Federal Circuit Ct of Appeal Judge Clerkship in middle of nowhere vs Federal Magistrate Judge Clerk in city I want to wo Forum

[mjb447]

Yeah, as between the two, do the COA one. Pretty sure that "official" Judicial Conference policy is not to use the term "law clerk" for unpaid volunteers, but your judge will almost certainly be the one they check with.

[RedPurpleBlue]

To provide OP an alternative view: The bolded seems like a ridiculous overreaction to me and I would question a firm whose lawyers have such narrow views on work experience, especially if all other things are indeed equal (similar grades in particular).

Ok, while the bolded part of that other poster was a ridiculous overreaction, you're having a ridiculous overreaction imputing the entire firm for some lawyer's dumb ass views. Like, c'mon. Dingbats are everywhere.

That being said, go with the COA and list it as a clerkship, OP. Nobody is going to inquire further.

[objctnyrhnr]

Yeah, as between the two, do the COA one. Pretty sure that "official" Judicial Conference policy is not to use the term "law clerk" for unpaid volunteers, but your judge will almost certainly be the one they check with.

I like when somebody supports my position with a citation to some policy about which I had not previously been aware.

[cheaptilts]

Yeah, as between the two, do the COA one. Pretty sure that "official" Judicial Conference policy is not to use the term "law clerk" for unpaid volunteers, but your judge will almost certainly be the one they check with.

I like when somebody supports my position with a citation to some policy about which I had not previously been aware.

I’ve searched for this policy in the past after seeing it referenced on TLS and was unable to find it, even when seeeching AO guidance and Judicial Conference guidance. Link?

[FND]

Middle of nowhere makes me think El Dorado, Arkansas, which is the smallest town I can think of with a COA duty station. If I was stuck in El Dorado, Arkansas, I might blow my brains out. Anywhere else, just suck it up, buttercup. Take the COA.

[cjk2019]

Thanks everyone for the advice. Can anyone articulate why it is that a CoA clerkship is so much better than a magistrate? I ask because both Career Counseling, local partners and associates in my city's law firms, and other atty-recruiters that I know have advised me to take the magistrate clerkship position. Their reasoning: she's well-known and liked and the experience I'd gain doing practical, discovery-type work is more likely to translate over to what I'd be doing at a law firm, and I'd be able to meet most of the big-name attys in town working in her chambers. Conversely, the CoA Judge is hardly known at all by the people I spoke with, and I would be too far away to do any networking in my desired market.

[lavarman84]

Thanks everyone for the advice. Can anyone articulate why it is that a CoA clerkship is so much better than a magistrate? I ask because both Career Counseling, local partners and associates in my city's law firms, and other atty-recruiters that I know have advised me to take the magistrate clerkship position. Their reasoning: she's well-known and liked and the experience I'd gain doing practical, discovery-type work is more likely to translate over to what I'd be doing at a law firm, and I'd be able to meet most of the big-name attys in town working in her chambers. Conversely, the CoA Judge is hardly known at all by the people I spoke with, and I would be too far away to do any networking in my desired market.

They're right. But if you don't just want to work in your town, a COA clerkship carries far more weight. It's the sort of credential that carries weight just about anywhere. It's about the selectivity of it. But that's why I said I might take the MJ position if you had to make it clear that you were an unpaid volunteer.

[nixy]

A COA is more traditionally prestigious, because it's harder to get. Also some people get worked up over the difference between AIII, appointed for life, and AI, term positions. But if you're certain you want to work for a local firm in the mag judge town, and you really don't want to go elsewhere, I don;'t think the mag judge clerkship is a terrible idea.

[QContinuum]

A COA is more traditionally prestigious, because it's harder to get. Also some people get worked up over the difference between AIII, appointed for life, and AI, term positions. But if you're certain you want to work for a local firm in the mag judge town, and you really don't want to go elsewhere, I don;'t think the mag judge clerkship is a terrible idea.

nixy's right. I can see the benefit of doing the MJ clerkship if OP is dead-set on practicing in their local town and their target firms are often up in front of the MJ. The MJ clerkship could very well make the most sense for OP.

But as a general rule, and especially for BigLaw or other positions that a T14 grad traditionally targets, the COA clerkship carries far more weight.

Actually, this is kinda unrelated, perhaps, but I wonder why OP "struck out." OP mentioned being below median, sure, but plenty of below-median T14 grads land BigLaw. Was it terrible bidding, like bidding all D.C. or all CA or all V20? Was it bad interviewing? If the latter, OP needs to fix that urgently.

[cjk2019]

A COA is more traditionally prestigious, because it's harder to get. Also some people get worked up over the difference between AIII, appointed for life, and AI, term positions. But if you're certain you want to work for a local firm in the mag judge town, and you really don't want to go elsewhere, I don;'t think the mag judge clerkship is a terrible idea.

nixy's right. I can see the benefit of doing the MJ clerkship if OP is dead-set on practicing in their local town and their target firms are often up in front of the MJ. The MJ clerkship could very well make the most sense for OP.

But as a general rule, and especially for BigLaw or other positions that a T14 grad traditionally targets, the COA clerkship carries far more weight.

Actually, this is kinda unrelated, perhaps, but I wonder why OP "struck out." OP mentioned being below median, sure, but plenty of below-median T14 grads land BigLaw. Was it terrible bidding, like bidding all D.C. or all CA or all V20? Was it bad interviewing? If the latter, OP needs to fix that urgently.

Poor bidding (only bid my home state which had only a few big firms) and not a great interviewer. No LR, only secondary journal, and no prior work experience, I'm K-JD.

[AUSAorBust]

Yeah, as between the two, do the COA one. Pretty sure that "official" Judicial Conference policy is not to use the term "law clerk" for unpaid volunteers, but your judge will almost certainly be the one they check with.

I like when somebody supports my position with a citation to some policy about which I had not previously been aware.

I’ve searched for this policy in the past after seeing it referenced on TLS and was unable to find it, even when seeeching AO guidance and Judicial Conference guidance. Link?

It's found at Guide to Judiciary Policy, Volume 12: Human Resources, Chapter 5: Employment, Section 550.35(e) (1). That section states that "For chambers volunteers, in addition to the policies provided above . . . Duty titles may not include any derivation of the term 'law clerk.'" It's also not just a random HR rule--it was adopted by the judicial conference in 2014.

I don't have a direct link to the policy in the guide (can't find that chapter of the guide on google), but the link below is a link to the report of the judicial conference's proceedings on September 16, 2014, where they adopted the policy. On page 23, that report states that:

For chambers volunteers, in addition to the policies provided above:
(1) Duty titles may not include any derivation of the term “law clerk.”

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/ ... 4-09_0.pdf.

[objctnyrhnr]

Yeah, as between the two, do the COA one. Pretty sure that "official" Judicial Conference policy is not to use the term "law clerk" for unpaid volunteers, but your judge will almost certainly be the one they check with.

I like when somebody supports my position with a citation to some policy about which I had not previously been aware.

I’ve searched for this policy in the past after seeing it referenced on TLS and was unable to find it, even when seeeching AO guidance and Judicial Conference guidance. Link?

It's found at Guide to Judiciary Policy, Volume 12: Human Resources, Chapter 5: Employment, Section 550.35(e) (1). That section states that "For chambers volunteers, in addition to the policies provided above . . . Duty titles may not include any derivation of the term 'law clerk.'" It's also not just a random HR rule--it was adopted by the judicial conference in 2014.

I don't have a direct link to the policy in the guide (can't find that chapter of the guide on google), but the link below is a link to the report of the judicial conference's proceedings on September 16, 2014, where they adopted the policy. On page 23, that report states that:

For chambers volunteers, in addition to the policies provided above:
(1) Duty titles may not include any derivation of the term “law clerk.”

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/ ... 4-09_0.pdf.

Love how annoyed two posters got with me on this thread when I said as an interviewer I’d subtract points from OP if I learned the truth and he had referred to himself as a regular term judicial law clerk. Vaguely remember somebody calling me a dingbat...haha

Thanks for the reference, ausa or bust. It’s nice when your intuitions happen to have backing.

[nixy]

Still kind of bullshit, though.

[objctnyrhnr]

Still kind of bullshit, though.

For the record, in spite of my personal opinion to the contrary, im acknowledging that yours and one other poster’s conflicting opinions are very legitimate and I do see where you’re coming from (ie experience is the same and judge okayed it so who cares).

That said, though I don’t believe either response was from you, nixy, I think that the posters referring to me as a dingbat and to a lesser degree somebody saying I was overly prestige obsessed or whatever on the basis of my personal opinion on this subject were a bit out of bounds...especially now where we’ve learned that it happens to be grounded in actual article 3 policy.

That was my only point with my recent post, here.

[QContinuum]

It's found at Guide to Judiciary Policy, Volume 12: Human Resources, Chapter 5: Employment, Section 550.35(e) (1). That section states that "For chambers volunteers, in addition to the policies provided above . . . Duty titles may not include any derivation of the term 'law clerk.'" It's also not just a random HR rule--it was adopted by the judicial conference in 2014.

I don't have a direct link to the policy in the guide (can't find that chapter of the guide on google), but the link below is a link to the report of the judicial conference's proceedings on September 16, 2014, where they adopted the policy. On page 23, that report states that:

For chambers volunteers, in addition to the policies provided above:
(1) Duty titles may not include any derivation of the term “law clerk.”

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/ ... 4-09_0.pdf.

Love how annoyed two posters got with me on this thread when I said as an interviewer I’d subtract points from OP if I learned the truth and he had referred to himself as a regular term judicial law clerk. Vaguely remember somebody calling me a dingbat...haha

Thanks for the reference, ausa or bust. It’s nice when your intuitions happen to have backing.

Thanks, AUSAorBust, for providing the above reference. In view of this, I'm changing my view. OP should comply with the policy and refrain from calling themselves a law clerk.

That said, the substance of my previous advice ITT stands. Do the MJ gig if dead-set on practicing locally for firms that value the position. Do the COA gig if unsure.

[Auxilio]

Middle of nowhere makes me think El Dorado, Arkansas, which is the smallest town I can think of with a COA duty station. If I was stuck in El Dorado, Arkansas, I might blow my brains out. Anywhere else, just suck it up, buttercup. Take the COA.

The worst place to be a CoA clerk is obviously in Fairbanks for Kleinfeld. I don't even get how it's close.

[cheaptilts]

Thanks! That was exactly what I was looking for.

OP, that policy isn’t binding. Again, you should always go with what your judge requires/allows.

If the judge considers you her law clerk, you’re her law clerk. Full stop

[nixy]

Middle of nowhere makes me think El Dorado, Arkansas, which is the smallest town I can think of with a COA duty station. If I was stuck in El Dorado, Arkansas, I might blow my brains out. Anywhere else, just suck it up, buttercup. Take the COA.

The worst place to be a CoA clerk is obviously in Fairbanks for Kleinfeld. I don't even get how it's close.

See, I think a year in Alaska - even Fairbanks - would be utterly fascinating. Wouldn’t want to move there for life, at all, but one year would be an adventure.

[lavarman84]

Middle of nowhere makes me think El Dorado, Arkansas, which is the smallest town I can think of with a COA duty station. If I was stuck in El Dorado, Arkansas, I might blow my brains out. Anywhere else, just suck it up, buttercup. Take the COA.

The worst place to be a CoA clerk is obviously in Fairbanks for Kleinfeld. I don't even get how it's close.

See, I think a year in Alaska - even Fairbanks - would be utterly fascinating. Wouldn’t want to move there for life, at all, but one year would be an adventure.

I think it's more the Kleinfeld part that makes it not fun.

[nixy]

Oh that’s fair. I don’t know anything about him/her, just since they were talking about flyover I assumed it was the location. El Dorado with a good judge would be a much better experience than a cool location with a bad judge. (There were clerks in my courthouse who worked at least 7-7 M-Sat and were rumored to have to agree to get all their medical etc appointments done before starting - admittedly they were also rumored to really like their judge and have a good experience, but it didn’t really matter whether they were in flyover land or, say, Vegas since they had no time to explore it anyway). (I say flyover with respect and affection, I clerked in what most people would call flyover country.)

[lavarman84]

Oh that’s fair. I don’t know anything about him/her, just since they were talking about flyover I assumed it was the location. El Dorado with a good judge would be a much better experience than a cool location with a bad judge. (There were clerks in my courthouse who worked at least 7-7 M-Sat and were rumored to have to agree to get all their medical etc appointments done before starting - admittedly they were also rumored to really like their judge and have a good experience, but it didn’t really matter whether they were in flyover land or, say, Vegas since they had no time to explore it anyway). (I say flyover with respect and affection, I clerked in what most people would call flyover country.)

Eh, I think the point there was that Fairbanks is an isolated place with weather and conditions that could be a struggle for a lot of people, and then you top it off with Kleinfeld. I'm sure some people would consider it an adventure, but being in an isolated place with a judge who has an interesting reputation would be tough imo.(not alleging that you're saying any different, just clarifying)

[lavarman84]

Still kind of bullshit, though.

For the record, in spite of my personal opinion to the contrary, im acknowledging that yours and one other poster’s conflicting opinions are very legitimate and I do see where you’re coming from (ie experience is the same and judge okayed it so who cares).

That said, though I don’t believe either response was from you, nixy, I think that the posters referring to me as a dingbat and to a lesser degree somebody saying I was overly prestige obsessed or whatever on the basis of my personal opinion on this subject were a bit out of bounds...especially now where we’ve learned that it happens to be grounded in actual article 3 policy.

That was my only point with my recent post, here.

Whoa there, fella.

I didn't make that comment because you were citing a policy or claiming that you felt it was dishonest. The vibe I got from your post (with regard to the ding the person on the spot and the comment about it being an asterisked clerkship) was that you would be bothered because you don't consider it a legitimate COA clerkship. I wasn't annoyed with you. I was just surprised that it was that much of a deal-breaker.

Frankly, I already knew about the policy. It has been discussed on here in the past. But the policy isn't binding on a judge. The judge can do whatever he wants. And if OP has the judge's backing, he hasn't done anything dishonest in my book.
(And I agree the dingbat comment was out of bounds)

[Anonymous User]

Oh that’s fair. I don’t know anything about him/her, just since they were talking about flyover I assumed it was the location. El Dorado with a good judge would be a much better experience than a cool location with a bad judge. (There were clerks in my courthouse who worked at least 7-7 M-Sat and were rumored to have to agree to get all their medical etc appointments done before starting - admittedly they were also rumored to really like their judge and have a good experience, but it didn’t really matter whether they were in flyover land or, say, Vegas since they had no time to explore it anyway). (I say flyover with respect and affection, I clerked in what most people would call flyover country.)

Eh, I think the point there was that Fairbanks is an isolated place with weather and conditions that could be a struggle for a lot of people, and then you top it off with Kleinfeld. I'm sure some people would consider it an adventure, but being in an isolated place with a judge who has an interesting reputation would be tough imo.(not alleging that you're saying any different, just clarifying)

I'm genuinely curious. What is Kleinfeld's rep? I think I've heard that he has an unusual interview process, at least.

[QContinuum]

Thanks! That was exactly what I was looking for.

OP, that policy isn’t binding. Again, you should always go with what your judge requires/allows.

If the judge considers you her law clerk, you’re her law clerk. Full stop

Dumb question but why is the policy not "binding"? I thought only SCOTUS Justices were exempt from Judicial Conference rules.

Of course as a practical matter life-tenured federal judges are effectively untouchable, but there's obviously a difference between whether a policy is legally binding and whether violations have any practical consequences. Further, even if the policy doesn't bind judges, doesn't it still bind clerks (including unpaid ones)?