Clerks Taking Questions Forum

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, it’s absolutely because they’re looking for clerks for this fall, now. Not saying there won’t be any amazing people who don’t have something lined up (even people whose credentials don’t look as shiny!) but most people who wanted to clerk in 2023-24 who didn’t get something by now will have made other plans and will be reluctant to drop them.

[Anonymous User]

A fall 2023 start would attract biglaw refugees (many of which will not be "meh" candidates), but the judge will get fewer of those applicants if chambers are not near a city with biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

How many applicants do your judges get when listing on OSCAR? My district court judge has only gotten like 25 applications after posting weeks ago, which blows my mind. Seems like a lottery ticket for any candidate with mildly impressive credentials. I passed that info onto my alma mater's clerkship office, which ignored me. And now my judge is concerned that he will have to settle for meh clerks.

It's definitely the short-notice thing. I suspect your judge may get better results reaching out to their favorite law schools directly and asking for their top students who want but have not yet secured a clerkship. Or speaking to judges they know regarding whether any of their clerks would be interested in doubling. Some new judges hiring for immediate starts take both of those strategies. I think it's not a coincidence that new appointees rarely hire via OSCAR for their first term.

[Anonymous User]

Is there a point where you "age out of" clerkship eligibility? I know some district judges prefer candidates with 1-2 years of experience to current students, but is there a certain point (maybe like 4-5 years in) at which you've practiced too long for most judges to consider you?

[Anonymous User]

Is there a point where you "age out of" clerkship eligibility? I know some district judges prefer candidates with 1-2 years of experience to current students, but is there a certain point (maybe like 4-5 years in) at which you've practiced too long for most judges to consider you?

Yes, but it's not 4-5 years. I left in the middle of my 4th year at a firm to clerk, and my judge tries to mostly hire people around that level of seniority. There are certainly judges who won't consider people that senior, but the flip side is that judges who prefer more than a year or two of experience tend to get few (often shockingly few) applications because the overwhelming majority of clerkship applicants are in law school or recent graduates.

At your level, it's all about finding the judges who are looking for midlevels. Closely perusing OSCAR is the easiest way to do that.

I think once you get to be 7 years out or so, it's very very unusual to look to be a term clerk. At that level, judges might be more interested in hiring you as a career clerk.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

Got an email from a judge's career clerk asking for my term availability and noting judge is starting to interview. Responded monday but then just never heard back - is it common practice to reach out to all candidates regardless of getting an interview?

[Anonymous User]

Got an email from a judge's career clerk asking for my term availability and noting judge is starting to interview. Responded monday but then just never heard back - is it common practice to reach out to all candidates regardless of getting an interview?

If by Monday you mean day before yesterday, they could still be working through a list checking on availability and haven’t gotten back to people yet. Although if you applied a while ago it’s possible they’re checking who’s still available before making the final interview choices. (Probably not everyone, only plausible candidates.)

[jotarokujo]

interesting how some have reported a preference for clinics over doctrinals, whereas others report a preference for doctrinals over clinics

I suspect my judge would prefer doctrinals, assuming clinics and doctrinals are curved equally. I think clinics are seen as less demanding

[axiomaticapiary]

I’m interested in reading a book about legal interpretation and theory because 1. I am inherently interested and 2. I am hoping to improve my ability from a clerking perspective to coherently talk about issues like textualism, purposivism, how the Constitution and law should be understood, etc. Good recommendations about legal history or the history of the Supreme Court/Constitution are also welcome.

Can people recommend me anything? I’m not especially ideological (liberal Democrat politics but don’t approach law through a political lens)

[Anonymous User]

Are you going to be at a COA? Because honestly I never needed to think about that at all at the D Ct.

[Anonymous User]

I’m interested in reading a book about legal interpretation and theory because 1. I am inherently interested and 2. I am hoping to improve my ability from a clerking perspective to coherently talk about issues like textualism, purposivism, how the Constitution and law should be understood, etc. Good recommendations about legal history or the history of the Supreme Court/Constitution are also welcome.

Can people recommend me anything? I’m not especially ideological (liberal Democrat politics but don’t approach law through a political lens)

I like the late Judge Katzmann's book Judging Statutes. Pretty approachable read

[axiomaticapiary]

Are you going to be at a COA? Because honestly I never needed to think about that at all at the D Ct.

I don’t know but I would be interested in this regardless

[Anonymous User]

I’m interested in reading a book about legal interpretation and theory because 1. I am inherently interested and 2. I am hoping to improve my ability from a clerking perspective to coherently talk about issues like textualism, purposivism, how the Constitution and law should be understood, etc. Good recommendations about legal history or the history of the Supreme Court/Constitution are also welcome.

Can people recommend me anything? I’m not especially ideological (liberal Democrat politics but don’t approach law through a political lens)

Maybe a little weird, but I read Reading Law cover to cover (it's a fairly nice read) and found familiarity with it to be pretty helpful for my clerkships.

[Anonymous User]

Seconding the recs for the Katzmann and Scalia books. Kavanaugh’s review of Katzmann’s book is also worth reading. I also recommend “The Law of Interpretation” by Baude & Sachs, which I feel like is the most recent really groundbreaking statutory interpretation article.

For constitutional interpretation imo the smartest/most-readable defenses of something like living constitutionalism and originalism are “Common Law Constitutional Interpretation” by David Strauss and something by Baude and Sachs (probably some combo of “Is Originalism Our Law,” “Originalism as a Theory of Legal Change,” and “Originalism Without Text”).

Obviously there’s a ton out there but I’m confident these are good jumping-off points.

[Anonymous User]

I’m interested in reading a book about legal interpretation and theory because 1. I am inherently interested and 2. I am hoping to improve my ability from a clerking perspective to coherently talk about issues like textualism, purposivism, how the Constitution and law should be understood, etc. Good recommendations about legal history or the history of the Supreme Court/Constitution are also welcome.

Can people recommend me anything? I’m not especially ideological (liberal Democrat politics but don’t approach law through a political lens)

Maybe a little weird, but I read Reading Law cover to cover (it's a fairly nice read) and found familiarity with it to be pretty helpful for my clerkships.

A Matter of Interpretation by Scalia is the book Fec Soc uses to prep students for clerkship interviews. Reading Law and Making Your Case are very good, very practical books that don’t really have an ideological valence.

Some more books that are both interesting and fun: The Legal Analyst by Ward Farnsworth (basic law and econ via a a 1L refresh) and Ross Guberman’s book on judicial opinion writing. Though your judge may not like the stripped-down style Guberman advocates.

[Anonymous User]

How exactly are undergrad transcripts used? I have a terrific law school transcript from a T14 but a fairly shitty undergraduate one... should I not even bother applying to judges that ask for undergrad transcripts?

[Anonymous User]

How exactly are undergrad transcripts used? I have a terrific law school transcript from a T14 but a fairly shitty undergraduate one... should I not even bother applying to judges that ask for undergrad transcripts?

Saying this with the usual caveat about how clerkship hiring is idiosyncratic, every judge is different, etc etc—I was rejected after an interview because of my undergrad transcript. That said, it costs you almost nothing to apply, and you won't know ex ante which judges will find your undergrad grades a dealbreaker, so I wouldn't let it change who you apply to in the slightest. At most, it might be a consideration for resource allocation (e.g., calls to chambers, putting effort into a cover letter, hard copy app vs. OSCAR, etc.).

[Anonymous User]

How exactly are undergrad transcripts used? I have a terrific law school transcript from a T14 but a fairly shitty undergraduate one... should I not even bother applying to judges that ask for undergrad transcripts?

If your undergrad grades were really, really shitty and there isn't some distance or explanation for it, we would probably ding you for that. Although if you got, for example, the number 1 award at UVA and had a sub-3.0 in college I think actually that would be so good as to overcome it, but I've never seen that. So if you are in that boat I think you could overcome it—just be prepared to be asked about it in your interview.

Worth noting that a lot of judges don't ask for undergrad transcripts so you're not exactly screwed or anything.

[Anonymous User]

I would guess that for most judges, it will raise eyebrows but not be an auto-reject. I clerked for an extremely selective judge who hired a candidate like you my year.

[lavarman84]

What sort of weirdo cares about undergrad grades?

[Anonymous User]

What sort of weirdo cares about undergrad grades?

Are you perhaps somehow of the misguided belief that the federal bench is devoid of weirdos? Personally I will take "pompous, persnickety weirdo" (the type who cares about UG grades--sadly, they do exist) over some of the more toxic weirdos who have populated the bench over the years.

[Anonymous User]

How much does a district clerkship help a COA clerkship applicant? I was planning on being more selective, but after not getting any responses thus far, I'm starting to panic and consider applying broadly.

[Anonymous User]

What sort of weirdo cares about undergrad grades?

I'd argue of all the things judges ding people on that is weird, undergrad grades is not really one of the super weird ones. If you're a judge in SDNY and you have to narrow down from 30 vanilla 3.85 CLS/NYU grads and one of them has shitty undergrad grades, that seems fair to cut them for. The nature of the process is that there are a lot of qualified applicants and the sorting process is more who to cut versus who do we want in. I'd much prefer people get dinged on undergrad grades versus general "vibes" which most often tends to advantage people in positions of privilege.

[Anonymous User]

How much does a district clerkship help a COA clerkship applicant? I was planning on being more selective, but after not getting any responses thus far, I'm starting to panic and consider applying broadly.

Depends on where and with whom the clerkship is. In general the more selective, well-connected, and geographically close the district judge is, the more it will help you get appellate clerkships.