Best and worst judges to clerk for Forum

[Anonymous User]

What has led to this reputation for Nelson?

Different Anon. How much do you know about him? I found him to be underwhelming on the bench, and at the panel dinner, he felt comfortable enough to say some things (about politics) that didn't reflect well on him as a judge. As a liberal (something he didn't know), I came away with a very low opinion of him. That was not true of the vast majority of Trump appointees I interacted with or the Bush judges (Bybee, for example, was great).

[Anonymous User]

Judge Collins is very smart. So is Judge Bress and so is Judge Bumatay.

These judges are substantially smarter than the Bush ninth circuit appointees which are typified by Judge Callahan and Judge Bea.

I think there's a wide gap between Collins+Bress on one hand and Bumatay on the other. Bumatay is a more aggressive Callahan who's gotten good at playing to a supermajority Republican SCOTUS with en banc calls. The other two are on par with the brightest minds on any circuit in the country. That being said, Bumatay is supposed to be a fun boss. Collins and Bress don't strike me as fun.

On par with the brightest minds on any circuit in the country? Based on what? It would be helpful if people would substantiate their opinions when they say things like this, ideally with something more than "they clerked for SCOTUS." I cannot think of any memorable or impressive opinions from Judge Bress. He actually strikes me as stubborn and unimaginative.

I think "memorable or impressive" can be a bad thing, and "unimaginative" can be a good thing, especially in the context of the incredibly overheated CA9 en banc process. Bress isn't flashy but technically his writing is significantly better than Bumatay's imo. Bumatay's dissentals tend to be too long and cliche-heavy.

[Anonymous User]

Outing myself because this thread is getting absurd. I am a current ninth circuit clerk who has worked with all the judges mentioned on this thread. Ikuta is not abrasive at all. She is sensitive, caring, gentle and gregarious. Bumatay is very thoughtful. He puts great care into complicated issues like the sixteenth amendment. And Miller is not smart, he's a total zero who doesn't even read the opinions he cites in cases which completely contradict his own points. Does not engage with doctrine.

Really surprising that Miller managed to graduate #1 overall at Chicago, work at all three of the most prestigious divisions of DOJ, chair a biglaw appellate practice, and have a rep as one of the highest-horsepower judges in the country despite being a "total zero" who is "not smart." Seems much more likely that you don't understand the law than that he doesn't.

This is the first time I have ever heard anyone say this about Miller. I clerked for a liberal, very well-respected judge on the Ninth Circuit and this judge has very high praise for Miller. I found him to be a thoughtful and careful thinker. Bumatay, on the other hand, I found to be sloppy.

[Anonymous User]

Whose work product *is* consistently respected on CA9? Feels like there's a lot of moving targets in this thread.

[Anonymous User]

I agree with the commenter who said Bumatay has just gotten good about en banc calls with the current Court. In my own experience and in talking to other clerks, we have been underwhelmed by his chambers’ work product. Conclusory, results-oriented analysis, not always faithful to the record. I’d also add some context re: the commenter who said he puts “great care” into issues “like the sixteenth amendment.” He is just anti-tax. And he lost 10-1 in a recent en banc tax case, where his majority panel decision got reversed. He does seem like a nice guy tho. Just adding some more context here

Current clerk in a different right-leaning CA9 chambers. I agree with all of this, re Bumatay. But his clerks do seem happier than most.

[Anonymous User]

Whose work product *is* consistently respected on CA9? Feels like there's a lot of moving targets in this thread.

Friedland. She is careful, thorough, and a straight shooter. Her opinions are very well-reasoned and airtight. And she is very kind and easy to get along with to boot. I think liberals and conservatives alike hold her in very high regard.

[Anonymous User]

Whose work product *is* consistently respected on CA9? Feels like there's a lot of moving targets in this thread.

Friedland. She is careful, thorough, and a straight shooter. Her opinions are very well-reasoned and airtight. And she is very kind and easy to get along with to boot. I think liberals and conservatives alike hold her in very high regard.

I agree with this. Her clerks work hard/long hours, but they absolutely adore her, and honestly I think almost any active judge’s clerks need to work hard if the judge cares a lot about doing a good job

[Anonymous User]

I agree with the commenter who said Bumatay has just gotten good about en banc calls with the current Court. In my own experience and in talking to other clerks, we have been underwhelmed by his chambers’ work product. Conclusory, results-oriented analysis, not always faithful to the record. I’d also add some context re: the commenter who said he puts “great care” into issues “like the sixteenth amendment.” He is just anti-tax. And he lost 10-1 in a recent en banc tax case, where his majority panel decision got reversed. He does seem like a nice guy tho. Just adding some more context here

Former CA9 clerk; my judge sat with Bumatay. His work product was on par with most other chambers and his clerks didn’t seem lazy. But he’s definitely results-oriented in his voting. Can’t recall a case from my term when he departed from the politically conservative view on anything of consequence. The same could be said about the majority of active judges on the circuit, but he’s no exception.

I can confirm based on experience at the sitting with him that he’s one of the more down-to-earth and social judges on the circuit. Genuinely nice guy.

[Anonymous User]

I agree with the commenter who said Bumatay has just gotten good about en banc calls with the current Court. In my own experience and in talking to other clerks, we have been underwhelmed by his chambers’ work product. Conclusory, results-oriented analysis, not always faithful to the record. I’d also add some context re: the commenter who said he puts “great care” into issues “like the sixteenth amendment.” He is just anti-tax. And he lost 10-1 in a recent en banc tax case, where his majority panel decision got reversed. He does seem like a nice guy tho. Just adding some more context here

Former CA9 clerk; my judge sat with Bumatay. His work product was on par with most other chambers and his clerks didn’t seem lazy. But he’s definitely results-oriented in his voting. Can’t recall a case from my term when he departed from the politically conservative view on anything of consequence. The same could be said about the majority of active judges on the circuit, but he’s no exception.

I can confirm based on experience at the sitting with him that he’s one of the more down-to-earth and social judges on the circuit. Genuinely nice guy.

Another former CA9 clerk (Trump appointee); I disagree with some of these comments. Bumatay broke from the conservatives only to be vindicated by SCOTUS in several consequential cases. I recall two en bancs in which Bumatay voted with the liberals, opposite my judge. Even in the two aforementioned tax cases... he's aligned with a few or no conservatives, and SCOTUS already granted cert in one, which will likely be of significant consequence.

I never had the impression he was "conclusory, results-oriented analysis, not always faithful to the record." Granted, my judge was usually in alignment. I'd imagine these comments came from clerks of judges who were not.

[Anonymous User]

Heard Garaufis (E.D.N.Y.) is a tough boss, yells, and is very demanding.

Former Garaufis clerk here. This isn't true at all—he's a great boss, and it's a great clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

Whose work product *is* consistently respected on CA9? Feels like there's a lot of moving targets in this thread.

S. Thomas, Graber, McKeown, O'Scannlain, Fletcher, Bybee, Friedland, Bress, to name a few who tend to draw consensus respect. I think just about everyone agrees Collins is a very smart and capable judge, the issues people have with his chambers are more personality-driven.

[Anonymous User]

Whose work product *is* consistently respected on CA9? Feels like there's a lot of moving targets in this thread.

S. Thomas, Graber, McKeown, O'Scannlain, Fletcher, Bybee, Friedland, Bress, to name a few who tend to draw consensus respect. I think just about everyone agrees Collins is a very smart and capable judge, the issues people have with his chambers are more personality-driven.

lol absurd

[Anonymous User]

Whose work product *is* consistently respected on CA9? Feels like there's a lot of moving targets in this thread.

S. Thomas, Graber, McKeown, O'Scannlain, Fletcher, Bybee, Friedland, Bress, to name a few who tend to draw consensus respect. I think just about everyone agrees Collins is a very smart and capable judge, the issues people have with his chambers are more personality-driven.

lol absurd

I don't think O'Scannlain should be on this list. I would replace O'Scannlain with Miller. Watford, before he departed, would also have been on this list.

[Anonymous User]

Whose work product *is* consistently respected on CA9? Feels like there's a lot of moving targets in this thread.

S. Thomas, Graber, McKeown, O'Scannlain, Fletcher, Bybee, Friedland, Bress, to name a few who tend to draw consensus respect. I think just about everyone agrees Collins is a very smart and capable judge, the issues people have with his chambers are more personality-driven.

lol absurd

I don't think O'Scannlain should be on this list. I would replace O'Scannlain with Miller. Watford, before he departed, would also have been on this list.

OP of list here. Fair points, especially on Watford. O'Scannlain's reputation is pretty well earned over 40 years, for much of that he has been *the* conservative on the 9th and one of the most familiar conservative voices on any of the circuit courts.

Similarly Fletcher is among the most liberal judges on the court and has been reversed several times by SCOTUS, but no one seriously questions his intellectual heft or judicial temperament--he's an outstanding judge who happens to be at one edge of the ideological spectrum. That can't be said for all of the Clinton-appointed liberals.

[Anonymous User]

Whose work product *is* consistently respected on CA9? Feels like there's a lot of moving targets in this thread.

S. Thomas, Graber, McKeown, O'Scannlain, Fletcher, Bybee, Friedland, Bress, to name a few who tend to draw consensus respect. I think just about everyone agrees Collins is a very smart and capable judge, the issues people have with his chambers are more personality-driven.

lol absurd

I don't think O'Scannlain should be on this list. I would replace O'Scannlain with Miller. Watford, before he departed, would also have been on this list.

OP of list here. Fair points, especially on Watford. O'Scannlain's reputation is pretty well earned over 40 years, for much of that he has been *the* conservative on the 9th and one of the most familiar conservative voices on any of the circuit courts.

Similarly Fletcher is among the most liberal judges on the court and has been reversed several times by SCOTUS, but no one seriously questions his intellectual heft or judicial temperament--he's an outstanding judge who happens to be at one edge of the ideological spectrum. That can't be said for all of the Clinton-appointed liberals.

I heard O'Scannlain is only doing screening panels (and the occasional dissental) these days.

[Anonymous User]

Judge Collins is very smart. So is Judge Bress and so is Judge Bumatay.

These judges are substantially smarter than the Bush ninth circuit appointees which are typified by Judge Callahan and Judge Bea.

Judge Miller and Judge Lee are also very, very sharp. I think VanDyke is a lunatic but he is a very talented (if obnoxious) writer and is not dumb by any means.

What about Judge Bennett?

He's kind of a poor man's Collins, but he's definitely sharp and I think he's supposed to be a good boss. Nelson is the only one of the Trump CA9 appointees who I regard as an intellectual lightweight.

Just curious, what persuaded you to believe Judge Bade is not an intellectual lightweight?

Different anon. Bade isn't dumb, but she seems like a really unpleasant boss. And I'm not aware of any memorable decisions of hers.

[Anonymous User]

Whose work product *is* consistently respected on CA9? Feels like there's a lot of moving targets in this thread.

S. Thomas, Graber, McKeown, O'Scannlain, Fletcher, Bybee, Friedland, Bress, to name a few who tend to draw consensus respect. I think just about everyone agrees Collins is a very smart and capable judge, the issues people have with his chambers are more personality-driven.

lol absurd

I don't think O'Scannlain should be on this list. I would replace O'Scannlain with Miller. Watford, before he departed, would also have been on this list.

There are two camps of active conservative judges. No active Republican appointee is consistently respected by both conservative camps.

The only Democrat appointee who might come close is Judge Owens. He's largely a non-presence, writing 3 opinions per year and staying out of en bancs. Runner-ups might be Collins and Friedland, but not really.

[Anonymous User]

I'm more interested in who's a mean person in chambers, rather than who works you hard, which has mostly been discussed here.

Seconded.

I understand why, but I think people are going to be reluctant to talk about this, even anon on a forum. It's one thing to say a judge works his/her clerks hard - I think judges could take a perverse pride in that. But calling a judge an asshole is just tougher to do. It's the kind of conversation that would work better over PM, except everyone's anon about where they work/where they're applying, that kind of thing.

(But people, feel free to prove me wrong and name names here!)

Does this even matter? Imo the only key takeaways are who *not* to clerk for, and it seems like on the 9th everyone (idiosyncrasies aside) is pretty pleasant to clerk for except VanDyke for ideological reasons and Bea & Bade because they're not the sharpest tools in the shed. Am I missing anyone?

[Anonymous User]

I'm more interested in who's a mean person in chambers, rather than who works you hard, which has mostly been discussed here.

Seconded.

I understand why, but I think people are going to be reluctant to talk about this, even anon on a forum. It's one thing to say a judge works his/her clerks hard - I think judges could take a perverse pride in that. But calling a judge an asshole is just tougher to do. It's the kind of conversation that would work better over PM, except everyone's anon about where they work/where they're applying, that kind of thing.

(But people, feel free to prove me wrong and name names here!)

Does this even matter? Imo the only key takeaways are who *not* to clerk for, and it seems like on the 9th everyone (idiosyncrasies aside) is pretty pleasant to clerk for except VanDyke for ideological reasons and Bea & Bade because they're not the sharpest tools in the shed. Am I missing anyone?

I don’t even think you really need to worry about ideological differences with most judges. The ones who really care about that stuff, like VanDyke, would never hire you if you didn’t share their general worldview and ideology. Trust me, VanDyke and others are not letting any moderate centrists slip through their vetting process.

[Anonymous User]

I'm more interested in who's a mean person in chambers, rather than who works you hard, which has mostly been discussed here.

Seconded.

I understand why, but I think people are going to be reluctant to talk about this, even anon on a forum. It's one thing to say a judge works his/her clerks hard - I think judges could take a perverse pride in that. But calling a judge an asshole is just tougher to do. It's the kind of conversation that would work better over PM, except everyone's anon about where they work/where they're applying, that kind of thing.

(But people, feel free to prove me wrong and name names here!)

Does this even matter? Imo the only key takeaways are who *not* to clerk for, and it seems like on the 9th everyone (idiosyncrasies aside) is pretty pleasant to clerk for except VanDyke for ideological reasons and Bea & Bade because they're not the sharpest tools in the shed. Am I missing anyone?

I don’t even think you really need to worry about ideological differences with most judges. The ones who really care about that stuff, like VanDyke, would never hire you if you didn’t share their general worldview and ideology. Trust me, VanDyke and others are not letting any moderate centrists slip through their vetting process.

Agree that the true ideologues aren't letting non-believers slip through the cracks, but I think there does need to be some minimum areas of common ground or else it might be a miserable year. For instance, I lean liberal and formalist—I think I would have a tough time clerking for a functionalist conservative (your Justice O'Connors of the world), but not a formalist conservative or a functionalist liberal.

[Anonymous User]

Whose work product *is* consistently respected on CA9? Feels like there's a lot of moving targets in this thread.

S. Thomas, Graber, McKeown, O'Scannlain, Fletcher, Bybee, Friedland, Bress, to name a few who tend to draw consensus respect. I think just about everyone agrees Collins is a very smart and capable judge, the issues people have with his chambers are more personality-driven.

lol absurd

I don't think O'Scannlain should be on this list. I would replace O'Scannlain with Miller. Watford, before he departed, would also have been on this list.

There are two camps of active conservative judges. No active Republican appointee is consistently respected by both conservative camps.

The only Democrat appointee who might come close is Judge Owens. He's largely a non-presence, writing 3 opinions per year and staying out of en bancs. Runner-ups might be Collins and Friedland, but not really.

OP who made the list here--agree there are two camps, but man, that's a dour view of the court to suggest that judges aren't respected by those outside their ideological clique. I listed the people who, as of my clerkship a few terms ago, seemed regarded across the circuit as strong and capable judges, regardless of differences in ideology. There are certainly more (we didn't sit with everyone, not even close), but those were the first names that came to mind in response to the question.

[Anonymous User]

This is somewhat of a shot in the dark, but does anyone have thoughts on which judges on CA5 you’d recommend applying to if you’re a liberal?

[Anonymous User]

This is somewhat of a shot in the dark, but does anyone have thoughts on which judges on CA5 you’d recommend applying to if you’re a liberal?

If you’re interested in counter-clerking, I know Willett hires liberals and is considered a very solid clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

This is somewhat of a shot in the dark, but does anyone have thoughts on which judges on CA5 you’d recommend applying to if you’re a liberal?

Consider Higginson. He is an intellectual powerhouse and, at least in my interactions with him, is an awesome person. I cannot speak at all to experience in chambers, but the output was almost universally superlative.

[Anonymous User]

Not disputing any of the true negatives here (nor do I have no personal experience with Ikuta) but lol at being taken out for meals, invited over, or getting your birthday off being meaningful criteria. (Yes, I'm sure some judges do those things; they're still not material.)

Just a couple specifics: Time off isn't a thing during clerkships, generally—and yet she's perfectly understanding re: special occasions, unlike some actual avoid-at-all-costs judges. You shouldn't expect to be taken out for meals or given birthdays off, because...it's a job?

I don't get these takes at all. Why wouldn't eating lunch/meals with your judge frequently (which does not mean having the judge pay, to be clear), having lenient vacation policies as long as the work gets done, having office birthday parties or days off, etc. not all be meaningful criteria? They go right to contact with the judge, mentorship, positive atmosphere in chambers and collegiality, etc.

Are there judges who don't usually (or at least often) eat lunch with their clerks and don't give them weeks/days off upon request and stuff? That sounds awful.