Best and worst judges to clerk for Forum

[Anonymous User]

Some judges over inflate their own importance and as a result don't themselves take any time off and that gets passed on to the clerks. Judge Ikuta for example doesn't take a single day off during the year and doesn't give her clerks any time off either. She does this because her ego is such that she actually believes that the Court cannot handle having her take a day off. Her clerks worked on thanksgiving the year I clerked.

[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.

I mean, those things are lovely and all, but they're not remotely required for collegiality or mentorship or a positive atmosphere in chambers, nor do they guarantee those things.

I clerked for 2 really different judges. The first was, frankly, somewhat notorious in the courthouse for being antisocial and other judge's clerks would joke about this judge's inability to make small talk on the elevator in the morning. My career clerk and I never went out to eat with this judge, ever, nor did we sit and eat lunch with them in chambers. We never went to their home.

But they were an awesome legal mentor in that they were ALWAYS willing to answer questions about a case, any questions at all, they talked through whatever we wanted to know before and after oral argument, they sat down with us regularly to discuss our cases and how the draft opinions were coming, they went through multiple rounds of editing with each draft and would explain EXACTLY why they suggested the edits they did and how those edits improved the writing, and would always listen and genuinely consider if we thought something should be addressed differently. They made sure to try to get a big/interesting case early on in my term so I'd have a good writing sample for job applications. When we had a law student intern, the judge sat down with the intern and did the same kinds of things as they did with us, and the judge also took pains to work through one of the intern's projects with them entirely through conversation, so that the intern could use the final piece as an "unedited" writing sample. I learned SO much from the experience of clerking for this judge.

In case you think this kind of mentorship/training is standard and so why not aim for the more social version - it's not.

It's not like the judge was feral, or abusive - they liked to bring in baked goods periodically, they got us a holiday gift, they let us go home early on random Friday afternoons if we didn't have any particular deadlines looming. But when the work was routine you could also go the whole day without the judge saying more than 2 words to you. The kind of "go out to lunch/eat meals together/give you lots of time off" atmosphere described above just wasn't this judge's style.

My second clerkship had much more of the sort of traditional social/eating together/going out to eat experience that people seem to be expecting, and you know, it was good, but I'll just say there were some large personalities in chambers and leave it at that. Be careful what you wish for. On the legal side of things, it was definitely a good experience, and I'd recommend the judge to applicants with no qualms, but the first clerkship was definitely a better training and learning experience.

Last thing - time off really isn't a thing in a term clerkship. If you get time off it's definitely days, not weeks. You're not going to get your birthday off b/c jobs just don't do that. Lenient vacation policies as long as you get the work done is still not really a thing for a lot of judges, in part b/c in a lot of chambers it's not really feasible due to workload. You're only there for a year.

So I mean certainly, the ideal is a judge who's a great legal mentor AND socializes charmingly with their clerks a lot AND is flexible about scheduling and generous with time off AND with whom everyone gets along. But I still don't think that means most of the social stuff is material to picking a good clerkship.

[lavarman84]

Anon, I think we can all agree that a judge going to lunch with their clerks or inviting them to their home is not absolutely necessary for a good/great clerkship experience. But a judge doing those things and others (ex. lenient vacation policies) are certainly meaningful criteria for clerkship applicants. They indicate that a judge is a good boss and that the clerkship will be a positive experience.

[Anonymous User]

Anon, I think we can all agree that a judge going to lunch with their clerks or inviting them to their home is not absolutely necessary for a good/great clerkship experience. But a judge doing those things and others (ex. lenient vacation policies) are certainly meaningful criteria for clerkship applicants. They indicate that a judge is a good boss and that the clerkship will be a positive experience.

Except that going to lunch regularly does not actually mean that those lunches will be pleasant.

[lavarman84]

Anon, I think we can all agree that a judge going to lunch with their clerks or inviting them to their home is not absolutely necessary for a good/great clerkship experience. But a judge doing those things and others (ex. lenient vacation policies) are certainly meaningful criteria for clerkship applicants. They indicate that a judge is a good boss and that the clerkship will be a positive experience.

Except that going to lunch regularly does not actually mean that those lunches will be pleasant.

That would be why I used the word "indicate" instead of "guarantee." Good luck dying on the hill of prospective clerks shouldn't care if their judge wants to socialize with them, be flexible on vacation time, and/or treat them like family.

[Anonymous User]

Anon, I think we can all agree that a judge going to lunch with their clerks or inviting them to their home is not absolutely necessary for a good/great clerkship experience. But a judge doing those things and others (ex. lenient vacation policies) are certainly meaningful criteria for clerkship applicants. They indicate that a judge is a good boss and that the clerkship will be a positive experience.

Except that going to lunch regularly does not actually mean that those lunches will be pleasant.

That would be why I used the word "indicate" instead of "guarantee." Good luck dying on the hill of prospective clerks shouldn't care if their judge wants to socialize with them, be flexible on vacation time, and/or treat them like family.

I'm also one of the first quoted posts, responding to the original post a ways back about Ikuta, which said that she was a terrible boss in part because she didn't take them out for meals, invite them over, or give them their birthday off. Those may be nice things for a judge to do, but they are objectively stupid reasons to call a judge a *bad* boss.

Then, this new post said "are there judges who don't often eat with their clerks and give them weeks/days off on request and stuff? that sounds awful." My point was that no, in fact, that's not awful, and doing those things doesn't make a judge a not-awful boss.

None of these things are the same as saying that prospective clerks shouldn't care about whatever they care about. (But also - where on earth are you all clerking that judges are giving weeks of vacation off?)

Finally, "like family"? Fuck that. It's a job. An unusual one that can lead to particularly close relationships, but no, clerks and judges are not family, and use of family as a metaphor for a job generally indicates an incredibly unhealthy work environment. I do not want to be treated like family and I actually find that expectation disturbing.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, those things are lovely and all, but they're not remotely required for collegiality or mentorship or a positive atmosphere in chambers, nor do they guarantee those things.

No, but this statement is illustrative of the rest of your post, which is, frankly, an unfair comparison on all fronts.

All of the questions about what chambers are like and how the judge operates don't stop at high-level questions like, "Does the judge provide feedback?" or "Do you eat lunch with the judge?" Obviously, research into what those things are actually like occurs (or should and can).

Your post essentially assumes the most extreme situations as convenient to illustrate your point that some things may or may not be material. No one is disputing that clerkship experiences lie on a spectrum. But if a candidate is able to find out that a judge, say, fosters a "going out to eat experience," that candidate can also figure out whether the judge is super awkward/rude, the other clerks tend to be unpleasant, etc.

Likewise, knowing that a judge gives feedback is just as unhelpful (but you don't seem to acknowledge that as clearly, if at all). Maybe the judge gives shitty feedback. Maybe the judge refuses to discuss the feedback. Maybe the judge is abusive in giving feedback. Maybe the judge makes you guess what he or she wants and so you waste your time writing something and getting feedback that would better have been given during the drafting process.

I'm not sure why you are so intent on challenging what seem to be completely uncontroversial propositions. A lot of people care about what the day-to-day experience is like. And if they care, they will (or at least can) do enough research to dig beneath the surface.

A prospective applicant may care more about a fun year and networking opportunities rather than learning a judge's writing style for any number of reasons, whether nonchalance toward the clerkship (which I would not say is a good thing, but whatever) to being more advanced in their career/having developed their own robust style. Or maybe they are the opposite: more inexperienced with writing and research and wanting to improve those things more than anything else.

I just don't see why you're projecting your own priorities onto everyone and asserting that the same hierarchy should apply universally.

In case you think this kind of mentorship/training is standard and so why not aim for the more social version - it's not.

That was how my clerkship was. But it was also very social. Por que no los dos?

Last thing - time off really isn't a thing in a term clerkship. If you get time off it's definitely days, not weeks.

That's flat-out wrong. We got both personal days and, if we asked for it in advance, a week or more off. Obviously we timed them appropriately. Often, our judge made us take time off if we had family stuff, holidays, etc.

You're not going to get your birthday off b/c jobs just don't do that. Lenient vacation policies as long as you get the work done is still not really a thing for a lot of judges, in part b/c in a lot of chambers it's not really feasible due to workload. You're only there for a year.

I'm assuming that you are not incredibly condescending and arrogant and therefore responding generically instead of to me, because I am pretty sure I know what working conditions in my own chambers were.

But, we did often have pretty long parties and lenient vacation policies. I guess we were efficient enough that we could manage those and our workload. -_ _-

So I mean certainly, the ideal is a judge who's a great legal mentor AND socializes charmingly with their clerks a lot AND is flexible about scheduling and generous with time off AND with whom everyone gets along. But I still don't think that means most of the social stuff is material to picking a good clerkship.

But others do and don't see the need to sacrifice one for the other.

Finally, "like family"? Fuck that. It's a job. An unusual one that can lead to particularly close relationships, but no, clerks and judges are not family, and use of family as a metaphor for a job generally indicates an incredibly unhealthy work environment. I do not want to be treated like family and I actually find that expectation disturbing.

We never viewed ourselves as a "family," but working with the same office of 5-6 people (and no one else pretty much every except during sittings) all day, every day for an entire year definitely involves more intimacy than most other jobs. The network of former clerks absolutely was quite close and viewed itself as a broader "family," and we are all committed to helping each other out and maintaining our connections. Unsurprisingly, the clerkship self-selects for people who want that. Quelle horreur.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, fair, you make some good points, and I know I was ranting so may have taken some of it too far. You’re right that applicants can/should do their due diligence about all these elements of a clerkship, based on what they prioritize. I thought it was a given in what I described as a positive that feedback etc was good/helpful feedback, but if that needs to be spelled out, you’re right, it can absolutely be done badly as well.

I still think, strongly, that calling a clerkship or judge “bad” because the judge doesn’t eat with their clerks, give them their birthday off, or have them over to their house is misguided. As for this:

A prospective applicant may care more about a fun year and networking opportunities rather than learning a judge's writing style for any number of reasons, whether nonchalance toward the clerkship (which I would not say is a good thing, but whatever) to being more advanced in their career/having developed their own robust style. Or maybe they are the opposite: more inexperienced with writing and research and wanting to improve those things more than anything else.

I want to clarify that getting good training about writing/research/analysis is more than learning one judge’s “writing style.” But you’re right that incoming clerks have different skills and if you’re talking about someone who’s already practiced for a number of years, sure, while I think everyone can always learn to improve on this stuff, the writing/research may not be as high a priority. I should probably have stated that I was operating on the assumption that the clerk was coming from law school with no practice experience, as that’s still the most common situation.

I just don't see why you're projecting your own priorities onto everyone and asserting that the same hierarchy should apply universally.

I do have a kind of negative reaction to approaching a clerkship as a “fun year” (I’m just snotty like that), in part because it suggests the kind of nonchalance you yourself called out. But this all began with me pushing back on what seemed be the assumption that a clerkship that isn’t a “fun year” under a very specific definition of fun is a “bad” clerkship, which in turn seemed to imposing its own universal hierarchy of values.

And I’ll be honest, some of this may be coming from my own position as someone who didn’t go to an elite school and for whom getting a federal clerkship was a pretty big deal and a pretty serious step in moving on to other opportunities that people from my school don’t frequently get. So that probably colors my attitude. (I’m pretty sure lavarman was in a similar situation so I’m not claiming everyone in that circumstance feels the same way, but it does affect how I feel.)

As for vacation time - no, I didn’t mean to tell you about your own experience. I’m surprised by it because it’s not consistent with the courts I’ve worked in, so I wouldn’t suggest that an applicant assume that’s the case, but obviously I’m wrong about the universality.

Finally, I agree that working in chambers is a much more intimate experience than most jobs. I think, though, that it’s entirely possible to have extremely close, warm, professional, lifelong relationships without casting that as a family. I’ve just worked in/seen too many places where “we’re like a family” is code for “therefore we expect you to put the family’s interests before your own without complaint and anything else is disloyalty” that I really really dislike using that term about any kind of workplace, even one as unusual as chambers. The judiciary is already difficult enough to police due to personal loyalties as it is.

[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.

Some clerkships are at least as busy as biglaw; no SDNY judge is going to give clerks weeks off on request absent something like a newborn. Doesn’t mean they’re bad bosses, but the variance of the bare minimum hours required to do the job across the country is huge. And relatively few have little enough work to allow weeks of vacation.

[Anonymous User]

I still think, strongly, that calling a clerkship or judge “bad” because the judge doesn’t eat with their clerks, give them their birthday off, or have them over to their house is misguided.

I agree, and I don't think we even necessarily disagree on much/anything. In case I was unclear, I was not trying to say that anything here was "good" or "bad." I think that except in extreme cases of "bad" (e.g., sexual harassment, screaming/physical abuse, etc.) pretty much everything is subjective.

I was just stressing that for some people, the social element and facetime with the judge is an important consideration based on what they want. (And I do think that's reasonable). It is also perfectly fine for a clerk to want more siloed/non-social chambers.

I want to clarify that getting good training about writing/research/analysis is more than learning one judge’s “writing style.” But you’re right that incoming clerks have different skills and if you’re talking about someone who’s already practiced for a number of years, sure, while I think everyone can always learn to improve on this stuff, the writing/research may not be as high a priority. I should probably have stated that I was operating on the assumption that the clerk was coming from law school with no practice experience, as that’s still the most common situation.

Agreed; I was just using that as an example.

I do have a kind of negative reaction to approaching a clerkship as a “fun year” (I’m just snotty like that), in part because it suggests the kind of nonchalance you yourself called out.

If you like legal research and writing, and like talking about it with the judge and your co-clerks, I'm not sure how having a collegial/collaborative chambers that also values high-quality output would not be fun. No nonchalance needed. Taking the work seriously doesn't mean that it is a joyless experience. Debating legal issues, perfecting the style of a dissent, and publishing high-profile/major orders/opinions that shape the law moving forward sounds like fun to me.

But this all began with me pushing back on what seemed be the assumption that a clerkship that isn’t a “fun year” under a very specific definition of fun is a “bad” clerkship, which in turn seemed to imposing its own universal hierarchy of values.

See above--I don't mean to suggest that not-fun clerkships are bad.

And I’ll be honest, some of this may be coming from my own position as someone who didn’t go to an elite school and for whom getting a federal clerkship was a pretty big deal and a pretty serious step in moving on to other opportunities that people from my school don’t frequently get. So that probably colors my attitude. (I’m pretty sure lavarman was in a similar situation so I’m not claiming everyone in that circumstance feels the same way, but it does affect how I feel.)

Totally fair.

Finally, I agree that working in chambers is a much more intimate experience than most jobs. I think, though, that it’s entirely possible to have extremely close, warm, professional, lifelong relationships without casting that as a family. I’ve just worked in/seen too many places where “we’re like a family” is code for “therefore we expect you to put the family’s interests before your own without complaint and anything else is disloyalty” that I really really dislike using that term about any kind of workplace, even one as unusual as chambers. The judiciary is already difficult enough to police due to personal loyalties as it is.

Agreed.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, I think we’re mostly agreeing. Just one last clarification:

I do have a kind of negative reaction to approaching a clerkship as a “fun year” (I’m just snotty like that), in part because it suggests the kind of nonchalance you yourself called out.

If you like legal research and writing, and like talking about it with the judge and your co-clerks, I'm not sure how having a collegial/collaborative chambers that also values high-quality output would not be fun. No nonchalance needed. Taking the work seriously doesn't mean that it is a joyless experience. Debating legal issues, perfecting the style of a dissent, and publishing high-profile/major orders/opinions that shape the law moving forward sounds like fun to me.

Oh, absolutely - it’s fun to me, too. I misunderstood and took “fun year” to mean the purely social stuff - going out for meals, going to the judge’s house, office parties and vacation, and maybe just not doing biglaw drudgery for a year. Wanting a “fun” year in the sense of getting to geek out about legal issues in a setting where everyone takes them seriously/is interested in doing good work and values collaboration in doing so is totally fair. (I guess I know too many people who wouldn’t call that fun!)

[lavarman84]

Finally, "like family"? Fuck that. It's a job. An unusual one that can lead to particularly close relationships, but no, clerks and judges are not family, and use of family as a metaphor for a job generally indicates an incredibly unhealthy work environment. I do not want to be treated like family and I actually find that expectation disturbing.

Speak for yourself on this one. My judge treated me (and my co-clerk) like family, and we remain close friends today.

Finally, I agree that working in chambers is a much more intimate experience than most jobs. I think, though, that it’s entirely possible to have extremely close, warm, professional, lifelong relationships without casting that as a family. I’ve just worked in/seen too many places where “we’re like a family” is code for “therefore we expect you to put the family’s interests before your own without complaint and anything else is disloyalty” that I really really dislike using that term about any kind of workplace, even one as unusual as chambers. The judiciary is already difficult enough to police due to personal loyalties as it is.

It feels like you're projecting your bad experiences onto others. We had a very healthy work environment, and there was never the expectation that our work would come before all else. Indeed, it was very much the opposite. My judge fully believed that one's family (of the blood variety) comes before work and was incredibly accommodating when people needed time off.

[Anonymous User]

Finally, "like family"? Fuck that. It's a job. An unusual one that can lead to particularly close relationships, but no, clerks and judges are not family, and use of family as a metaphor for a job generally indicates an incredibly unhealthy work environment. I do not want to be treated like family and I actually find that expectation disturbing.

Speak for yourself on this one. My judge treated me (and my co-clerk) like family, and we remain close friends today.

Finally, I agree that working in chambers is a much more intimate experience than most jobs. I think, though, that it’s entirely possible to have extremely close, warm, professional, lifelong relationships without casting that as a family. I’ve just worked in/seen too many places where “we’re like a family” is code for “therefore we expect you to put the family’s interests before your own without complaint and anything else is disloyalty” that I really really dislike using that term about any kind of workplace, even one as unusual as chambers. The judiciary is already difficult enough to police due to personal loyalties as it is.

It feels like you're projecting your bad experiences onto others. We had a very healthy work environment, and there was never the expectation that our work would come before all else. Indeed, it was very much the opposite. My judge fully believed that one's family (of the blood variety) comes before work and was incredibly accommodating when people needed time off.

Dude. I’m not making any comments about your judge who I’m sure was amazing. I’m objecting to using family as a metaphor for working relationships - of any kind, in any context - because this is well known as a red flag given how many employers use it as a justification for exploitation. I’m not saying you, personally, didn’t actually have a great relationship with your judge - just that use of the metaphor perpetuates a vision of labor that creates a lot of harm.

[Anonymous User]

Finally, "like family"? Fuck that. It's a job. An unusual one that can lead to particularly close relationships, but no, clerks and judges are not family, and use of family as a metaphor for a job generally indicates an incredibly unhealthy work environment. I do not want to be treated like family and I actually find that expectation disturbing.

Speak for yourself on this one. My judge treated me (and my co-clerk) like family, and we remain close friends today.

Finally, I agree that working in chambers is a much more intimate experience than most jobs. I think, though, that it’s entirely possible to have extremely close, warm, professional, lifelong relationships without casting that as a family. I’ve just worked in/seen too many places where “we’re like a family” is code for “therefore we expect you to put the family’s interests before your own without complaint and anything else is disloyalty” that I really really dislike using that term about any kind of workplace, even one as unusual as chambers. The judiciary is already difficult enough to police due to personal loyalties as it is.

It feels like you're projecting your bad experiences onto others. We had a very healthy work environment, and there was never the expectation that our work would come before all else. Indeed, it was very much the opposite. My judge fully believed that one's family (of the blood variety) comes before work and was incredibly accommodating when people needed time off.

Dude. I’m not making any comments about your judge who I’m sure was amazing. I’m objecting to using family as a metaphor for working relationships - of any kind, in any context - because this is well known as a red flag given how many employers use it as a justification for exploitation. I’m not saying you, personally, didn’t actually have a great relationship with your judge - just that use of the metaphor perpetuates a vision of labor that creates a lot of harm.

And he's telling you that he felt that he was treated as a family in the context of why that would appeal to certain clerk candidates. Not sure why your distaste for the metaphor has anything to do with that. We all recognize that clerkships are much different than typical jobs, so it makes sense that when someone says that their judge treated them like family, we can assume that it doesn't mean it was an abusive family lol

[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.

Not OP. This is perhaps a tangent, but I have literally never heard of a 9th circuit clerk getting "vacation," i.e., time off where they do not respond to emails. It is far more common to work from home or remotely, to see family or something, but you're still on the hook. The view, in my experience, is that you're only there for a year and can take vacation later. Frankly, there generally isn't much respect for the idea of a "weekend" either. Thus, "time off isn't a thing." Perhaps this commenter had an unusually lovely Judge, or perhaps my sphere of connections has had unusually bad luck.

[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.

Not OP. This is perhaps a tangent, but I have literally never heard of a 9th circuit clerk getting "vacation," i.e., time off where they do not respond to emails. It is far more common to work from home or remotely, to see family or something, but you're still on the hook. The view, in my experience, is that you're only there for a year and can take vacation later. Frankly, there generally isn't much respect for the idea of a "weekend" either. Thus, "time off isn't a thing." Perhaps this commenter had an unusually lovely Judge, or perhaps my sphere of connections has had unusually bad luck.

Also CA9 here: we were not expected to check email on the weekends and over Thanksgiving and Christmas (the judge shut chambers down from Christmas Eve to New Year's). But other than that week, we were strongly discouraged from taking time off, other than the occasional Friday to facilitate travel to an obligation like a wedding or graduation.

My district judge, in a busy urban district, had what I think was an appropriately different vacation policy: someone needed to be monitoring for emergency filings 365 days a year, but we divided "on call" responsibilities for weekends and holidays. Chambers did not shut down at Thanksgiving and Christmas except on the holidays themselves, but the judge did give us each a week of full vacation to use whenever we wanted (my co-clerk and I opted for back-to-back January weeks at the midpoint of the year to escape the freeze), and was pretty generous with giving Fridays off on request when things were light.

I considered both of these to be good "lifestyle clerkships" with sensible time off policies. Most clerks I knew planned vacations for immediately before and after their clerkships.

[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.

Not OP. This is perhaps a tangent, but I have literally never heard of a 9th circuit clerk getting "vacation," i.e., time off where they do not respond to emails. It is far more common to work from home or remotely, to see family or something, but you're still on the hook. The view, in my experience, is that you're only there for a year and can take vacation later. Frankly, there generally isn't much respect for the idea of a "weekend" either. Thus, "time off isn't a thing." Perhaps this commenter had an unusually lovely Judge, or perhaps my sphere of connections has had unusually bad luck.

Also CA9 here: we were not expected to check email on the weekends and over Thanksgiving and Christmas (the judge shut chambers down from Christmas Eve to New Year's). But other than that week, we were strongly discouraged from taking time off, other than the occasional Friday to facilitate travel to an obligation like a wedding or graduation.

My district judge, in a busy urban district, had what I think was an appropriately different vacation policy: someone needed to be monitoring for emergency filings 365 days a year, but we divided "on call" responsibilities for weekends and holidays. Chambers did not shut down at Thanksgiving and Christmas except on the holidays themselves, but the judge did give us each a week of full vacation to use whenever we wanted (my co-clerk and I opted for back-to-back January weeks at the midpoint of the year to escape the freeze), and was pretty generous with giving Fridays off on request when things were light.

I considered both of these to be good "lifestyle clerkships" with sensible time off policies. Most clerks I knew planned vacations for immediately before and after their clerkships.

Thirded as a 9th Cir clerk. No "vacation," and although we weren't expected to be in office on the weekend, we were responsible for responding to the Judge's emails as quickly as possible during the weekend. I.e., weekends were more of a light work-from-home day than a "day off."

I would hate for incoming clerks to expect a normal sort of job with boundaries and days off. It ordinarily really isn't. You may not get worked to the bone at every clerkship, but the idea of "me time" is pretty foreign to these Judges who were at the tippy-top of the profession before the bench. And, cynically, they can burn you out and move to the next batch of happy, shiny clerks without worrying too much about your mental health.

[Anonymous User]

Thirded as a 9th Cir clerk. No "vacation," and although we weren't expected to be in office on the weekend, we were responsible for responding to the Judge's emails as quickly as possible during the weekend. I.e., weekends were more of a light work-from-home day than a "day off."

I would hate for incoming clerks to expect a normal sort of job with boundaries and days off. It ordinarily really isn't. You may not get worked to the bone at every clerkship, but the idea of "me time" is pretty foreign to these Judges who were at the tippy-top of the profession before the bench. And, cynically, they can burn you out and move to the next batch of happy, shiny clerks without worrying too much about your mental health.

Second CA9 clerk/person you responded to. I am surprised to hear that two of you are expected to be in a work mentality on weekends. We were never bothered once on a weekend all year, and now I'm wondering whose experience is more normal on the circuit.

[lavarman84]

Thirded as a 9th Cir clerk. No "vacation," and although we weren't expected to be in office on the weekend, we were responsible for responding to the Judge's emails as quickly as possible during the weekend. I.e., weekends were more of a light work-from-home day than a "day off."

I would hate for incoming clerks to expect a normal sort of job with boundaries and days off. It ordinarily really isn't. You may not get worked to the bone at every clerkship, but the idea of "me time" is pretty foreign to these Judges who were at the tippy-top of the profession before the bench. And, cynically, they can burn you out and move to the next batch of happy, shiny clerks without worrying too much about your mental health.

I had a different experience clerking for a judge on a different circuit. As long as we could get our work done during the week, we didn't need to worry about weekend work or check ins (excepting traveling for an argument sitting). Additionally, while we didn't get a set number of vacation days, as long as there was someone available to be in the office, my judge was willing to let us take some vacation time.

But I agree that it is idiosyncratic, and people shouldn't expect judges to have a generous vacation policy or expect to not have to work on the weekend.

[Anonymous User]

Anon, I think we can all agree that a judge going to lunch with their clerks or inviting them to their home is not absolutely necessary for a good/great clerkship experience. But a judge doing those things and others (ex. lenient vacation policies) are certainly meaningful criteria for clerkship applicants. They indicate that a judge is a good boss and that the clerkship will be a positive experience.

Idk I’d expect to eat lunch with my judge multiple times throughout the year. It’s straight up weird for a judge to never eat with clerks. When there are like 5 people in your “office,” you should be eating together occasionally.

[Anonymous User]

Anon, I think we can all agree that a judge going to lunch with their clerks or inviting them to their home is not absolutely necessary for a good/great clerkship experience. But a judge doing those things and others (ex. lenient vacation policies) are certainly meaningful criteria for clerkship applicants. They indicate that a judge is a good boss and that the clerkship will be a positive experience.

Idk I’d expect to eat lunch with my judge multiple times throughout the year. It’s straight up weird for a judge to never eat with clerks. When there are like 5 people in your “office,” you should be eating together occasionally.

Maybe the judge doesn't eat lunch or prefers to work out during lunch hours

[Anonymous User]

Vacation time seems circuit-dependent. My circuit definitely did not trend toward the CA9 habits posted here.

Also, I am curious as to people’s experiences with lunch/facetime with judges. We ate lunch as a chambers together (with judge) everyday. And facetime was also extensive on a daily basis (open-door policy).

It’s wild to me that people would go for days, let alone weeks, without any meaningful or extended interaction with their judge.

But I guess clerkship experiences are varied indeed.

[lavarman84]

Vacation time seems circuit-dependent. My circuit definitely did not trend toward the CA9 habits posted here.

Also, I am curious as to people’s experiences with lunch/facetime with judges. We ate lunch as a chambers together (with judge) everyday. And facetime was also extensive on a daily basis (open-door policy).

It’s wild to me that people would go for days, let alone weeks, without any meaningful or extended interaction with their judge.

But I guess clerkship experiences are varied indeed.

Same.

[Anonymous User]

Vacation time seems circuit-dependent. My circuit definitely did not trend toward the CA9 habits posted here.

Also, I am curious as to people’s experiences with lunch/facetime with judges. We ate lunch as a chambers together (with judge) everyday. And facetime was also extensive on a daily basis (open-door policy).

It’s wild to me that people would go for days, let alone weeks, without any meaningful or extended interaction with their judge.

But I guess clerkship experiences are varied indeed.

Same.

One of the CA9 anons above, also same. Chambers lunch was an integral part of the day and the judge was huge on facetime and mentorship.

[Anonymous User]

Anon, I think we can all agree that a judge going to lunch with their clerks or inviting them to their home is not absolutely necessary for a good/great clerkship experience. But a judge doing those things and others (ex. lenient vacation policies) are certainly meaningful criteria for clerkship applicants. They indicate that a judge is a good boss and that the clerkship will be a positive experience.

Idk I’d expect to eat lunch with my judge multiple times throughout the year. It’s straight up weird for a judge to never eat with clerks. When there are like 5 people in your “office,” you should be eating together occasionally.

Maybe the judge doesn't eat lunch or prefers to work out during lunch hours

If the judge doesn’t eat lunch then the judge is a psychopath. And I’m yet to meet any human being who actually works out every day of the work week during lunch break, but hey, maybe some lunatic judge does it.

I clerked for a very anti-social COA judge. The clerks as a group maybe talked to him in person once every 3-4 days. Almost all communication was formal and written. And even he still had lunch with us like 2-3 times a month.

I also think people just need to stop being such wimps with their judges and just lay down some reasonable expectations. You guys do realize that after like 3-4 months into your typical term clerkship it’s pretty darn hard for a judge to find a decent replacement mid term to work for 8 months right? It’s a massive headache for a judge to go get a new clerk mid term. Clerks have more leverage than they realize.