Best and worst judges to clerk for Forum

[Anonymous User]

What are the best and worst judges to clerk for on EDPA? Just curious about any that are particularly well respected/known good to clerk for

[Anonymous User]

So….who’s got the dirt on why clerks are quitting in droves on Aileen Cannon?

[Anonymous User]

David Lat’s newsletter said Judge Aileen Canon had two law clerks quit in the last few months. What’s going on?

[Anonymous User]

David Lat’s newsletter said Judge Aileen Canon had two law clerks quit in the last few months. What’s going on?

[Anonymous User]

So….who’s got the dirt on why clerks are quitting in droves on Aileen Cannon?

[Anonymous User]

There's no new information in his post - the previous clerk who left was discussed on this very thread back in December, and the other clerk who left was pregnant and had family issues. And that was also discussed back then. Lat is very late in his post.

[Anonymous User]

This new post today is pretty explosive. Imagine how horrible of a supervisor you have to be to have multiple clerks not just quit but also trash you in the media. This just does not happen. Ever.

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/clerkin ... lerks-quit

[Anonymous User]

There's no new information in his post - the previous clerk who left was discussed on this very thread back in December, and the other clerk who left was pregnant and had family issues. And that was also discussed back then. Lat is very late in his post.

This comment aged poorly

Even considering David Lat’s long-standing ability to get clerks to talk, I’m surprised that he got something like this.

[Anonymous User]

There's no new information in his post - the previous clerk who left was discussed on this very thread back in December, and the other clerk who left was pregnant and had family issues. And that was also discussed back then. Lat is very late in his post.

This comment aged poorly

Even considering David Lat’s long-standing ability to get clerks to talk, I’m surprised that he got something like this.

Lat is the only industry commentator worth reading. It's almost comical how bad Above the Law has gotten. He's getting scoops like this while they're emailing me every day with the subject line "Trump's lawyers did WHAT?!?!"

[Anonymous User]

The Lat article is entirely wrong about there being some significant shift when the Trump cases began. It has always been an intense clerkship. If anything, the workload and management has gotten better as time has gone by.

[Anonymous User]

This new post today is pretty explosive. Imagine how horrible of a supervisor you have to be to have multiple clerks not just quit but also trash you in the media. This just does not happen. Ever.

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/clerkin ... lerks-quit

Sounds like the Cannon clerkship was entirely different before the Trump case. I wonder if it reverts to normalcy once that case is gone (however that plays out).

[Anonymous User]

This new post today is pretty explosive. Imagine how horrible of a supervisor you have to be to have multiple clerks not just quit but also trash you in the media. This just does not happen. Ever.

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/clerkin ... lerks-quit

This is so true. Cannon must have cultivated an environment so incredibly toxic that former clerks felt they had to quit and felt the need to tell the media about the toxic environment.

[Anonymous User]

What are the best and worst judges to clerk for on EDPA? Just curious about any that are particularly well respected/known good to clerk for

Heard from one of her former clerks to avoid Quiñones.

[Anonymous User]

What are the best and worst judges to clerk for on EDPA? Just curious about any that are particularly well respected/known good to clerk for

Heard from one of her former clerks to avoid Quiñones.

Have heard the opposite, also from a former clerk.

[Anonymous User]

Just gotta say the Advisory Opinions on the Lat reporting is wild. Scorching hot takes from Sarah Isgur like that clerks shouldn’t travel out of town on weekends, the Kozinski clerkship was a good deal, and lawyers should expect 80-100 hour weeks in both clerkships and private practice. I dunno, maybe this does show generational change because I worked for a well-known judge who’s also well-known for long hours, and had a good experience, and I still thought it was batshit. And one of these clerks who she was slamming as soft had a newborn and an explicit no-more-than-40-hours deal. I guess I was lucky my judge was apparently actually a lot more reasonable in expectations than some others out there?

[Anonymous User]

Just gotta say the Advisory Opinions on the Lat reporting is wild. Scorching hot takes from Sarah Isgur like that clerks shouldn’t travel out of town on weekends, the Kozinski clerkship was a good deal, and lawyers should expect 80-100 hour weeks in both clerkships and private practice. I dunno, maybe this does show generational change because I worked for a well-known judge who’s also well-known for long hours, and had a good experience, and I still thought it was batshit. And one of these clerks who she was slamming as soft had a newborn and an explicit no-more-than-40-hours deal. I guess I was lucky my judge was apparently actually a lot more reasonable in expectations than some others out there?

I think there is a middle ground here. Some newer lawyers do strike me as having unreasonable requirements. I do agree though that the idea that what Kozinski was doing was not straight up abuse through leveraging his connections to SCOTUS is beyond me. I was under the impression that the legal profession had learned a valuable lesson from Kozinski but I guess not. Nothing that guy did was justifiable. 104 hour a week in person requirement, sexual abuse, and just general unpleasantness is so far beyond the norm I can't even believe anyone doesn't immediately feel disgust when they think of him.

[Anonymous User]

Just gotta say the Advisory Opinions on the Lat reporting is wild. Scorching hot takes from Sarah Isgur like that clerks shouldn’t travel out of town on weekends, the Kozinski clerkship was a good deal, and lawyers should expect 80-100 hour weeks in both clerkships and private practice. I dunno, maybe this does show generational change because I worked for a well-known judge who’s also well-known for long hours, and had a good experience, and I still thought it was batshit. And one of these clerks who she was slamming as soft had a newborn and an explicit no-more-than-40-hours deal. I guess I was lucky my judge was apparently actually a lot more reasonable in expectations than some others out there?

Delete

[Anonymous User]

Just gotta say the Advisory Opinions on the Lat reporting is wild. Scorching hot takes from Sarah Isgur like that clerks shouldn’t travel out of town on weekends, the Kozinski clerkship was a good deal, and lawyers should expect 80-100 hour weeks in both clerkships and private practice. I dunno, maybe this does show generational change because I worked for a well-known judge who’s also well-known for long hours, and had a good experience, and I still thought it was batshit. And one of these clerks who she was slamming as soft had a newborn and an explicit no-more-than-40-hours deal. I guess I was lucky my judge was apparently actually a lot more reasonable in expectations than some others out there?

I'm too lazy to listen to the podcast, but the comments are equally wild. I can't really fault observations that if you want to work in certain jobs/make a certain amount of money/achieve certain goals in law (or whatever profession), you need to put in ridiculous hours - as a description of the way the world actually works, that's fair enough. But the idea that doing so is some kind of badge of honor and results in the best lawyers, and anyone who disagrees is just soft, is just stupid AF.

[Anonymous User]

Just gotta say the Advisory Opinions on the Lat reporting is wild. Scorching hot takes from Sarah Isgur like that clerks shouldn’t travel out of town on weekends, the Kozinski clerkship was a good deal, and lawyers should expect 80-100 hour weeks in both clerkships and private practice. I dunno, maybe this does show generational change because I worked for a well-known judge who’s also well-known for long hours, and had a good experience, and I still thought it was batshit. And one of these clerks who she was slamming as soft had a newborn and an explicit no-more-than-40-hours deal. I guess I was lucky my judge was apparently actually a lot more reasonable in expectations than some others out there?

I'm too lazy to listen to the podcast, but the comments are equally wild. I can't really fault observations that if you want to work in certain jobs/make a certain amount of money/achieve certain goals in law (or whatever profession), you need to put in ridiculous hours - as a description of the way the world actually works, that's fair enough. But the idea that doing so is some kind of badge of honor and results in the best lawyers, and anyone who disagrees is just soft, is just stupid AF.

No law clerk should ever put up with abuse, but some of the complaints in the Lat article are plain silly --not related to Cannon specifically. Coming in slightly early to the clerkship unpaid to get up to speed is hardly the end of the world nor uncommon, my old judge did it and I have never heard anyone ever complain. We all knew the deal 6 months in advance. And workload concerns are real, but like, the work has to get done. Assuming the judge isn't just wasting everyone's time with pointless make work, good answers to hard questions takes time.

[Anonymous User]

The asking clerks to start a week early while not getting paid is unfortunate, but not uncommon (especially among district judges - however, there are plenty of judges who do good work in busy districts without working their clerks 80-100 hours a week. When it reaches that point, I have a hard time believing that it’s due to “good answers to tough questions” and not just the judge micromanaging/wasting time/being indecisive.

Interesting article about a judge in CA2 (or maybe one of its district courts?) being a bad manager - anybody got guesses on who this is?

https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... 024-03-27/

[Anonymous User]

The asking clerks to start a week early while not getting paid is unfortunate, but not uncommon (especially among district judges - however, there are plenty of judges who do good work in busy districts without working their clerks 80-100 hours a week. When it reaches that point, I have a hard time believing that it’s due to “good answers to tough questions” and not just the judge micromanaging/wasting time/being indecisive.

Interesting article about a judge in CA2 (or maybe one of its district courts?) being a bad manager - anybody got guesses on who this is?

https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... 024-03-27/

I know a lot of district court judges that are people I would consider good bosses, that do excellent work, and are completely overwhelmed by the docket and their clerks work close to 90-100 hours a week. Just one trial can take up an inordinate amount of time and totally sidetrack an entire year or more.

[Anonymous User]

Just gotta say the Advisory Opinions on the Lat reporting is wild. Scorching hot takes from Sarah Isgur like that clerks shouldn’t travel out of town on weekends, the Kozinski clerkship was a good deal, and lawyers should expect 80-100 hour weeks in both clerkships and private practice. I dunno, maybe this does show generational change because I worked for a well-known judge who’s also well-known for long hours, and had a good experience, and I still thought it was batshit. And one of these clerks who she was slamming as soft had a newborn and an explicit no-more-than-40-hours deal. I guess I was lucky my judge was apparently actually a lot more reasonable in expectations than some others out there?

I'm too lazy to listen to the podcast, but the comments are equally wild. I can't really fault observations that if you want to work in certain jobs/make a certain amount of money/achieve certain goals in law (or whatever profession), you need to put in ridiculous hours - as a description of the way the world actually works, that's fair enough. But the idea that doing so is some kind of badge of honor and results in the best lawyers, and anyone who disagrees is just soft, is just stupid AF.

No law clerk should ever put up with abuse, but some of the complaints in the Lat article are plain silly --not related to Cannon specifically. Coming in slightly early to the clerkship unpaid to get up to speed is hardly the end of the world nor uncommon, my old judge did it and I have never heard anyone ever complain. We all knew the deal 6 months in advance. And workload concerns are real, but like, the work has to get done. Assuming the judge isn't just wasting everyone's time with pointless make work, good answers to hard questions takes time.

I wouldn't give any credence to her opinions, especially on private practice. She openly admits that her perspective is biased because she's mostly worked on campaigns and never held the same position for more than two years. Anyone who has worked on campaigns understands that there are no days off up until the election day, but as soon as the election is over, you'll have plenty of vacation time as you prepare for the next gig. That's simply not the case in private practice where attorneys need to figure out how to be most successful by both putting in the hours and establishing some form of worklife/balance. The belief that you can only become a managing partner by not taking vacations and work every weekend is simply untrue. While clerking presents a different situation given the limited time frame, the idea that you should never expect to take a weekend off is ludicrous. There are plenty of judges who allow their clerks to avoid weekend work, unless completely necessary. Don't be brainwashed into thinking that by accepting a clerkship, and the low pay that comes with it, you should have to sacrifice all of your free time for the entire term. It's simply not worth it and there are plenty of solid clerkships that won't make you work 80-100 hours/week.

[Anonymous User]

Just gotta say the Advisory Opinions on the Lat reporting is wild. Scorching hot takes from Sarah Isgur like that clerks shouldn’t travel out of town on weekends, the Kozinski clerkship was a good deal, and lawyers should expect 80-100 hour weeks in both clerkships and private practice. I dunno, maybe this does show generational change because I worked for a well-known judge who’s also well-known for long hours, and had a good experience, and I still thought it was batshit. And one of these clerks who she was slamming as soft had a newborn and an explicit no-more-than-40-hours deal. I guess I was lucky my judge was apparently actually a lot more reasonable in expectations than some others out there?

I'm too lazy to listen to the podcast, but the comments are equally wild. I can't really fault observations that if you want to work in certain jobs/make a certain amount of money/achieve certain goals in law (or whatever profession), you need to put in ridiculous hours - as a description of the way the world actually works, that's fair enough. But the idea that doing so is some kind of badge of honor and results in the best lawyers, and anyone who disagrees is just soft, is just stupid AF.

No law clerk should ever put up with abuse, but some of the complaints in the Lat article are plain silly --not related to Cannon specifically. Coming in slightly early to the clerkship unpaid to get up to speed is hardly the end of the world nor uncommon, my old judge did it and I have never heard anyone ever complain. We all knew the deal 6 months in advance. And workload concerns are real, but like, the work has to get done. Assuming the judge isn't just wasting everyone's time with pointless make work, good answers to hard questions takes time.

I get this, but I think there’s a lot of variation between judges that’s not just about the jurisdiction caseload. My clerkship was largely standard business hours while another judge in the same courthouse worked their clerks 7-7 during the week and they came in and worked on Saturdays (pre-pandemic, no working from home). It was notorious (and unnecessary).

So of course the workload has to get done, but there’s a lot that goes into defining workload. And it can be hard to know what you’re walking into as a new clerk.

I’d probably agree that realistically, a clerk should expect to have to work long hours and just be grateful if that doesn’t happen, but I’m also pretty sympathetic to people wanting to set boundaries and have a life outside of work, when workload can be a function of bad management.

(I’ll agree that I can’t get fired up about doing an unpaid week to start either, but unpaid work really grinds some people’s gears. It would bug me much more if the clerkship was a nightmare in other ways, though.)

[Anonymous User]

Just gotta say the Advisory Opinions on the Lat reporting is wild. Scorching hot takes from Sarah Isgur like that clerks shouldn’t travel out of town on weekends, the Kozinski clerkship was a good deal, and lawyers should expect 80-100 hour weeks in both clerkships and private practice. I dunno, maybe this does show generational change because I worked for a well-known judge who’s also well-known for long hours, and had a good experience, and I still thought it was batshit. And one of these clerks who she was slamming as soft had a newborn and an explicit no-more-than-40-hours deal. I guess I was lucky my judge was apparently actually a lot more reasonable in expectations than some others out there?

I think there is a middle ground here. Some newer lawyers do strike me as having unreasonable requirements. I do agree though that the idea that what Kozinski was doing was not straight up abuse through leveraging his connections to SCOTUS is beyond me. I was under the impression that the legal profession had learned a valuable lesson from Kozinski but I guess not. Nothing that guy did was justifiable. 104 hour a week in person requirement, sexual abuse, and just general unpleasantness is so far beyond the norm I can't even believe anyone doesn't immediately feel disgust when they think of him.

Have to imagine that her description of the Kozinski situation was colored by the fact that her husband clerked for Kozinski.

[Anonymous User]

The asking clerks to start a week early while not getting paid is unfortunate, but not uncommon (especially among district judges - however, there are plenty of judges who do good work in busy districts without working their clerks 80-100 hours a week. When it reaches that point, I have a hard time believing that it’s due to “good answers to tough questions” and not just the judge micromanaging/wasting time/being indecisive.

Interesting article about a judge in CA2 (or maybe one of its district courts?) being a bad manager - anybody got guesses on who this is?

https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... 024-03-27/

This is definitely about a district judge (the circuit courts do not have status conferences). I guess it could theoretically be Sullivan or Nathan, who sit as district judges to some extent, but this doesn’t sound like them at all. There are enough pretty tough clerkships on SDNY due to the high workload that it’s hard to guess who this could be about.

Some of the clerk’s complaints are pretty funny (accepting a gift of some jam? texting a lawyer socially? what?)