SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships Forum

[Anonymous User]

This is OP.

Re: the judges list.

Boudin (1st)
Gibbons (6th)
Gorsuch (10th)
Livingston (2d)
Niemeyer (4th)
Pryor (11th)
Scirica (3d)
Smith (5th)
Sykes (7th)

If SCOTUS is your priority, you have to make Gorsuch and then Boudin your priority. No one else is close.

From your read this is a pretty conservative panel. If you are competitive for Gorsuch consider adding Sentelle too.

If you aren't asking about SCOTUS as much, Smith and Sykes are by far the best quality-of-life judges on the list you offered. Pryor is probably the hardest boss of those you listed. Gorsuch is difficult too but the 10th Circuit often goes skiing. So that's worth something. Then again, CA5 sits in New Orleans and CA7 has some of the best possible panels.

If you offered me any of those clerkships and I didn't care about SCOTUS, I'd take Smith, then Sykes, then Gorsuch, then Livingston.

If you offered me any of them and I cared about SCOTUS, Gorsuch, Boudin, Sykes, Livingston, Pryor.

This is poster of the list. Thank you for this. Your thoughts largely track what what I have read and heard. I am drawn to the more recent appointees that are feeders or budding feeders (Gorsuch, Sykes, Livingston, Pryor), so this helps a lot.

nonprofit_prophet, I appreciate for the suggestion. Jones is indeed on my list; the above nine were just some on which I wanted OP's thoughts. (Rest assured that I am not so confident as to apply to only nine judges.)

[Anonymous User]

Would you be willing to share quick thoughts on specific judges, to the extent that you have any? I have a shortlist of COA judges for whom I'd most like to clerk and would be curious as to your thoughts - not necessarily for SCOTUS purposes (several are not feeders at all) but rather to get a better feel for my application strategy.

This is OP. I am globally willing to answer questions like this. I promise my advice is worth what you paid for it.

Wow, thanks. Truly appreciate it. Here are some of the judges on my list:

Boudin (1st)
Gibbons (6th)
Gorsuch (10th)
Livingston (2d)
Niemeyer (4th)
Pryor (11th)
Scirica (3d)
Smith (5th)
Sykes (7th)

Based on the information in this thread, my grades and profile would make me a credible (but not strong) SCOTUS candidate. That said, I'm not necessarily aiming for a SCOTUS clerkship, so any thoughts (SCOTUS-related or otherwise) would be appreciated.

Why not apply to Jones as well as Smith? Jones has placed a few clerks with Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Scalia in recent years.

This is OP. I will confine my opinions to judges listed (when asked) and not suggest additional ones. I agree that Jones (CA5) would be consistent with this list, as it appears basically conservative, and would be a very desirable clerkship under that assumption.

[Anonymous User]

Slightly out of date and asking a lot, but any thoughts on any of the judges below (quality of life, feeding ability, reputation, connections, up-and-comers, etc.) would be very helpful. Source.

1. Garland (D.C. Cir.), 20 + 1 Bristow
2. Kavanaugh (D.C. Cir.), 18 + 1 Bristow
3. Wilkinson (4th Cir.), 14 + 2 Bristows
4. Kozinski (9th Cir.), 10
4. Sutton (6th Cir.), 10 + 2 Bristows
6. Katzmann (2d Cir.), 9
7. Tatel (D.C. Cir.), 8 + 1 Bristow
8. Griffith (D.C. Cir.), 7
8. O'Scannlain (9th Cir.), 7
8. Reinhardt (9th Cir.), 7
11. D. Ginsburg (D.C. Cir.), 6
11. Gorsuch (10th Cir.), 6 + 1 Bristow
11. Calabresi (2d Cir.), 6
11. Fletcher (9th Cir.), 6 + 1 Bristow

Edit: Made list shorter. I didn't mean to discuss every judge, I just wanted to provide an opportunity for any interesting or salient thoughts since this is the first and maybe last time we get to ask a SCOTUS clerk questions. Feel free to discuss as few judges or as many as you want.

[Anonymous User]

Of the list at http://abovethelaw.com/2014/05/supreme- ... er-judges/, which judges are known for being more personally aggressive with respect to securing clerks SCOTUS clerkships and which less? (I imagine that to a certain extent the "feeder" designation is more a matter of selection effect than aggressive efforts to place clerks.)

On another note, which are known for being better from a QOL perspective, and which less?

[Doorkeeper]

Did you just seriously ask someone to discuss 30 judges?

*face palm*

[Anonymous User]

This is OP.

As OP seems to know the DCC well: Edwards, Williams, Randolph, Rogers, Silberman.

Thoughts? Quality of Life as a clerk? How are they as bosses? I don't care about their relative feeding abilities. I've heard some nasty things about a few of them as bosses, but all info is helpful!

The D.C. Circuit is probably the easiest place to work of all of the circuits.

Randolph is an especially well-liked boss by his former clerks.

Silberman is especially good if you want to be an academic. Edwards too.

Rogers is probably the most open-minded about candidates of the bunch, and of the circuit.

Williams is especially difficult when angry and is unforgiving of mistakes. But not a "bad boss" globally.

I would take any of these clerkships, however, gladly.

[Anonymous User]

Would a recommendation from a well-known lawyer, but non-professor, have any weight In the SCOTUS hiring process? E.g., someone like David Boies or Carter Phillips, to use a couple examples you mentioned earlier.

What about non-famous former clerks?

This is OP.

Short answer is yes. Those attorneys and others on their status tier would be as powerful of recommenders as nationally known professors.

Former clerks are ALWAYS potent recommenders.

[Anonymous User]

Straight out of LS? That's surprising. Almost all of the students clerking for COA judges straight after graduation have been chancellors (top 16 students), with the exception of a few students clerking for senior COA judges.

This is OP. Yes, I have seen several. I do not recall if senior or not though. Outside of feeder context the senior/non-senior distinction is irrelevant.

[Anonymous User]

The D.C. Circuit is probably the easiest place to work of all of the circuits.

Randolph is an especially well-liked boss by his former clerks.

Silberman is especially good if you want to be an academic. Edwards too.

Rogers is probably the most open-minded about candidates of the bunch, and of the circuit.

Williams is especially difficult when angry and is unforgiving of mistakes. But not a "bad boss" globally.

I would take any of these clerkships, however, gladly.

Wow...this is basically the polar opposite of what my advisers have told me about Randolph, Edwards, Silberman, and Williams. I had been told to especially avoid Randolph and Silberman. I have a lot more digging to do on this.

Thanks, OP.

Edit - Didn't mean to anon there. I'm the original questioner.

[Anonymous User]

This is OP.

I am not giving a general opinion of feeder judges.

I will give opinions for specific comparisons for applicants.

[Anonymous User]

The D.C. Circuit is probably the easiest place to work of all of the circuits.

Randolph is an especially well-liked boss by his former clerks.

Silberman is especially good if you want to be an academic. Edwards too.

Rogers is probably the most open-minded about candidates of the bunch, and of the circuit.

Williams is especially difficult when angry and is unforgiving of mistakes. But not a "bad boss" globally.

I would take any of these clerkships, however, gladly.

Wow...this is basically the polar opposite of what my advisers have told me about Randolph, Edwards, Silberman, and Williams. I had been told to especially avoid Randolph and Silberman. I have a lot more digging to do on this.

Thanks, OP.

Edit - Didn't mean to anon there. Same as original questioner.

This is OP. You're welcome. Your recommenders/advisers are wrong. I am confident on my information regarding CADC.

Randolph and Silberman are well-loved by former clerks. Hard workers. Hard editors. But they are not Kozinski-like in hours. They want you to get better. If you can get either of those clerkships, get them.

[Doorkeeper]

Wow...this is basically the polar opposite of what my advisers have told me about Randolph, Edwards, Silberman, and Williams. I had been told to especially avoid Randolph and Silberman. I have a lot more digging to do on this.

Thanks, OP.

Edit - Didn't mean to anon there. Same as original questioner.

This is OP. You're welcome. Your recommenders/advisers are wrong. I am confident on my information regarding CADC.

Randolph and Silberman are well-loved by former clerks. Hard workers. Hard editors. But they are not Kozinski-like in hours. They want you to get better. If you can get either of those clerkships, get them.

Hmm. I was given such negative comments regarding the two of them that I was considering not even applying, but perhaps they treat their clerks differently than they do professors/lawyers in professional settings. Very interesting. Thanks again.

[Anonymous User]

OP, SLS has not placed very well at SCOTUS in recent years. Care to speculate why?

[Anonymous User]

Wow...this is basically the polar opposite of what my advisers have told me about Randolph, Edwards, Silberman, and Williams. I had been told to especially avoid Randolph and Silberman. I have a lot more digging to do on this.

Thanks, OP.

Edit - Didn't mean to anon there. Same as original questioner.

This is OP. You're welcome. Your recommenders/advisers are wrong. I am confident on my information regarding CADC.

Randolph and Silberman are well-loved by former clerks. Hard workers. Hard editors. But they are not Kozinski-like in hours. They want you to get better. If you can get either of those clerkships, get them.

Hmm. I was given such negative comments regarding the two of them that I was considering not even applying, but perhaps they treat their clerks differently than they do professors/lawyers in professional settings. Very interesting. Thanks again.

This is OP. Totally possible. Judges can easily be imperious to the bar or academics but deeply kind to their clerks. This would not surprise me at all. If you are qualified for CADC you absolutely must apply to every CADC judge.

[Anonymous User]

OP, SLS has not placed very well at SCOTUS in recent years. Care to speculate why?

This is OP. SLS has punched under its weight class in SCOTUS clerkships relative to HLS and YLS for as long as I have been SCOTUS aware. This appears confined to the SCOTUS level alone, as it is on par with H and Y at the COA level. It's kind of a mystery even still. But what you observe is accurate if not explained.

[Anonymous User]

Wow...this is basically the polar opposite of what my advisers have told me about Randolph, Edwards, Silberman, and Williams. I had been told to especially avoid Randolph and Silberman. I have a lot more digging to do on this.

Thanks, OP.

Edit - Didn't mean to anon there. Same as original questioner.

This is OP. You're welcome. Your recommenders/advisers are wrong. I am confident on my information regarding CADC.

Randolph and Silberman are well-loved by former clerks. Hard workers. Hard editors. But they are not Kozinski-like in hours. They want you to get better. If you can get either of those clerkships, get them.

Hmm. I was given such negative comments regarding the two of them that I was considering not even applying, but perhaps they treat their clerks differently than they do professors/lawyers in professional settings. Very interesting. Thanks again.

This is OP. Totally possible. Judges can easily be imperious to the bar or academics but deeply kind to their clerks. This would not surprise me at all. If you are qualified for CADC you absolutely must apply to every CADC judge.

How would you compare, say, a non- or semi-feeder D.C. Cir. judge to a semi-feeder or feeder non-D.C. Cir. judge? I assume that the feeder judge is more desirable, but you seem to be advocating for the D.C. Cir. very strongly.

[Anonymous User]

A quick, non-serious question to switch things up: how much do those outside of the legal profession understand about the weight of a SCOTUS clerkship?

I went to HYPS for undergrad, but the people I know from college who didn't go to law school cannot fathom why I care so much about a SCOTUS clerkship. They think it's neat, but rather commonplace. I'm wondering if this is your general experience as well.

[09042014]

A quick, non-serious question to switch things up: how much do those outside of the legal profession understand about the weight of a SCOTUS clerkship?

I went to HYPS for undergrad, but the people I know from college who didn't go to law school cannot fathom why I care so much about a SCOTUS clerkship. They think it's neat, but rather commonplace. I'm wondering if this is your general experience as well.

QFP

[Anonymous User]

This is OP.

DC circuit is the best thing you can do for yourself over anyone but the super-feeders. No exceptions.

To everyone outside the legal/professional classes, "clerk" sounds like "intern." The average person does not give a damn about a SCOTUS clerkship. Nor should he.

[rpupkin]

OP, SLS has not placed very well at SCOTUS in recent years. Care to speculate why?

Not the OP, but the most straightforward explanation is that Rehnquist and O'Connor (both SLS grads) are no longer on the Court. It seems that all judges--even SCOTUS justices--like to hire from their alma mater. When Justice Stevens was on the Court, he would regularly hire NU grads. Now that every justice attended either YLS or HLS, the percentage of HY grads is as high as it's ever been.

[Anonymous User]

OP, SLS has not placed very well at SCOTUS in recent years. Care to speculate why?

Not the OP, but the most straightforward explanation is that Rehnquist and O'Connor (both SLS grads) are no longer on the Court. It seems that all judges--even SCOTUS justices--like to hire from their alma mater. When Justice Stevens was on the Court, he would regularly hire NU grads. Now that every justice attended either YLS or HLS, the percentage of HY grads is as high as it's ever been.

This is OP. You're right re: Justice Stevens. But I did not see much evidence that Justices favored their alma mater over other T6 schools conscientiously as a rule. I think this is a totally valid use of Occam's Razor. It just didn't match my experiences. I'm hesitant to say you're wrong though.

[Anonymous User]

OP, SLS has not placed very well at SCOTUS in recent years. Care to speculate why?

Not the OP, but the most straightforward explanation is that Rehnquist and O'Connor (both SLS grads) are no longer on the Court. It seems that all judges--even SCOTUS justices--like to hire from their alma mater. When Justice Stevens was on the Court, he would regularly hire NU grads. Now that every justice attended either YLS or HLS, the percentage of HY grads is as high as it's ever been.

This is OP. You're right re: Justice Stevens. But I did not see much evidence that Justices favored their alma mater over other T6 schools conscientiously as a rule. I think this is a totally valid use of Occam's Razor. It just didn't match my experiences. I'm hesitant to say you're wrong though.

When I still had SCOTUS-worthy grades, my mentor professor, who was a former SCOTUS clerk, and I discussed Justice Kagan specifically. Justice Kagan had called my professor to discuss an applicant, who was first in class at MVPB. Justice Kagan apparently kept querying my professor about whether the student was actually as intellectually capable as class ranking suggested. My professor was taken a bit aback. Other than one Boalt alumnus, Justice Kagan has only taken from HYS.

The applicant ended up as a SCOTUS clerk for another Justice.

[instride91]

Is it possible to transfer from a lower T-14 to a T-6 or possibly HYS and still land a SCOTUS clerkship? Or do transfers not have a good shot since their 1L grades don't "count" at their new school?

[Anonymous User]

I've heard that all the justices on the left, perhaps in different ways, can be hard to work for. Can you comment on that at all?

[Anonymous User]

What kind of grades are we talking about for top 5% at HLS?

Also, the school treats two Hs as the same as a DS and P for gpa purposes - do the justices view them that way too, or is there some number of Ps that's just too many, even with off-setting DSs?