Best and worst judges to clerk for Forum

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces? Any info about judges, selectivity, post-clerkship options, etc. would be appreciated.

[Anonymous User]

Former CA3 clerk happy to take questions.

Thoughts on Ambro, Chagares, Krause, Shwartz, or Hardiman?

Ambro — Among the best judges on CA3. Smart, thoughtful, and seemed to treat his clerks well. Only had positive interactions with him. Good hours. Well-respected on the circuit. But you have to live in Wilmington, which as I can attest from spending a year of my life there, is pretty terrible (though you can "reverse commute" from Philly, which I heard was better).

Chagares — Consummate nice guy. Seems like a chill boss. Dubya appointee, but not an ideologue, and not really a textualist and definitely not originalist. I'm not sure how you much he mentors clerks, as his work seems clerk-driven. You have to work in Newark, which is also not great, though many commute from NYC.

Hardiman — Again, seems like a nice guy and good boss. Clerks seemed pretty happy. He goes running with them. On the more conservative end, but nothing extreme like you'd see on CA5. Good mentorship. I guess his chances at SCOTUS are over, but he did feed one or two clerks. Recommended if you're okay with being in Pittsburgh for a year.

Shwartz — Works her clerks pretty hard. Imposes strict deadlines that no one else on the Circuit really follows (or understands). Not a great writer. I'm not too sure how she is on the mentorship front. Her clerks seemed pretty committed liberals, so maybe that's something she screens for, and she has written some big opinions in recent years. Again, be mindful of working in Newark, which is a bummer.

Krause — The only ones of these five that I would not recommend to anyone. Clerks work ABSURD hours. Biglaw equivalent, if not more (I was at a NYC V5 before coming to the circuit, and even I found her expectations extreme). Trust me, there really isn't enough work on CA3 to justify those hours. Almost every other chambers manages to work FAR less, and things run just fine or even better (i.e., those that produce arguably better work product, like Ambro and Bibas, work their clerks less). Indeed, I'm not really sure what her clerks are doing all those hours. Even more importantly, she can be very abrasive with her clerks, e.g. ridiculing them in front of each other. Very unpleasant and toxic environment. But she is diligent and thoughtful, and she is nice to others. Still, I would not recommend this clerkship (one of the few on CA3 to avoid, IMO). Indeed, from what I heard through the grapevine at my LS, she has had multiple clerks quit on her (which is very, very rare).

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces? Any info about judges, selectivity, post-clerkship options, etc. would be appreciated.

Did not clerk on CAAF, but Ryan is developing a glowing, national reputation, especially in FedSoc circles. And she is becoming a semi-feeder.

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces? Any info about judges, selectivity, post-clerkship options, etc. would be appreciated.

Did not clerk on CAAF, but Ryan is developing a glowing, national reputation, especially in FedSoc circles. And she is becoming a semi-feeder.

This is an exaggeration (she's only prominent in that she's slightly less obscure than other CAAF judges and idk if she's even fed one clerk) and her term expires in 2021 anyway.

[Anonymous User]

Former CA3 clerk happy to take questions.

Thoughts on Ambro, Chagares, Krause, Shwartz, or Hardiman?

Ambro — Among the best judges on CA3. Smart, thoughtful, and seemed to treat his clerks well. Only had positive interactions with him. Good hours. Well-respected on the circuit. But you have to live in Wilmington, which as I can attest from spending a year of my life there, is pretty terrible (though you can "reverse commute" from Philly, which I heard was better).

Chagares — Consummate nice guy. Seems like a chill boss. Dubya appointee, but not an ideologue, and not really a textualist and definitely not originalist. Largely goes with the pack; not a big en banc pusher. I'm not sure how you much he mentors clerks, as his work seems clerk-driven. You have to work in Newark, which is also not great, though many commute from NYC.

Hardiman — Again, seems like a nice guy and good boss. Clerks seemed pretty happy. He goes running with them. On the more conservative end, but nothing extreme like you'd see on CA5. Good mentorship. I guess his chances at SCOTUS are over, but he did feed one or two clerks. Recommended if you're okay with being in Pittsburgh for a year.

Shwartz — Works her clerks pretty hard. Imposes strict deadlines that no one else on the Circuit really follows (or understands). Not a great writer. I'm not too sure how she is on the mentorship front. Her clerks seemed pretty committed liberals, so maybe that's something she screens for, and she has written some big opinions in recent years. Again, be mindful of working in Newark, which is a bummer.

Krause — The only ones of these five that I would not recommend to anyone. Clerks work ABSURD hours. Biglaw equivalent, if not more (I was at a NYC V5 before coming to the circuit, and even I found her expectations extreme). Trust me, there really isn't enough work on CA3 to justify those hours. Almost every other chambers manages to work FAR less, and things run just fine or even better (i.e., those that produce arguably better work product, like Ambro and Bibas, work their clerks less). Indeed, I'm not really sure what her clerks are doing all those hours. Even more importantly, she can be very abrasive with her clerks, e.g. ridiculing them in front of each other. Very unpleasant and toxic environment. But she is diligent and thoughtful, and she is nice to others. Still, I would not recommend this clerkship (one of the few on CA3 to avoid, IMO). Indeed, from what I heard through the grapevine at my LS, she has had multiple clerks quit on her (which is very, very rare).

This description of Krause seems much more extreme than other thoughts on her in the CA3 thread, though maybe she's gotten worse.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

Judge Scudder on CA7 is lovely. He's not an ideologue at all (Illinois judicial nominees are selected by a screening committee, not the White House), he's very smart and accomplished, he puts great value on public service, and he's incredibly nice and down to earth.

[loslakers]

Former CA3 clerk happy to take questions.

Thoughts on Ambro, Chagares, Krause, Shwartz, or Hardiman?

Ambro — Among the best judges on CA3. Smart, thoughtful, and seemed to treat his clerks well. Only had positive interactions with him. Good hours. Well-respected on the circuit. But you have to live in Wilmington, which as I can attest from spending a year of my life there, is pretty terrible (though you can "reverse commute" from Philly, which I heard was better).

Chagares — Consummate nice guy. Seems like a chill boss. Dubya appointee, but not an ideologue, and not really a textualist and definitely not originalist. Largely goes with the pack; not a big en banc pusher. I'm not sure how you much he mentors clerks, as his work seems clerk-driven. You have to work in Newark, which is also not great, though many commute from NYC.

Hardiman — Again, seems like a nice guy and good boss. Clerks seemed pretty happy. He goes running with them. On the more conservative end, but nothing extreme like you'd see on CA5. Good mentorship. I guess his chances at SCOTUS are over, but he did feed one or two clerks. Recommended if you're okay with being in Pittsburgh for a year.

Shwartz — Works her clerks pretty hard. Imposes strict deadlines that no one else on the Circuit really follows (or understands). Not a great writer. I'm not too sure how she is on the mentorship front. Her clerks seemed pretty committed liberals, so maybe that's something she screens for, and she has written some big opinions in recent years. Again, be mindful of working in Newark, which is a bummer.

Krause — The only ones of these five that I would not recommend to anyone. Clerks work ABSURD hours. Biglaw equivalent, if not more (I was at a NYC V5 before coming to the circuit, and even I found her expectations extreme). Trust me, there really isn't enough work on CA3 to justify those hours. Almost every other chambers manages to work FAR less, and things run just fine or even better (i.e., those that produce arguably better work product, like Ambro and Bibas, work their clerks less). Indeed, I'm not really sure what her clerks are doing all those hours. Even more importantly, she can be very abrasive with her clerks, e.g. ridiculing them in front of each other. Very unpleasant and toxic environment. But she is diligent and thoughtful, and she is nice to others. Still, I would not recommend this clerkship (one of the few on CA3 to avoid, IMO). Indeed, from what I heard through the grapevine at my LS, she has had multiple clerks quit on her (which is very, very rare).

Any particular reason you have this opinion of Shwartz? I'm genuinely curious. I googled a couple of her opinions and neither seemed particularly poor.

[Anonymous User]

Any information on 9th cir judges in socal (LA, Pasadena, SD)? Especially interested in SD since haven't seen much info there.

+1 for non-feeder 9th judges that aren't mentioned often (Nguyen, Owens, Hawkins etc.)

Also I don't want to turn this into a chances thread but I haven't got the straight dope from OCS on my competitiveness for 2/9/DC (which may not portend well but idk); with 11H 4P at HLS + HLR and three strong recs from non-famous profs, is applying to semifeeders like Friedland, Kearse, Pillard etc. worthwhile or (as I suspect) am I just a few Ps too many?

I've heard very positive things from clerks for Nguyen and Owens, and both of them seem like very nice people

Former Hawkins clerk here. Great clerkship and the Judge is unbelievably kind, but my understanding is that he is transitioning or has already transitioned to career clerks only. Assuming i'm wrong and he's still accepting applications for term clerks, definitely worth applying to if you're considering it.

[Anonymous User]

Former CA3 clerk happy to take questions.

Phipps, Porter, Fisher, Rendell?

[Anonymous User]

Former CA3 clerk happy to take questions.

Phipps, Porter, Fisher, Rendell?

Don't know much about these four, unfortunately. Phipps and Porter are both new and neither was on the bench when I was there. I would pay attention to any majority opinions these two issue to get a better sense of them. And watch if they dissent in en bancs — that could give you an idea of their philosophy and willingness to buck the trend. Fisher seems like a good boss and thoughtful judge, but because he's senior and not super active, we never crossed paths. Again, geography matters, and I imagine it's a good clerkship if you are okay with being in Pittsburgh. The same is true of Rendell. I've heard good things about her, but as a senior, she's less active with court-wide stuff. I think her caseload is higher than that of Fisher, though. Everyone on the court seems to like her. And she's in Philly. Both Fisher and Rendell are probably well-connected to the PA legal market.

As to the above questions, I don't think I will answer at the risk of outing. Sorry about that.

[Anonymous User]

Former CA3 clerk happy to take questions.

Thoughts on Smith?

[Anonymous User]

Former CA3 clerk happy to take questions.

Thoughts on Smith?

Super kind to all and seems like a great mentor to his clerks. I think most everyone really likes Smith. Clerking for the Chief Judge may also be cool in that you have a unique vantage point over the circuit and are always presiding, so you can always assign opinions, including in en bancs. He is also a law nerd in a way some may not expect, and has written some interesting civ pro decisions (if you're into that kinda thing). Biggest downside: you have to live in the middle of nowhere (Altoona, PA). That also means there are no other CA3 clerks in your building, and you will interact with other clerks only during sittings (which are often very busy and you don't get much free time anyway).

P.S. Sorry if these blurbs are repetitive. As you can tell, most CA3 judges are good judges, care about their clerks, and provide mentorship. CA3 also prides itself on collegiality, so judges are generally very polite to each other and the clerks they encounter. Bad apples like Sloviter are now long gone. For more details on these judges, you should reach out to their former clerks and other CA3 clerks that did not clerk for them (the latter will be more willing to dish). There is only so much that can be said on a public forum.

[Anonymous User]

Any information on 9th cir judges in socal (LA, Pasadena, SD)? Especially interested in SD since haven't seen much info there.

+1 for non-feeder 9th judges that aren't mentioned often (Nguyen, Owens, Hawkins etc.)

Also I don't want to turn this into a chances thread but I haven't got the straight dope from OCS on my competitiveness for 2/9/DC (which may not portend well but idk); with 11H 4P at HLS + HLR and three strong recs from non-famous profs, is applying to semifeeders like Friedland, Kearse, Pillard etc. worthwhile or (as I suspect) am I just a few Ps too many?

I've heard very positive things from clerks for Nguyen and Owens, and both of them seem like very nice people

Former Hawkins clerk here. Great clerkship and the Judge is unbelievably kind, but my understanding is that he is transitioning or has already transitioned to career clerks only. Assuming i'm wrong and he's still accepting applications for term clerks, definitely worth applying to if you're considering it.

What's about Hurwitz, Murguia, Schroeder?

[Anonymous User]

I posted some thoughts on Hurwitz in another thread -- my anecdotal observation was that he can be kind of a jerk to litigants, but I've heard nothing but positive from former clerks. The impression I have is he goes to bat for clerks and really cares about their experience, which alone is an above-median approach.

No great insight on Murguia. Externally, she seems very nice. We had a sitting with her and I found her careful and thoughtful on the law, but also somewhat clerk-reliant. For all that was said about Wardlaw upthread, I was always sure that her views on the law were her own. If I recall correctly, Murguia will be taking over as Chief once Judge Thomas's rotation is up in 2021. That may mean a different clerk experience -- Thomas has taken five clerks rather than four during his term as chief, though presumably you could get an extra JA or career clerk instead -- and presumably more work. Just something to consider and maybe ask about in the interview.

Had zero contact with Schroeder or any former clerks, but she has an amazing story.

[Anonymous User]

FWIW, I hear from her former clerks that Schroeder is a great boss (she officiates marriages for former clerks, etc., and stays in their lives), and that she hires mostly (or maybe even exclusively? not sure) on recommendations from professors that she knows.

[Anonymous User]

Here are the Ninth Circuit judges I would apply to in Pasadena and San Diego:

McKeown, Wardlaw (some people in this thread have had negative things to say, but I've also heard very positive views from some of her clerks), Paez, M. Smith, Nguyen, Watford, Owens, and Lee. It is too early to say about Bumatay, but I've heard early positive rumblings about him.

Any thoughts/info on the senior judges by any chance? A few seem to be very active still

I am one of the anons who had negative things to say about Wardlaw earlier in this thread. I will add that I never heard a Wardlaw clerk speak negatively of her or of their clerkship experience. My impression of Wardlaw comes only from the fact that, in other chambers on the circuit, she and her chambers are perceived as unnecessarily difficult to work with at times.

It’s possible Wardlaw is similar to the many district judges across the country who are disliked by litigants for their temperament on the bench, but in chambers are actually excellent bosses and mentors.

I have directly heard former Wardlaw clerks speak very negatively about their experience in the clerkship with her, so the negative impressions of her are not based on the perceptions of litigants.

[Anonymous User]

Here are the Ninth Circuit judges I would apply to in Pasadena and San Diego:

McKeown, Wardlaw (some people in this thread have had negative things to say, but I've also heard very positive views from some of her clerks), Paez, M. Smith, Nguyen, Watford, Owens, and Lee. It is too early to say about Bumatay, but I've heard early positive rumblings about him.

I haven't heard anything about the clerkship experience itself, but I've heard from a reliably positioned source that Bumatay is a difficult, very substantive interviewer.

[Wild Card]

DJs are anxious about ending up on the 6 month list. Is that a good measure of who are the good and bad judges in a district?

For instance, virtually every judge will have 3-12, but one or two will have 50-100. Are those, not necessarily he worst bosses, but the ones with the worst reputations?

[Anonymous User]

DJs are anxious about ending up on the 6 month list. Is that a good measure of who are the good and bad judges in a district?

For instance, virtually every judge will have 3-12, but one or two will have 50-100. Are those, not necessarily he worst bosses, but the ones with the worst reputations?

I'm a DC applicant with no idea what this means. Can you explain it for those of us who don't know the inside baseball as well? Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

I posted some thoughts on Hurwitz in another thread -- my anecdotal observation was that he can be kind of a jerk to litigants, but I've heard nothing but positive from former clerks. The impression I have is he goes to bat for clerks and really cares about their experience, which alone is an above-median approach.

No great insight on Murguia. Externally, she seems very nice. We had a sitting with her and I found her careful and thoughtful on the law, but also somewhat clerk-reliant. For all that was said about Wardlaw upthread, I was always sure that her views on the law were her own. If I recall correctly, Murguia will be taking over as Chief once Judge Thomas's rotation is up in 2021. That may mean a different clerk experience -- Thomas has taken five clerks rather than four during his term as chief, though presumably you could get an extra JA or career clerk instead -- and presumably more work. Just something to consider and maybe ask about in the interview.

Had zero contact with Schroeder or any former clerks, but she has an amazing story.

Murguia is next in line to be chief. It's not clear whether clerking for the chief judge is more or less work. While the chief is on all en bancs, and has significant administrative responsibilities, he/she also has a reduced caseload compared to the other active judges.

[wwwcol]

DJs are anxious about ending up on the 6 month list. Is that a good measure of who are the good and bad judges in a district?

For instance, virtually every judge will have 3-12, but one or two will have 50-100. Are those, not necessarily he worst bosses, but the ones with the worst reputations?

Yes, lots of motions on the 6 month list is a huge red flag IMO. Not a handful of motions, especially in busy or understaffed districts, but like 20+. Litigants hate these judges because they sit on motions forever, which really drives up the cost of litigation (eg imagine going through discovery only to have the judge grant a defendants motion to dismiss two years into the litigation).

I think the reasons for why the 6month list grow so long vary, but many (most) reflect poorly on the workplace. Eg I know of a few judges who suffered crippling inability to make decisions and would have their clerks rewrite decisions 5-6 times over the course of months. In another case the judge only looked at his civil docket on Tuesdays thru Thursdays from 9am til noon (which sounds like the beginning of a weird joke).

[Anonymous User]

Current District Court clerk here:

FYSA, Congress passed a law called the "Civil Justice Reform Act" which requires District Court Judges to report (1) all motions which have been "ripe" (which happens when they are either fully briefed or 30 days after filing) for 6 months (2) civil cases that have been pending for 3+ years, and (3) bench trials pending more than 6 months.

The report is run every March 31 and September 30. So, in February and March, there is lot of work getting motions that were filed in August/September done, so those motions don't end up on the six month list.

This is a more valid measure, IMO, because chambers can control when they rule on the motion. My DJ would never let a motion end up on the 6 month list, and we are in one of the fastest, busiest districts of the country. To me, there isnt really a reason to have any motions on the 6 month report, but I wouldn't be concerned as long as the number is less than 10 or 20 - who knows, maybe they had a big class action or MDL or something that ate up their time.

For cases pending more than 3 years, it can really be the fault of the litigants (lots of nasty discovery disputes) or it can be the judge's fault, i.e. not moving the case along, pushing deadlines, etc. These can be big class actions, habeas petitions, anything with a lot of discovery.

My judge would never sit on a bench trial for more than 6 months, so that has honestly never come up.

In conclusion, the 6 month list for motions is probably more of an excluding criteria - build your list of judges and then scratch off anyone with a bajillion pending motions as running a sub-optimal chambers.

(Welcome any corrections from other present/former clerks).

[Anonymous User]

The CA3 collegiality thing is real and taken very, very seriously. Many of the judges genuinely like each other, and it comes across in the day-to-day work. Heck, McKee stepped down as Chief early so Smith could have a shot. Each time I read an acrimonious en banc split from, say, CA4 or CA6, it's difficult for me to imagine anything at CA3 ever getting so heated.

There's also real pressure towards moderation. Prior to the Trump influx, the Court had maybe one real "liberal" (McKee; perhaps also Restrepo, although he's still in early days), and one real "conservative" (Hardiman; Jordan has his moments, but is somewhat unpredictable and probably more criminal-defense friendly than the Obama appointees). Everyone else hovers somewhere around the center with occasional flashes. There was maybe one "political" opinion during my year, and it was treated as somewhat distasteful. I'll be very curious to see how the various Trump appointees fit into this atmosphere--at least two (Bibas and Phipps) strike me as somewhat prickly.

Anyway, agree with the previous poster that, with Sloviter gone, there's really nobody to "avoid" right now. I've heard nicer things about Krause than the previous poster, but it pays to be aware.

ETA: Disagree strongly with the slagging on Newark, which is really not that bad these days (and is preferable to Trenton and Camden). Depending on where you live, the commute can be annoying--although if you're willing to pay a premium, NJT is pretty fast (the PATH somewhat less so, but it's much cheaper). Food options have been getting better, and while Newark Penn Station has its unpleasant moments, the walk between the station and the court is well-traveled and very safe (even outside of the Gateway Center).

Re: the CJRA list, keep in mind that new judges tend to get slammed, so I'd give baby judges some leeway (and some judges are not wonderful at balancing trials with motions work). But it's a decent proxy for efficiency. You could, of course, have a wonderful year with a judge who's somewhat sub-par at getting opinions out the door, so it's not necessarily a great proxy for "good or bad boss."

[Anonymous User]

The CA3 collegiality thing is real and taken very, very seriously. Many of the judges genuinely like each other, and it comes across in the day-to-day work. Heck, McKee stepped down as Chief early so Smith could have a shot. Each time I read an acrimonious en banc split from, say, CA4 or CA6, it's difficult for me to imagine anything at CA3 ever getting so heated.

There's also real pressure towards moderation. Prior to the Trump influx, the Court had maybe one real "liberal" (McKee; perhaps also Restrepo, although he's still in early days), and one real "conservative" (Hardiman; Jordan has his moments, but is somewhat unpredictable and probably more criminal-defense friendly than the Obama appointees). Everyone else hovers somewhere around the center with occasional flashes. There was maybe one "political" opinion during my year, and it was treated as somewhat distasteful. I'll be very curious to see how the various Trump appointees fit into this atmosphere--at least two (Bibas and Phipps) strike me as somewhat prickly.

Anyway, agree with the previous poster that, with Sloviter gone, there's really nobody to "avoid" right now. I've heard nicer things about Krause than the previous poster, but it pays to be aware.

ETA: Disagree strongly with the slagging on Newark, which is really not that bad these days (and is preferable to Trenton and Camden). Depending on where you live, the commute can be annoying--although if you're willing to pay a premium, NJT is pretty fast (the PATH somewhat less so, but it's much cheaper). Food options have been getting better, and while Newark Penn Station has its unpleasant moments, the walk between the station and the court is well-traveled and very safe (even outside of the Gateway Center).

Re: the CJRA list, keep in mind that new judges tend to get slammed, so I'd give baby judges some leeway (and some judges are not wonderful at balancing trials with motions work). But it's a decent proxy for efficiency. You could, of course, have a wonderful year with a judge who's somewhat sub-par at getting opinions out the door, so it's not necessarily a great proxy for "good or bad boss."

Bibas wrote a pretty scathing and extreme dissent in a 2A case recently that got the conservative blogosphere excited. I don’t think he’s trying out for SCOTUS or anything—he’s smart enough to know he has no shot with his views on criminal justice—but I wouldn’t describe it as either moderate or collegial. Though he doesn’t seem like an ideologue in general, maybe just idiosyncratic.