although it could just be confirmation bias.)

I agree that a judge in NYC is going to get more applications than one in Birmingham. But I don't agree that therefore you can make assumptions about the quality of a 2d Circuit clerk vs a 11th Circuit clerk, or that the 2d Circuit is more "prestigious." Given how important calls can be to get pulled from a massive pile, clerking on the 2d Cir (in Manhattan, at least, rather than Albany or Burlington) can be a sign of connectedness, or access to prof networks, more than ability (which admittedly may play a role in determining prestige). But then, I'd take clerking in Burlington over Manhattan any day, too.

Judge Pryor and Judge Newsom are both in Birmingham. Both currently feed more than than the entire second circuit combined. So, no, a judge in nyc is not necessarily going to get more applications than one in Birmingham.

I assumed "average judge" (and not feeders) was implied.

It's complicated right because there are a lot of judges on the second and ninth circuit—particularly Biden/Trump judges— who, frankly, are not competitive in the traditional sense (grades, writing ability, school, etc...) and instead hire more for things such as URM/Fed Soc/Connections/Public Interest background/(insert whatever). This is incredibly obvious with the clerk quality. However, a clerkship is still a clerkship and it provides value. But, I also think a lot of this analysis misses the point. You, as a candidate, are more than your clerkship (and I mean that in an objective sense and not in an inspirational/sappy way). Let's say you have two candidates. Both go to the same school. One is on law review, top 10%, and clerked in the 11th circuit; the other is not on law review, top 33%, and clerked in the second circuit NYC. Both aren't feeder judges. The 11th circuit candidate is still clearly the stronger candidate in my opinion. Things get harrier when you're comparing one candidate without a federal circuit clerkship and one candidate with one.

I agree with this point broadly, but this isn't true for the Trump nominees on the Second Circuit. Sullivan, Bianco, Park, and Nardini are all very traditional in the qualifications they look for and none give all that big of a Fed Soc boost; their clerks are stronger than average for the circuit. Menashi heavily prefers ideology over grades though, even by Fed Soc standards.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, I didn't mean to offer this as an endorsement, just an example of one assessment of circuits floating in the ether that I always thought was funny. Should also probably have mentioned that this was over 10 years ago, so likely out of date now (except about the 9th, of course, lol).

That said, I found a piece online from 2017 that had the top 4 most-reversed circuits, from most to least, as the 6th Circuit, the 3rd, the 11th, and the 9th. So the phrase may have been more accurate back when this particular judge coined it. (Anecdotally, I also feel like I've run across a LOT of crappy 6th Cir opinions, although it could just be confirmation bias.)

I agree that a judge in NYC is going to get more applications than one in Birmingham. But I don't agree that therefore you can make assumptions about the quality of a 2d Circuit clerk vs a 11th Circuit clerk, or that the 2d Circuit is more "prestigious." Given how important calls can be to get pulled from a massive pile, clerking on the 2d Cir (in Manhattan, at least, rather than Albany or Burlington) can be a sign of connectedness, or access to prof networks, more than ability (which admittedly may play a role in determining prestige). But then, I'd take clerking in Burlington over Manhattan any day, too.

Judge Pryor and Judge Newsom are both in Birmingham. Both currently feed more than than the entire second circuit combined. So, no, a judge in nyc is not necessarily going to get more applications than one in Birmingham.

I assumed "average judge" (and not feeders) was implied.

It's complicated right because there are a lot of judges on the second and ninth circuit—particularly Biden/Trump judges— who, frankly, are not competitive in the traditional sense (grades, writing ability, school, etc...) and instead hire more for things such as URM/Fed Soc/Connections/Public Interest background/(insert whatever). This is incredibly obvious with the clerk quality. However, a clerkship is still a clerkship and it provides value. But, I also think a lot of this analysis misses the point. You, as a candidate, are more than your clerkship (and I mean that in an objective sense and not in an inspirational/sappy way). Let's say you have two candidates. Both go to the same school. One is on law review, top 10%, and clerked in the 11th circuit; the other is not on law review, top 33%, and clerked in the second circuit NYC. Both aren't feeder judges. The 11th circuit candidate is still clearly the stronger candidate in my opinion. Things get harrier when you're comparing one candidate without a federal circuit clerkship and one candidate with one.

I agree with this point broadly, but this isn't true for the Trump nominees on the Second Circuit. Sullivan, Bianco, Park, and Nardini are all very traditional in the qualifications they look for and none give all that big of a Fed Soc boost; their clerks are stronger than average for the circuit. Menashi heavily prefers ideology over grades though, even by Fed Soc standards.

You just said this isn't true for the second circuit and then gave me an example of why its true?

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, I didn't mean to offer this as an endorsement, just an example of one assessment of circuits floating in the ether that I always thought was funny. Should also probably have mentioned that this was over 10 years ago, so likely out of date now (except about the 9th, of course, lol).

That said, I found a piece online from 2017 that had the top 4 most-reversed circuits, from most to least, as the 6th Circuit, the 3rd, the 11th, and the 9th. So the phrase may have been more accurate back when this particular judge coined it. (Anecdotally, I also feel like I've run across a LOT of crappy 6th Cir opinions, although it could just be confirmation bias.)

I agree that a judge in NYC is going to get more applications than one in Birmingham. But I don't agree that therefore you can make assumptions about the quality of a 2d Circuit clerk vs a 11th Circuit clerk, or that the 2d Circuit is more "prestigious." Given how important calls can be to get pulled from a massive pile, clerking on the 2d Cir (in Manhattan, at least, rather than Albany or Burlington) can be a sign of connectedness, or access to prof networks, more than ability (which admittedly may play a role in determining prestige). But then, I'd take clerking in Burlington over Manhattan any day, too.

Judge Pryor and Judge Newsom are both in Birmingham. Both currently feed more than than the entire second circuit combined. So, no, a judge in nyc is not necessarily going to get more applications than one in Birmingham.

I assumed "average judge" (and not feeders) was implied.

It is a bit funny though because the 11th has way more feeder judges than the 2nd. Pryor, Newsom, and Grant are feeding a lot of people to SCOTUS, and there aren't many (if any) comparable judges on the 2nd. So the odds of the 11th Circuit clerk having clerked for a feeder are much higher than for the 2nd circuit clerk

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, I didn't mean to offer this as an endorsement, just an example of one assessment of circuits floating in the ether that I always thought was funny. Should also probably have mentioned that this was over 10 years ago, so likely out of date now (except about the 9th, of course, lol).

That said, I found a piece online from 2017 that had the top 4 most-reversed circuits, from most to least, as the 6th Circuit, the 3rd, the 11th, and the 9th. So the phrase may have been more accurate back when this particular judge coined it. (Anecdotally, I also feel like I've run across a LOT of crappy 6th Cir opinions, although it could just be confirmation bias.)

I agree that a judge in NYC is going to get more applications than one in Birmingham. But I don't agree that therefore you can make assumptions about the quality of a 2d Circuit clerk vs a 11th Circuit clerk, or that the 2d Circuit is more "prestigious." Given how important calls can be to get pulled from a massive pile, clerking on the 2d Cir (in Manhattan, at least, rather than Albany or Burlington) can be a sign of connectedness, or access to prof networks, more than ability (which admittedly may play a role in determining prestige). But then, I'd take clerking in Burlington over Manhattan any day, too.

Judge Pryor and Judge Newsom are both in Birmingham. Both currently feed more than than the entire second circuit combined. So, no, a judge in nyc is not necessarily going to get more applications than one in Birmingham.

I assumed "average judge" (and not feeders) was implied.

There are three judges in Birmingham on the 11th circuit. Two of them are feeders. You even have a state Supreme Court Justice in Birmingham feeding more than anyone on the Second Circuit right now.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, I didn't mean to offer this as an endorsement, just an example of one assessment of circuits floating in the ether that I always thought was funny. Should also probably have mentioned that this was over 10 years ago, so likely out of date now (except about the 9th, of course, lol).

That said, I found a piece online from 2017 that had the top 4 most-reversed circuits, from most to least, as the 6th Circuit, the 3rd, the 11th, and the 9th. So the phrase may have been more accurate back when this particular judge coined it. (Anecdotally, I also feel like I've run across a LOT of crappy 6th Cir opinions, although it could just be confirmation bias.)

I agree that a judge in NYC is going to get more applications than one in Birmingham. But I don't agree that therefore you can make assumptions about the quality of a 2d Circuit clerk vs a 11th Circuit clerk, or that the 2d Circuit is more "prestigious." Given how important calls can be to get pulled from a massive pile, clerking on the 2d Cir (in Manhattan, at least, rather than Albany or Burlington) can be a sign of connectedness, or access to prof networks, more than ability (which admittedly may play a role in determining prestige). But then, I'd take clerking in Burlington over Manhattan any day, too.

Judge Pryor and Judge Newsom are both in Birmingham. Both currently feed more than than the entire second circuit combined. So, no, a judge in nyc is not necessarily going to get more applications than one in Birmingham.

I assumed "average judge" (and not feeders) was implied.

There are three judges in Birmingham on the 11th circuit. Two of them are feeders. You even have a state Supreme Court Justice in Birmingham feeding more than anyone on the Second Circuit right now.

That’s nice, but beside the point. Again, I was assuming *non-feeder* judges in Birmingham are going to get fewer applications than *non-feeder* judges in NYC, because in the grand scheme of top law schools, it’s likely that more applicants want to be in NYC than Birmingham. (I can accept this premise even though I, personally, don’t want to be in either location.) That’s not a comment on the desirability of either location, but on the makeup of the legal profession and law students.

I assumed non-feeder judges was understood as implied in my earlier comment because there’s no need to have this conversation about feeder judges - no one is judging a feeder based on their circuit, but on their ability to feed.

I was also not saying or even implying anything about the quality of feeder judges in either circuit. But I also don’t think number of feeders in the circuit has any kind of halo effect on clerks from that circuit who *don’t* clerk for one of the feeders. I think the 9/2/DDC elevation is silly, just as silly as trying to say the 11th Cir is better because Birmingham has more feeder judges than the 2d Cir as a whole. Ranking circuits is silly.

So your defenses of Birmingham are unnecessary.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, I didn't mean to offer this as an endorsement, just an example of one assessment of circuits floating in the ether that I always thought was funny. Should also probably have mentioned that this was over 10 years ago, so likely out of date now (except about the 9th, of course, lol).

That said, I found a piece online from 2017 that had the top 4 most-reversed circuits, from most to least, as the 6th Circuit, the 3rd, the 11th, and the 9th. So the phrase may have been more accurate back when this particular judge coined it. (Anecdotally, I also feel like I've run across a LOT of crappy 6th Cir opinions, although it could just be confirmation bias.)

I agree that a judge in NYC is going to get more applications than one in Birmingham. But I don't agree that therefore you can make assumptions about the quality of a 2d Circuit clerk vs a 11th Circuit clerk, or that the 2d Circuit is more "prestigious." Given how important calls can be to get pulled from a massive pile, clerking on the 2d Cir (in Manhattan, at least, rather than Albany or Burlington) can be a sign of connectedness, or access to prof networks, more than ability (which admittedly may play a role in determining prestige). But then, I'd take clerking in Burlington over Manhattan any day, too.

Judge Pryor and Judge Newsom are both in Birmingham. Both currently feed more than than the entire second circuit combined. So, no, a judge in nyc is not necessarily going to get more applications than one in Birmingham.

I assumed "average judge" (and not feeders) was implied.

It's complicated right because there are a lot of judges on the second and ninth circuit—particularly Biden/Trump judges— who, frankly, are not competitive in the traditional sense (grades, writing ability, school, etc...) and instead hire more for things such as URM/Fed Soc/Connections/Public Interest background/(insert whatever). This is incredibly obvious with the clerk quality. However, a clerkship is still a clerkship and it provides value. But, I also think a lot of this analysis misses the point. You, as a candidate, are more than your clerkship (and I mean that in an objective sense and not in an inspirational/sappy way). Let's say you have two candidates. Both go to the same school. One is on law review, top 10%, and clerked in the 11th circuit; the other is not on law review, top 33%, and clerked in the second circuit NYC. Both aren't feeder judges. The 11th circuit candidate is still clearly the stronger candidate in my opinion. Things get harrier when you're comparing one candidate without a federal circuit clerkship and one candidate with one.

I agree with this point broadly, but this isn't true for the Trump nominees on the Second Circuit. Sullivan, Bianco, Park, and Nardini are all very traditional in the qualifications they look for and none give all that big of a Fed Soc boost; their clerks are stronger than average for the circuit. Menashi heavily prefers ideology over grades though, even by Fed Soc standards.

You just said this isn't true for the second circuit and then gave me an example of why its true?

“A lot of judges” to the point that it’s “incredibly obvious” is significantly overstated re CA2, both for Biden and especially Trump appointees.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, I didn't mean to offer this as an endorsement, just an example of one assessment of circuits floating in the ether that I always thought was funny. Should also probably have mentioned that this was over 10 years ago, so likely out of date now (except about the 9th, of course, lol).

That said, I found a piece online from 2017 that had the top 4 most-reversed circuits, from most to least, as the 6th Circuit, the 3rd, the 11th, and the 9th. So the phrase may have been more accurate back when this particular judge coined it. (Anecdotally, I also feel like I've run across a LOT of crappy 6th Cir opinions, although it could just be confirmation bias.)

I agree that a judge in NYC is going to get more applications than one in Birmingham. But I don't agree that therefore you can make assumptions about the quality of a 2d Circuit clerk vs a 11th Circuit clerk, or that the 2d Circuit is more "prestigious." Given how important calls can be to get pulled from a massive pile, clerking on the 2d Cir (in Manhattan, at least, rather than Albany or Burlington) can be a sign of connectedness, or access to prof networks, more than ability (which admittedly may play a role in determining prestige). But then, I'd take clerking in Burlington over Manhattan any day, too.

Judge Pryor and Judge Newsom are both in Birmingham. Both currently feed more than than the entire second circuit combined. So, no, a judge in nyc is not necessarily going to get more applications than one in Birmingham.

I assumed "average judge" (and not feeders) was implied.

It's complicated right because there are a lot of judges on the second and ninth circuit—particularly Biden/Trump judges— who, frankly, are not competitive in the traditional sense (grades, writing ability, school, etc...) and instead hire more for things such as URM/Fed Soc/Connections/Public Interest background/(insert whatever). This is incredibly obvious with the clerk quality. However, a clerkship is still a clerkship and it provides value. But, I also think a lot of this analysis misses the point. You, as a candidate, are more than your clerkship (and I mean that in an objective sense and not in an inspirational/sappy way). Let's say you have two candidates. Both go to the same school. One is on law review, top 10%, and clerked in the 11th circuit; the other is not on law review, top 33%, and clerked in the second circuit NYC. Both aren't feeder judges. The 11th circuit candidate is still clearly the stronger candidate in my opinion. Things get harrier when you're comparing one candidate without a federal circuit clerkship and one candidate with one.

I agree with this point broadly, but this isn't true for the Trump nominees on the Second Circuit. Sullivan, Bianco, Park, and Nardini are all very traditional in the qualifications they look for and none give all that big of a Fed Soc boost; their clerks are stronger than average for the circuit. Menashi heavily prefers ideology over grades though, even by Fed Soc standards.

You just said this isn't true for the second circuit and then gave me an example of why its true?

“A lot of judges” to the point that it’s “incredibly obvious” is significantly overstated re CA2, both for Biden and especially Trump appointees.

Ok I'll admit the 9th circuit is carrying a lot of weight there for conservatives, and Menashi is prob the only trump appointee dipping into grades onto the second circuit. But it's hard to deny that the type of credentials biglaw firms look for is increasingly divergent from the type of credentials recent circuit judges and SDNY-type district, district judges look for. Again I don't have a normative argument on whether or not this is good, but I think its fair to say that a cum laude (or no honors) T14 grad clerking for a second circuit judge isn't going to be thrust into the same opportunites second circuit clerks were getting 10 to 20 years ago just becaue they're a circuit clerk. My point is that the credential helps but second circuit clerks didn't waltz into whatever biglaw firm they wanted just because of their clerkship, they were able to waltz into these firms because of the credentials that led to the clerkship and the clerkship was the cherry on top.

I'll add a caveat to everything above that is probably obvious, but none of this applies to SCOTUS clerks. If you manage to snag SCOTUS as a cum laude T14, you're obviously going to be outperforming the HLS magna grad any day.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, I didn't mean to offer this as an endorsement, just an example of one assessment of circuits floating in the ether that I always thought was funny. Should also probably have mentioned that this was over 10 years ago, so likely out of date now (except about the 9th, of course, lol).

That said, I found a piece online from 2017 that had the top 4 most-reversed circuits, from most to least, as the 6th Circuit, the 3rd, the 11th, and the 9th. So the phrase may have been more accurate back when this particular judge coined it. (Anecdotally, I also feel like I've run across a LOT of crappy 6th Cir opinions, although it could just be confirmation bias.)

I agree that a judge in NYC is going to get more applications than one in Birmingham. But I don't agree that therefore you can make assumptions about the quality of a 2d Circuit clerk vs a 11th Circuit clerk, or that the 2d Circuit is more "prestigious." Given how important calls can be to get pulled from a massive pile, clerking on the 2d Cir (in Manhattan, at least, rather than Albany or Burlington) can be a sign of connectedness, or access to prof networks, more than ability (which admittedly may play a role in determining prestige). But then, I'd take clerking in Burlington over Manhattan any day, too.

Judge Pryor and Judge Newsom are both in Birmingham. Both currently feed more than than the entire second circuit combined. So, no, a judge in nyc is not necessarily going to get more applications than one in Birmingham.

I assumed "average judge" (and not feeders) was implied.

There are three judges in Birmingham on the 11th circuit. Two of them are feeders. You even have a state Supreme Court Justice in Birmingham feeding more than anyone on the Second Circuit right now.

That’s nice, but beside the point. Again, I was assuming *non-feeder* judges in Birmingham are going to get fewer applications than *non-feeder* judges in NYC, because in the grand scheme of top law schools, it’s likely that more applicants want to be in NYC than Birmingham. (I can accept this premise even though I, personally, don’t want to be in either location.) That’s not a comment on the desirability of either location, but on the makeup of the legal profession and law students.

I assumed non-feeder judges was understood as implied in my earlier comment because there’s no need to have this conversation about feeder judges - no one is judging a feeder based on their circuit, but on their ability to feed.

I was also not saying or even implying anything about the quality of feeder judges in either circuit. But I also don’t think number of feeders in the circuit has any kind of halo effect on clerks from that circuit who *don’t* clerk for one of the feeders. I think the 9/2/DDC elevation is silly, just as silly as trying to say the 11th Cir is better because Birmingham has more feeder judges than the 2d Cir as a whole. Ranking circuits is silly.

So your defenses of Birmingham are unnecessary.

Your assumption is dumb. All active second circuit judges are non-feeders. The circuit has a semi-feeder or two at best. But the majority of judges in Birmingham are feeders. It is currently incorrect to assume that your average second circuit NYC judge is getting better applicants than your average Birmingham judge. You are proving why ranking circuits is idiotic and why no one who hires at selective firms does this. There is no need for a proxy when you have access to the underlying core information. And if we are going to rank circuits, feeder status should be towards the top of the list.

[Anonymous User]

That’s nice, but beside the point. Again, I was assuming *non-feeder* judges in Birmingham are going to get fewer applications than *non-feeder* judges in NYC, because in the grand scheme of top law schools, it’s likely that more applicants want to be in NYC than Birmingham. (I can accept this premise even though I, personally, don’t want to be in either location.) That’s not a comment on the desirability of either location, but on the makeup of the legal profession and law students.

I assumed non-feeder judges was understood as implied in my earlier comment because there’s no need to have this conversation about feeder judges - no one is judging a feeder based on their circuit, but on their ability to feed.

I was also not saying or even implying anything about the quality of feeder judges in either circuit. But I also don’t think number of feeders in the circuit has any kind of halo effect on clerks from that circuit who *don’t* clerk for one of the feeders. I think the 9/2/DDC elevation is silly, just as silly as trying to say the 11th Cir is better because Birmingham has more feeder judges than the 2d Cir as a whole. Ranking circuits is silly.

So your defenses of Birmingham are unnecessary.

Your assumption is dumb. All active second circuit judges are non-feeders. The circuit has a semi-feeder or two at best. But the majority of judges in Birmingham are feeders. It is currently incorrect to assume that your average second circuit NYC judge is getting better applicants than your average Birmingham judge. You are proving why ranking circuits is idiotic and why no one who hires at selective firms does this. There is no need for a proxy when you have access to the underlying core information. And if we are going to rank circuits, feeder status should be towards the top of the list.

I am so baffled by your comment. I never said that the average NYC judge is getting *better* applicants than your average Birmingham judge; I said they’re getting *more.* To the extent I said that makes NYC judges more competitive, it’s only through numbers - that there are more people applying. Not suggesting anything about the quality of applicants.

And I don’t get why you say I prove that ranking circuits is idiotic and no one does it like that’s something other than what I just said, which is that ranking circuits is silly?

You absolutely can rank circuits by number of feeders if you want. That wouldn’t include a state Supreme Court Justice, but it’s a perfectly objective measure of something. I just don’t think whatever it measures is really relevant to people who are applying to clerk. Number of feeders in a circuit doesn’t make a circuit “better” (or worse) to have on a resume, nor does it have any spillover effect onto clerks who aren’t clerking for a feeder. People clerking for non-feeders in Birmingham aren’t getting valued more (or less) highly than people clerking for non-feeders in NYC by virtue of the greater number of feeders in their courthouse.

But if it makes you feel better: you’re right, judges in Birmingham are better than judges in NYC. You sure showed me.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, I didn't mean to offer this as an endorsement, just an example of one assessment of circuits floating in the ether that I always thought was funny. Should also probably have mentioned that this was over 10 years ago, so likely out of date now (except about the 9th, of course, lol).

That said, I found a piece online from 2017 that had the top 4 most-reversed circuits, from most to least, as the 6th Circuit, the 3rd, the 11th, and the 9th. So the phrase may have been more accurate back when this particular judge coined it. (Anecdotally, I also feel like I've run across a LOT of crappy 6th Cir opinions, although it could just be confirmation bias.)

I agree that a judge in NYC is going to get more applications than one in Birmingham. But I don't agree that therefore you can make assumptions about the quality of a 2d Circuit clerk vs a 11th Circuit clerk, or that the 2d Circuit is more "prestigious." Given how important calls can be to get pulled from a massive pile, clerking on the 2d Cir (in Manhattan, at least, rather than Albany or Burlington) can be a sign of connectedness, or access to prof networks, more than ability (which admittedly may play a role in determining prestige). But then, I'd take clerking in Burlington over Manhattan any day, too.

Judge Pryor and Judge Newsom are both in Birmingham. Both currently feed more than than the entire second circuit combined. So, no, a judge in nyc is not necessarily going to get more applications than one in Birmingham.

I assumed "average judge" (and not feeders) was implied.

It's complicated right because there are a lot of judges on the second and ninth circuit—particularly Biden/Trump judges— who, frankly, are not competitive in the traditional sense (grades, writing ability, school, etc...) and instead hire more for things such as URM/Fed Soc/Connections/Public Interest background/(insert whatever). This is incredibly obvious with the clerk quality. However, a clerkship is still a clerkship and it provides value. But, I also think a lot of this analysis misses the point. You, as a candidate, are more than your clerkship (and I mean that in an objective sense and not in an inspirational/sappy way). Let's say you have two candidates. Both go to the same school. One is on law review, top 10%, and clerked in the 11th circuit; the other is not on law review, top 33%, and clerked in the second circuit NYC. Both aren't feeder judges. The 11th circuit candidate is still clearly the stronger candidate in my opinion. Things get harrier when you're comparing one candidate without a federal circuit clerkship and one candidate with one.

I agree with this point broadly, but this isn't true for the Trump nominees on the Second Circuit. Sullivan, Bianco, Park, and Nardini are all very traditional in the qualifications they look for and none give all that big of a Fed Soc boost; their clerks are stronger than average for the circuit. Menashi heavily prefers ideology over grades though, even by Fed Soc standards.

This isn't that different from the Trump appointees on the Ninth Circuit. Yes, VanDyke, Bumatay, and Nelson hire pretty ideologically. But the others (Bennett, Miller, Bade, Bress, Lee, Collins, and Forrest) hire more or less traditionally and place little emphasis on ideology.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, I didn't mean to offer this as an endorsement, just an example of one assessment of circuits floating in the ether that I always thought was funny. Should also probably have mentioned that this was over 10 years ago, so likely out of date now (except about the 9th, of course, lol).

That said, I found a piece online from 2017 that had the top 4 most-reversed circuits, from most to least, as the 6th Circuit, the 3rd, the 11th, and the 9th. So the phrase may have been more accurate back when this particular judge coined it. (Anecdotally, I also feel like I've run across a LOT of crappy 6th Cir opinions, although it could just be confirmation bias.)

I agree that a judge in NYC is going to get more applications than one in Birmingham. But I don't agree that therefore you can make assumptions about the quality of a 2d Circuit clerk vs a 11th Circuit clerk, or that the 2d Circuit is more "prestigious." Given how important calls can be to get pulled from a massive pile, clerking on the 2d Cir (in Manhattan, at least, rather than Albany or Burlington) can be a sign of connectedness, or access to prof networks, more than ability (which admittedly may play a role in determining prestige). But then, I'd take clerking in Burlington over Manhattan any day, too.

Judge Pryor and Judge Newsom are both in Birmingham. Both currently feed more than than the entire second circuit combined. So, no, a judge in nyc is not necessarily going to get more applications than one in Birmingham.

I assumed "average judge" (and not feeders) was implied.

There are three judges in Birmingham on the 11th circuit. Two of them are feeders. You even have a state Supreme Court Justice in Birmingham feeding more than anyone on the Second Circuit right now.

That’s nice, but beside the point. Again, I was assuming *non-feeder* judges in Birmingham are going to get fewer applications than *non-feeder* judges in NYC, because in the grand scheme of top law schools, it’s likely that more applicants want to be in NYC than Birmingham. (I can accept this premise even though I, personally, don’t want to be in either location.) That’s not a comment on the desirability of either location, but on the makeup of the legal profession and law students.

I assumed non-feeder judges was understood as implied in my earlier comment because there’s no need to have this conversation about feeder judges - no one is judging a feeder based on their circuit, but on their ability to feed.

I was also not saying or even implying anything about the quality of feeder judges in either circuit. But I also don’t think number of feeders in the circuit has any kind of halo effect on clerks from that circuit who *don’t* clerk for one of the feeders. I think the 9/2/DDC elevation is silly, just as silly as trying to say the 11th Cir is better because Birmingham has more feeder judges than the 2d Cir as a whole. Ranking circuits is silly.

So your defenses of Birmingham are unnecessary.

Your assumption is dumb. All active second circuit judges are non-feeders. The circuit has a semi-feeder or two at best. But the majority of judges in Birmingham are feeders. It is currently incorrect to assume that your average second circuit NYC judge is getting better applicants than your average Birmingham judge. You are proving why ranking circuits is idiotic and why no one who hires at selective firms does this. There is no need for a proxy when you have access to the underlying core information. And if we are going to rank circuits, feeder status should be towards the top of the list.

The problem with trying to rank circuit prestige based on how "good" a clerk from the circuit would likely be or how competitive the clerkships are or how many feeders the circuit has is that the primary value in hiring a clerk isn't using the clerkship as a proxy for how smart the clerk is. Clerkships are valuable because clerks have a lot of insight into how the circuit or their judge thinks and works, which is useful when you're litigating a case in front of that circuit or judge. So a clerkship on CA9 is more "prestigious" (useful) to a firm that does a lot of litigation in California. A firm that litigates mostly in Ohio would probably not care much about CA9. The government likes DC because it litigates a lot of cases in DC.