Best and worst judges to clerk for Forum

[Anonymous User]

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.

I’ve mentioned this already, but for one judge, I don’t think we *ever* ate lunch together. But I spoke with them in person every day, was in their office talking about cases multiple times a week, and they had a completely open door policy, I could go in and speak with them at any time. They just had a personal quirk about not really eating lunch with other people (or at all, I honestly don’t know).

I realize people like to use eating lunch with clerks as a proxy for accessibility/being interested in their clerks etc but it’s really not that black and white. I also realize it’s very common to eat lunch with the judge so I realize my experience was less typical, just saying that eating lunch together isn’t literally required for a good experience. And it’s fair that never eating with clerks might be a sign of the judge’s lack of interest/clerks’ lack of access to the judge, but I think the issue is really how much interaction do clerks get with the judge and what is that interaction like, not literally whether it’s over a meal.

As for being wimps/laying down reasonable expectations - I’m confused about how that follows on your first paragraph? Are you saying a clerk should insist on eating lunch with their judge? How would that even look? Or are you talking about vacation time and other work expectations? If you weren’t at a clerkship where time off wasn’t really a thing, I don’t know what to tell you, but I’m really not sure how that would work. And while there are definitely judges who are abusive/unreasonable, I don’t think anyone’s even been talking about that. A judge expecting you to answer emails on the weekend doesn’t seem to rise to that level.

(Just to clarify my earlier data point, my “no time off” judge didn’t expect us to be on-call out of business hours or on the weekends, except if we were in trial, and was flexible about us leaving early every so often on a Friday for travel/long weekend, that kind of thing, so it certainly wasn’t a grind. We just didn’t really get time off in the sense of actual vacation, beyond federal holidays.)

[Anonymous User]

This discussion is silly; most of these differences can be explained by the basic fact that some courts are much, much busier than others. Not all good judges eat lunch with their clerks every day—e.g. I’m aware of only a couple of judges who do it on SDNY even though it’s common on the not-particularly-busy Second Circuit.

[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.

Current CA9 clerk. I think there is a base level of respect among the entire court that is very high. Even among ideological opponents, 99% of the face-to-face interactions between judges seem maximally courteous and well-intentioned. And while the liberals and conservatives might find each other's worldview and jurisprudence fundamentally flawed, this poses no barrier to productive and positive working relationships a la Scalia/RBG.

That said, I somewhat agree about the camps. It's not that judges don't respect anyone outside their ideological clique. It's that they somehow provoke jarring, out-of-proportion email diatribes, or spiteful "Respectfully..." dicta, that suggest an entrenched undercurrent of resentment.

[Anonymous User]

The ninth circuit is a joke. I've never seen bigger egos from judges including Supreme Court justices. Nor have I ever seen a more hard headed group of people. They care about what order their names are listed in an email. They refer to each other by full title instead of by first name, and the en banc voting is so politicized that people vote with their "friends" regardless of the merits. Regarding being hard headed, judges will defend their initial hunch no matter how much evidence contradicts it. - former clerk

[Anonymous User]

Adding to last poster, the ninth circuit doesn't even feed clerks to the Supreme Court compared to second circuit, dc circuit, eleventh, or sixth circuits. And hasn't for years. No reason to work a much larger docket with megalomaniacs if you can score a comparable clerkship in another circuit. Also the immigration case load is boring and sucks.

[lavarman84]

Adding to last poster, the ninth circuit doesn't even feed clerks to the Supreme Court compared to second circuit, dc circuit, eleventh, or sixth circuits. And hasn't for years. No reason to work a much larger docket with megalomaniacs if you can score a comparable clerkship in another circuit. Also the immigration case load is boring and sucks.

Unless you want to work and live on the West Coast.

[Anonymous User]

Former CA9 clerk here--I enjoyed clerking on a court with a lot of big personalities. Would I want to work with them every day, year after year? Probably not, but getting an inside view of judges' quirks and arguments was fascinating.

There are many other advantages to a CA9 clerkship. Traveling for sittings in can be a blast. And while yes, the immigration caseload is heavy, the CA9 docket has a great variety of cases. And because CA9 has a much heavier caseload than any other circuit, CA9 clerks will work on far more cases there than clerks elsewhere. Plus, even if you aren't going to end up practicing in the circuit, most of the CA9 cities are exciting places to live for a year, particularly for a young professional. It's harder to say the same about some of the other circuits.

Circuit elitism is dumb; a CA9 clerkship is not inherently "better" than a clerkship in other circuits. The quality of your experience depends much more on your judge than on the circuit you're clerking on. But this CA9 hate is oddly salty. I personally appreciated the quirks of the Ninth Circuit much more than they annoyed me.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have tea on Rawlinson? Is there any? Other than the whole senior status thing

[Anonymous User]

If by "big personalities" you mean dick heads, sure. Biggest dick heads of any circuit. To the poster above who said unless you want to work on the west coast true enough. I don't.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have tea on Rawlinson? Is there any? Other than the whole senior status thing

Tends to hire very late and looks for people with work experience. Most conservative Democrat on the court on criminal issues and the occasional social issue, liberal on everything else. She does not participate in the bench memo pool which means her clerks work long hours, they also do a lot of administrative tasks like making bench books. Her chambers is known to be slower than most with circulating opinions.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have tea on Rawlinson? Is there any? Other than the whole senior status thing

Tends to hire very late and looks for people with work experience. Most conservative Democrat on the court on criminal issues and the occasional social issue, liberal on everything else. She does not participate in the bench memo pool which means her clerks work long hours, they also do a lot of administrative tasks like making bench books. Her chambers is known to be slower than most with circulating opinions.

Any insight into how much of an in-person requirement she has? Is it 9-5, 5 days a week? Or can folks WFH with some regularity?

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have tea on Rawlinson? Is there any? Other than the whole senior status thing

Tends to hire very late and looks for people with work experience. Most conservative Democrat on the court on criminal issues and the occasional social issue, liberal on everything else. She does not participate in the bench memo pool which means her clerks work long hours, they also do a lot of administrative tasks like making bench books. Her chambers is known to be slower than most with circulating opinions.

She also publishes roughly only three or four opinions a year on average, so if you are looking for substantial writing experience or getting to have your work product in the F.4th, she may not be the best choice.

[Anonymous User]

LOL. What kind of clown cares about getting their opinion in F.4th?

[Anonymous User]

LOL. What kind of clown cares about getting their opinion in F.4th?

At least for me, having the primary pen on formal, precedential opinions was the highlight of my clerkship. I think most clerks would prefer the opportunity to write a couple opinions instead of just plugging away at memdispos and bench memos for a year.

[Anonymous User]

LOL. What kind of clown cares about getting their opinion in F.4th?

I don’t understand. What are clerks doing if not drafting opinions based on their bench memos? That’s all we did in my clerkship.

Are you joking? I can’t tell. Why wouldn’t you want to see your work product published in the reporter and subject to public scrutiny (and maybe even further judicial review)? That’s like the best part of the actual work.

[Anonymous User]

More info on the ninth circuits insufferable personalities - the widespread imposition of unpaid training (many judges do this for a whole week). Probably illegal. Very disrespectful. Another judge has in the chambers guidelines that clerks are not to leave the country for one week after the end of the clerkship. (Not enforceable and probably also raises a thirteenth amendment issue since judges are government officials and clerks aren't prisoners). No normal human beings behave this way on other circuits.

[Anonymous User]

I agree that the Ninth Circuit is the worst. It's not surprising Kosinski, a pervert and abusive boss thrived there for many years despite open knowledge of his behavior. It has hired a director of workplace relations which should put a stop to some of the more nonsensical practices like unpaid trainings. Judges who have this requirements should be reported and shamed. No reason for clerks to go to them unless they can't get any other clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

I agree that the Ninth Circuit is the worst. It's not surprising Kosinski, a pervert and abusive boss thrived there for many years despite open knowledge of his behavior. It has hired a director of workplace relations which should put a stop to some of the more nonsensical practices like unpaid trainings. Judges who have this requirements should be reported and shamed. No reason for clerks to go to them unless they can't get any other clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

I agree that the Ninth Circuit is the worst. It's not surprising Kosinski, a pervert and abusive boss thrived there for many years despite open knowledge of his behavior. It has hired a director of workplace relations which should put a stop to some of the more nonsensical practices like unpaid trainings. Judges who have this requirements should be reported and shamed. No reason for clerks to go to them unless they can't get any other clerkship.

I had never heard of unpaid training weeks during my CA9 clerkship (our chambers had no such thing; informally, the departing clerk often came in on the Monday after their clerkship ended to spend an unpaid hour talking to the new clerk about their docket, but this can also be accomplished by a transition memo written on paid time). I have no idea how widespread that practice is on CA9 or how many judges on other courts employ it.

[Anonymous User]

It's widespread. I know of at least five active judges who do it.

[Anonymous User]

It's widespread. I know of at least five active judges who do it.

[Anonymous User]

I agree that the Ninth Circuit is the worst. It's not surprising Kosinski, a pervert and abusive boss thrived there for many years despite open knowledge of his behavior. It has hired a director of workplace relations which should put a stop to some of the more nonsensical practices like unpaid trainings. Judges who have this requirements should be reported and shamed. No reason for clerks to go to them unless they can't get any other clerkship.

I had never heard of unpaid training weeks during my CA9 clerkship (our chambers had no such thing; informally, the departing clerk often came in on the Monday after their clerkship ended to spend an unpaid hour talking to the new clerk about their docket, but this can also be accomplished by a transition memo written on paid time). I have no idea how widespread that practice is on CA9 or how many judges on other courts employ it.

This is a common thing in district courts, though anecdotally it seems less so on the COA level. Also, are any of the complaints mentioned in this thread any less true for other circuits? There seem to be plenty of bad bosses on other courts, so I wonder if it's mostly the fact that there are 29 personalities to deal with rather than 6 or 11.

Getting back to the actual point of this thread, can people actually name specific judges (on CA9 or others) who are difficult instead of just circuits in general? Not that many people are in a position to cross 29+ COA judges off their lists.

[Anonymous User]

Wardlaw and Bea are outright assholes to their clerks. Source is that Bea unintentionally sent emails meant for his clerks and wardlaw clerks talk trash about her that is easily overheard.

[Anonymous User]

Wardlaw and Bea are outright assholes to their clerks. Source is that Bea unintentionally sent emails meant for his clerks and wardlaw clerks talk trash about her that is easily overheard.

Wardlaw has, on at least one occasion, sent an all-court email bashing her clerk.

[Anonymous User]

More info on the ninth circuits insufferable personalities - the widespread imposition of unpaid training (many judges do this for a whole week). Probably illegal. Very disrespectful. Another judge has in the chambers guidelines that clerks are not to leave the country for one week after the end of the clerkship. (Not enforceable and probably also raises a thirteenth amendment issue since judges are government officials and clerks aren't prisoners). No normal human beings behave this way on other circuits.

This has to be a troll post right? Boo hoo, you can't jet off to Europe the day your clerkship ends? Lot's of government jobs restrict foreign travel; even after leaving government employment and for much longer than a week. How on earth would that implicate the anti-slavery amendment?