Let's Talk 9th Circuit! Forum

[Anonymous User]

Yeah the distinction we're talking about here is "hunting for the top handful of students at each school" vs. "will look at candidates more holistically so long as they have elite grades." To say a CA9 judge cares less about grades does not generally mean they're going to hire someone a bit above median so long as there's something else on the application they like. It moreso means that they're going to consider No. 16 in the class alongside No. 2 instead of defaulting to No. 2.

Relatively few CA9 clerks have grades below top 5%, maybe top 10% at HYS. There are just too many applicants from those pools to get noticed otherwise, outside of a unicorn situation.

This is just not correct. Recently graduated from one of these and a large majority of the CA9 clerks I know were above median but not top ten percent. Some (admittedly few) were not even above median.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah the distinction we're talking about here is "hunting for the top handful of students at each school" vs. "will look at candidates more holistically so long as they have elite grades." To say a CA9 judge cares less about grades does not generally mean they're going to hire someone a bit above median so long as there's something else on the application they like. It moreso means that they're going to consider No. 16 in the class alongside No. 2 instead of defaulting to No. 2.

Relatively few CA9 clerks have grades below top 5%, maybe top 10% at HYS. There are just too many applicants from those pools to get noticed otherwise, outside of a unicorn situation.

This is just not correct. Recently graduated from one of these and a large majority of the CA9 clerks I know were above median but not top ten percent. Some (admittedly few) were not even above median.

Candidates just need to remember that there are a lot of judges on CA9 who have a broad range of hiring preferences. The names mentioned above for the most part are very grade and accolade selective. But judges like Wardlaw or Rawlinson or VanDyke might look more broadly. Don’t get discouraged; if you want an appellate clerkship just apply widely and hope for the best.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah the distinction we're talking about here is "hunting for the top handful of students at each school" vs. "will look at candidates more holistically so long as they have elite grades." To say a CA9 judge cares less about grades does not generally mean they're going to hire someone a bit above median so long as there's something else on the application they like. It moreso means that they're going to consider No. 16 in the class alongside No. 2 instead of defaulting to No. 2.

Relatively few CA9 clerks have grades below top 5%, maybe top 10% at HYS. There are just too many applicants from those pools to get noticed otherwise, outside of a unicorn situation.

This is just not correct. Recently graduated from one of these and a large majority of the CA9 clerks I know were above median but not top ten percent. Some (admittedly few) were not even above median.

Candidates just need to remember that there are a lot of judges on CA9 who have a broad range of hiring preferences. The names mentioned above for the most part are very grade and accolade selective. But judges like Wardlaw or Rawlinson or VanDyke might look more broadly. Don’t get discouraged; if you want an appellate clerkship just apply widely and hope for the best.

Cannot stress this enough. Yes, the majority of CA9 clerks are top 10%, more likely well into the top 5%, from a T14.

But without naming judges (for the sake of anonymity), some Cali judges have a soft spot for Cali schools and may prefer someone at the top of the class from, say, USC over a top 10% grad from a T14.

Judges in other states may value local ties — enough to dip significantly in grades & school.

Other judges randomly prefer some schools over others. I know of at least one CA9 judge who has hired multiple H students with no latin honors, but hires strictly from top 5% from other T14s.

All this to say — if you’re hoping to land a CA9 clerkship, just shoot your shot.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah the distinction we're talking about here is "hunting for the top handful of students at each school" vs. "will look at candidates more holistically so long as they have elite grades." To say a CA9 judge cares less about grades does not generally mean they're going to hire someone a bit above median so long as there's something else on the application they like. It moreso means that they're going to consider No. 16 in the class alongside No. 2 instead of defaulting to No. 2.

Relatively few CA9 clerks have grades below top 5%, maybe top 10% at HYS. There are just too many applicants from those pools to get noticed otherwise, outside of a unicorn situation.

This is just not correct. Recently graduated from one of these and a large majority of the CA9 clerks I know were above median but not top ten percent. Some (admittedly few) were not even above median.

Candidates just need to remember that there are a lot of judges on CA9 who have a broad range of hiring preferences. The names mentioned above for the most part are very grade and accolade selective. But judges like Wardlaw or Rawlinson or VanDyke might look more broadly. Don’t get discouraged; if you want an appellate clerkship just apply widely and hope for the best.

Yeah just to be extra clear, this earlier conversation was specifically in the context of particular Dem-appointed judges—not literally every single CA9 judge.

The point of those previous posts is that there are some judges for whom tippy top grades are a non-negotiable. Then there’s another group of judges for whom grades obviously still matter, but just not in the same way. And a clerkship based in Missoula or Richland is going to be (generally speaking) less desirable/competitive than a clerkship in a major city. So you can imprecisely speculate about the weight of grades in an application based on that, too.

I can speak from experience that I know CA9 clerks who, at best, were median in their class. But all this really depends on which law school you went to and what judges you’re applying for. Frankly speaking, the “pool” of CA9 judges that your school sends clerks to will be very different depending on whether you went to Yale vs USC. That’s obviously going to skew/inform what you think about CA9 hiring and the types of credentials needed.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah the distinction we're talking about here is "hunting for the top handful of students at each school" vs. "will look at candidates more holistically so long as they have elite grades." To say a CA9 judge cares less about grades does not generally mean they're going to hire someone a bit above median so long as there's something else on the application they like. It moreso means that they're going to consider No. 16 in the class alongside No. 2 instead of defaulting to No. 2.

Relatively few CA9 clerks have grades below top 5%, maybe top 10% at HYS. There are just too many applicants from those pools to get noticed otherwise, outside of a unicorn situation.

This is just not correct. Recently graduated from one of these and a large majority of the CA9 clerks I know were above median but not top ten percent. Some (admittedly few) were not even above median.

Maybe you're right--I'm mostly going off the applications we reviewed, and the honors on the LinkedIn and law firm pages of the clerks I met from other chambers. My judge was someone generally described by TLS as middle of the pack for competitiveness on CA9, and we had way more top 5% at T14/top 10% at HLS/top few students at local schools applications than we could interview. The people we interviewed were also generally getting interviews with judges similar to mine. (I was personally top 3-5%ish at a middle T14, my co-clerks included one with the same resume as me and two who were #1 at a local non-T14, non-USC/UCLA.)

I agree with the poster above me--shoot your shot, it costs almost nothing to apply and people can and do get CA9 clerkships without being at the top of their class. My year reviewing apps just left the impression that there are a ton of people fitting the profile I gave who seem to get the lion's share of interviews.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah the distinction we're talking about here is "hunting for the top handful of students at each school" vs. "will look at candidates more holistically so long as they have elite grades." To say a CA9 judge cares less about grades does not generally mean they're going to hire someone a bit above median so long as there's something else on the application they like. It moreso means that they're going to consider No. 16 in the class alongside No. 2 instead of defaulting to No. 2.

Relatively few CA9 clerks have grades below top 5%, maybe top 10% at HYS. There are just too many applicants from those pools to get noticed otherwise, outside of a unicorn situation.

This is just not correct. Recently graduated from one of these and a large majority of the CA9 clerks I know were above median but not top ten percent. Some (admittedly few) were not even above median.

Maybe you're right--I'm mostly going off the applications we reviewed, and the honors on the LinkedIn and law firm pages of the clerks I met from other chambers. My judge was someone generally described by TLS as middle of the pack for competitiveness on CA9, and we had way more top 5% at T14/top 10% at HLS/top few students at local schools applications than we could interview. The people we interviewed were also generally getting interviews with judges similar to mine. (I was personally top 3-5%ish at a middle T14, my co-clerks included one with the same resume as me and two who were #1 at a local non-T14, non-USC/UCLA.)

I agree with the poster above me--shoot your shot, it costs almost nothing to apply and people can and do get CA9 clerkships without being at the top of their class. My year reviewing apps just left the impression that there are a ton of people fitting the profile I gave who seem to get the lion's share of interviews.

My experience tracks more with the person just quoted. I clerked for one of the most grade selective Ninth Circuit liberal judges that’s been mentioned above and my judge wanted to interview only the top handful of people from Harvard (there are lots of magnas at Harvard) and top 5% of Yale/Stanford students, and basically would look closely only at the #1-2 students from the remaining T14. People I thought were great but who we didn’t interview because their grades weren’t strong enough (but were still top 10% at HYS) ended up with “less competitive” judges on the court. Some Ninth circuit judges don’t emphasize grades as much as others but there are plenty of students with strong grades for those who do.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah the distinction we're talking about here is "hunting for the top handful of students at each school" vs. "will look at candidates more holistically so long as they have elite grades." To say a CA9 judge cares less about grades does not generally mean they're going to hire someone a bit above median so long as there's something else on the application they like. It moreso means that they're going to consider No. 16 in the class alongside No. 2 instead of defaulting to No. 2.

Relatively few CA9 clerks have grades below top 5%, maybe top 10% at HYS. There are just too many applicants from those pools to get noticed otherwise, outside of a unicorn situation.

This is just not correct. Recently graduated from one of these and a large majority of the CA9 clerks I know were above median but not top ten percent. Some (admittedly few) were not even above median.

Maybe you're right--I'm mostly going off the applications we reviewed, and the honors on the LinkedIn and law firm pages of the clerks I met from other chambers. My judge was someone generally described by TLS as middle of the pack for competitiveness on CA9, and we had way more top 5% at T14/top 10% at HLS/top few students at local schools applications than we could interview. The people we interviewed were also generally getting interviews with judges similar to mine. (I was personally top 3-5%ish at a middle T14, my co-clerks included one with the same resume as me and two who were #1 at a local non-T14, non-USC/UCLA.)

I agree with the poster above me--shoot your shot, it costs almost nothing to apply and people can and do get CA9 clerkships without being at the top of their class. My year reviewing apps just left the impression that there are a ton of people fitting the profile I gave who seem to get the lion's share of interviews.

My experience tracks more with the person just quoted. I clerked for one of the most grade selective Ninth Circuit liberal judges that’s been mentioned above and my judge wanted to interview only the top handful of people from Harvard (there are lots of magnas at Harvard) and top 5% of Yale/Stanford students, and basically would look closely only at the #1-2 students from the remaining T14. People I thought were great but who we didn’t interview because their grades weren’t strong enough (but were still top 10% at HYS) ended up with “less competitive” judges on the court. Some Ninth circuit judges don’t emphasize grades as much as others but there are plenty of students with strong grades for those who do.

When it comes to grades, only a small minority of circuit judges anywhere can afford to be as picky as the previous poster’s judge.

But just about all the judges on CA9 can easily fill all their spots with top 10% grads from T14s. A large majority can easily hire only top 5% or better.

Judges, however, care about more than just grades. Other credentials matter. Local ties matter. Connections matter. Career interests matter. Personalities matter a ton.

At bottom, all this quibbling about grades means little. The higher the better, yes. But individual judges like what they like. They like who they like. All applicants can do is try to figure out which judges are looking for applicants like them.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah the distinction we're talking about here is "hunting for the top handful of students at each school" vs. "will look at candidates more holistically so long as they have elite grades." To say a CA9 judge cares less about grades does not generally mean they're going to hire someone a bit above median so long as there's something else on the application they like. It moreso means that they're going to consider No. 16 in the class alongside No. 2 instead of defaulting to No. 2.

Relatively few CA9 clerks have grades below top 5%, maybe top 10% at HYS. There are just too many applicants from those pools to get noticed otherwise, outside of a unicorn situation.

This is just not correct. Recently graduated from one of these and a large majority of the CA9 clerks I know were above median but not top ten percent. Some (admittedly few) were not even above median.

Maybe you're right--I'm mostly going off the applications we reviewed, and the honors on the LinkedIn and law firm pages of the clerks I met from other chambers. My judge was someone generally described by TLS as middle of the pack for competitiveness on CA9, and we had way more top 5% at T14/top 10% at HLS/top few students at local schools applications than we could interview. The people we interviewed were also generally getting interviews with judges similar to mine. (I was personally top 3-5%ish at a middle T14, my co-clerks included one with the same resume as me and two who were #1 at a local non-T14, non-USC/UCLA.)

I agree with the poster above me--shoot your shot, it costs almost nothing to apply and people can and do get CA9 clerkships without being at the top of their class. My year reviewing apps just left the impression that there are a ton of people fitting the profile I gave who seem to get the lion's share of interviews.

My experience tracks more with the person just quoted. I clerked for one of the most grade selective Ninth Circuit liberal judges that’s been mentioned above and my judge wanted to interview only the top handful of people from Harvard (there are lots of magnas at Harvard) and top 5% of Yale/Stanford students, and basically would look closely only at the #1-2 students from the remaining T14. People I thought were great but who we didn’t interview because their grades weren’t strong enough (but were still top 10% at HYS) ended up with “less competitive” judges on the court. Some Ninth circuit judges don’t emphasize grades as much as others but there are plenty of students with strong grades for those who do.

When it comes to grades, only a small minority of circuit judges anywhere can afford to be as picky as the previous poster’s judge.

But just about all the judges on CA9 can easily fill all their spots with top 10% grads from T14s. A large majority can easily hire only top 5% or better.

Judges, however, care about more than just grades. Other credentials matter. Local ties matter. Connections matter. Career interests matter. Personalities matter a ton.

At bottom, all this quibbling about grades means little. The higher the better, yes. But individual judges like what they like. They like who they like. All applicants can do is try to figure out which judges are looking for applicants like them.

I went to a school that feeds heavily into CA9 (not Stanford). The data showed the following:

- Every Obama CA9 judge (except Friedland) will hire people outside the top 10%. In fact, some of them have hired more people outside the top 10% then people in it.
- From what I can tell, the main 3 factors driving those hires are 1) Local ties 2) URM status 3) PI/PD career interests.
- Don't know much about the Biden judges, but I suspect this trend will continue with them too.
- IMO, this is a good thing and judges who are obnoxious about grades/creds shouldn't be put on a pedestal. We are more than just our grades. If you're an applicant reading this, can't understate how important it is to always shoot your shot.

[Anonymous User]

There are so few spots and so many exceptional candidates that the only thing you can do is shoot your shot. A lot of this is based on luck and persistence. To anyone who is feeling discouraged, I say: just do your best! There are tangible things you can do outside of grades/LR to strengthen your chances, so focus on what you can change v. what you can't.

Networking: I can't stress this enough! Reach out to former clerks for judges you're interested in, through bar associations, mentorship programs, and alumni networks. Set up calls and ask about their experiences. You can learn a lot about the judge's idiosyncrasies that inform how you write a targeted cover letter. For ex: Judge A's parents were teachers and you were a teacher before law school, Judge B grew up in your hometown, Judge C really likes public interest-oriented candidates. You can also learn about other judges on the circuit you might want to/not want to clerk for. Judge D might have a reputation as a terrible boss while Judge E is known to be a lifelong mentor. You can also learn about their hiring practices. Judge F might let clerks do the first round of cuts, Judge G doesn't hire anyone without a district court clerkship.

I learned so much through these networking calls, and in several of those calls, the clerk directly offered to flag my application or forward it to the judge. Some judges email their former clerks when they have openings and encourage them to flag promising candidates. The first cut is the hardest, so your chances go up significantly once you're past that.

Cover Letter: This can make or break your application. Don't write a generic cover letter. Treat it like a personal statement sincerely expressing who you are, why you want to work for X judge, and why they should hire you. Highlight aspects of your application that may be most compelling for that specific judge: you are a first-gen student; you have local ties; you have extensive work experience before law school; etc. Networking calls helped me figure out what to write (and what not to write) for certain judges.

I was median at HYS w/no LR, likely decent letters of rec, and a district court clerkship. I received several interviews from Second/Ninth Circuit active judges in states where I had no local ties (I ended up accepting an offer with the first judge I interviewed with). Funnily enough, none of those interviews came from my networking calls.

Meanwhile, I know of peers who graduated with honors + district court clerkships but didn't get any bites from circuit court judges. And people who graduated top 10% at HYS or even top 1% at T-14s who only got bites from senior circuit court judges. Simultaneously, I know someone who was top 10% at a T-50 and got a Ninth Circuit clerkship with an active judge. (I mention the active/senior distinction because when I was applying, I thought that senior judges would be less competitive. In my experience, they can be even more grade-sensitive than active judges.)

Good luck to everyone applying! The process can feel very defeating, so hang in there.

[Anonymous User]

There are so few spots and so many exceptional candidates that the only thing you can do is shoot your shot. A lot of this is based on luck and persistence. To anyone who is feeling discouraged, I say: just do your best! There are tangible things you can do outside of grades/LR to strengthen your chances, so focus on what you can change v. what you can't.

Networking: I can't stress this enough! Reach out to former clerks for judges you're interested in, through bar associations, mentorship programs, and alumni networks. Set up calls and ask about their experiences. You can learn a lot about the judge's idiosyncrasies that inform how you write a targeted cover letter. For ex: Judge A's parents were teachers and you were a teacher before law school, Judge B grew up in your hometown, Judge C really likes public interest-oriented candidates. You can also learn about other judges on the circuit you might want to/not want to clerk for. Judge D might have a reputation as a terrible boss while Judge E is known to be a lifelong mentor. You can also learn about their hiring practices. Judge F might let clerks do the first round of cuts, Judge G doesn't hire anyone without a district court clerkship.

I learned so much through these networking calls, and in several of those calls, the clerk directly offered to flag my application or forward it to the judge. Some judges email their former clerks when they have openings and encourage them to flag promising candidates. The first cut is the hardest, so your chances go up significantly once you're past that.

Cover Letter: This can make or break your application. Don't write a generic cover letter. Treat it like a personal statement sincerely expressing who you are, why you want to work for X judge, and why they should hire you. Highlight aspects of your application that may be most compelling for that specific judge: you are a first-gen student; you have local ties; you have extensive work experience before law school; etc. Networking calls helped me figure out what to write (and what not to write) for certain judges.

I was median at HYS w/no LR, likely decent letters of rec, and a district court clerkship. I received several interviews from Second/Ninth Circuit active judges in states where I had no local ties (I ended up accepting an offer with the first judge I interviewed with). Funnily enough, none of those interviews came from my networking calls.

Meanwhile, I know of peers who graduated with honors + district court clerkships but didn't get any bites from circuit court judges. And people who graduated top 10% at HYS or even top 1% at T-14s who only got bites from senior circuit court judges. Simultaneously, I know someone who was top 10% at a T-50 and got a Ninth Circuit clerkship with an active judge. (I mention the active/senior distinction because when I was applying, I thought that senior judges would be less competitive. In my experience, they can be even more grade-sensitive than active judges.)

Good luck to everyone applying! The process can feel very defeating, so hang in there.

Co-sign this completely and will add that in my experience, senior judges are even harder to land because their hiring processes have been cemented for ages and are unlikely to take chances on new/unknown metrics. Newly confirmed judges are probably the “easiest” to land - but even still, appellate clerkships are scarce and extremely difficult to land unfortunately.

[Anonymous User]

Do the Oregon CA9 Judges care about ties/if so, how much? I know Forrest mentions it being of interest in her Oscar posting.

For context, I’m from Oregon/my family is still there and 3 in my class at a T-40 on the East Coast (although my college/professional experience and law school summer stuff is on the east coast)

[Anonymous User]

Any recent/current NDCA clerks have insight on what it's like working for the MJs in the SF courthouse? What sort of matters they typically handle? Any info specifically on Kang would be great since he's pretty new and no one I know that's clerked there previously has overlapped with his time on the bench.

[Anonymous User]

Do the Oregon CA9 Judges care about ties/if so, how much? I know Forrest mentions it being of interest in her Oscar posting.

For context, I’m from Oregon/my family is still there and 3 in my class at a T-40 on the East Coast (although my college/professional experience and law school summer stuff is on the east coast)

Even with ties, your app is not competitive.

[Anonymous User]

Do the Oregon CA9 Judges care about ties/if so, how much? I know Forrest mentions it being of interest in her Oscar posting.

For context, I’m from Oregon/my family is still there and 3 in my class at a T-40 on the East Coast (although my college/professional experience and law school summer stuff is on the east coast)

Even with ties, your app is not competitive.

I know 2 people who clerked for CA9 Oregon Judges and neither had Oregon ties to my knowledge. 1 of them clerked for Forrest. That's not to say they don't value Oregon ties. But it means that your ties are likely sufficient for any "boost" that exists.

And re: competitiveness, it's really a crapshoot for everyone, so do what you can. If you have a district court clerkship lined up (esp if it's Oregon) that could definitely help.

[Anonymous User]

Any recent/current NDCA clerks have insight on what it's like working for the MJs in the SF courthouse? What sort of matters they typically handle? Any info specifically on Kang would be great since he's pretty new and no one I know that's clerked there previously has overlapped with his time on the bench.

They handle all sorts of matters where neither party declines jurisdiction. Which ends up being a good mix.

Kang is supposed to be a good boss. Most of the other SF MJs are. Have heard bad things about Beeler only, but few specifics.

[Anonymous User]

Can someone explain how CA9 opinions are assigned? What explains the discrepancy between some judges authoring tons of opinions vs others writing far fewer published decisions?

[Anonymous User]

Can someone explain how CA9 opinions are assigned? What explains the discrepancy between some judges authoring tons of opinions vs others writing far fewer published decisions?

Preliminary assignments are given by the presiding judge (the most senior CA9 judge on active status of the three) over a month in advance of oral argument. After argument, the most senior judge in the majority assigns the opinion. This almost always goes to the judge who had the preliminary assignment unless, of course, they're dissenting, in which case the more senior of the two in the majority will choose who writes.

[Anonymous User]

Can someone explain how CA9 opinions are assigned? What explains the discrepancy between some judges authoring tons of opinions vs others writing far fewer published decisions?

Preliminary assignments are given by the presiding judge (the most senior CA9 judge on active status of the three) over a month in advance of oral argument. After argument, the most senior judge in the majority assigns the opinion. This almost always goes to the judge who had the preliminary assignment unless, of course, they're dissenting, in which case the more senior of the two in the majority will choose who writes.

Further, the choice regarding whether an opinion is published or unpublished is often influenced by whoever the preliminary assignment is. There are always some clear decisions calls (new issues vs obviously pointless cases), but preliminary assignment judge has greater say on the close calls. So some judges just make more of their preliminary assignments into published decisions

[Anonymous User]

Can someone explain how CA9 opinions are assigned? What explains the discrepancy between some judges authoring tons of opinions vs others writing far fewer published decisions?

Preliminary assignments are given by the presiding judge (the most senior CA9 judge on active status of the three) over a month in advance of oral argument. After argument, the most senior judge in the majority assigns the opinion. This almost always goes to the judge who had the preliminary assignment unless, of course, they're dissenting, in which case the more senior of the two in the majority will choose who writes.

Further, the choice regarding whether an opinion is published or unpublished is often influenced by whoever the preliminary assignment is. There are always some clear decisions calls (new issues vs obviously pointless cases), but preliminary assignment judge has greater say on the close calls. So some judges just make more of their preliminary assignments into published decisions

When thinking about clerkships, how much could/should one read into the volume of a judge’s published decisions relative to other judges? For example, all else being equal, does it matter that judge A has historically issued more published opinions than judge B?

[Anonymous User]

Can someone explain how CA9 opinions are assigned? What explains the discrepancy between some judges authoring tons of opinions vs others writing far fewer published decisions?

Preliminary assignments are given by the presiding judge (the most senior CA9 judge on active status of the three) over a month in advance of oral argument. After argument, the most senior judge in the majority assigns the opinion. This almost always goes to the judge who had the preliminary assignment unless, of course, they're dissenting, in which case the more senior of the two in the majority will choose who writes.

Further, the choice regarding whether an opinion is published or unpublished is often influenced by whoever the preliminary assignment is. There are always some clear decisions calls (new issues vs obviously pointless cases), but preliminary assignment judge has greater say on the close calls. So some judges just make more of their preliminary assignments into published decisions

When thinking about clerkships, how much could/should one read into the volume of a judge’s published decisions relative to other judges? For example, all else being equal, does it matter that judge A has historically issued more published opinions than judge B?

No.

[Anonymous User]

Can someone explain how CA9 opinions are assigned? What explains the discrepancy between some judges authoring tons of opinions vs others writing far fewer published decisions?

Preliminary assignments are given by the presiding judge (the most senior CA9 judge on active status of the three) over a month in advance of oral argument. After argument, the most senior judge in the majority assigns the opinion. This almost always goes to the judge who had the preliminary assignment unless, of course, they're dissenting, in which case the more senior of the two in the majority will choose who writes.

Further, the choice regarding whether an opinion is published or unpublished is often influenced by whoever the preliminary assignment is. There are always some clear decisions calls (new issues vs obviously pointless cases), but preliminary assignment judge has greater say on the close calls. So some judges just make more of their preliminary assignments into published decisions

When thinking about clerkships, how much could/should one read into the volume of a judge’s published decisions relative to other judges? For example, all else being equal, does it matter that judge A has historically issued more published opinions than judge B?

No.

I'd actually prefer fewer. Likely means fewer hours and late nights

[Anonymous User]

Can someone explain how CA9 opinions are assigned? What explains the discrepancy between some judges authoring tons of opinions vs others writing far fewer published decisions?

Preliminary assignments are given by the presiding judge (the most senior CA9 judge on active status of the three) over a month in advance of oral argument. After argument, the most senior judge in the majority assigns the opinion. This almost always goes to the judge who had the preliminary assignment unless, of course, they're dissenting, in which case the more senior of the two in the majority will choose who writes.

Further, the choice regarding whether an opinion is published or unpublished is often influenced by whoever the preliminary assignment is. There are always some clear decisions calls (new issues vs obviously pointless cases), but preliminary assignment judge has greater say on the close calls. So some judges just make more of their preliminary assignments into published decisions

When thinking about clerkships, how much could/should one read into the volume of a judge’s published decisions relative to other judges? For example, all else being equal, does it matter that judge A has historically issued more published opinions than judge B?

No.

It’s not going to matter to anyone but you as the clerk working on it. If you want to draft a bunch of published opinions, go work for Milan Smith. Personally, I’d prefer to draft 2-3 opinions over the course of the year. Opinions are a lot of work.

[Anonymous User]

Can someone explain how CA9 opinions are assigned? What explains the discrepancy between some judges authoring tons of opinions vs others writing far fewer published decisions?

Preliminary assignments are given by the presiding judge (the most senior CA9 judge on active status of the three) over a month in advance of oral argument. After argument, the most senior judge in the majority assigns the opinion. This almost always goes to the judge who had the preliminary assignment unless, of course, they're dissenting, in which case the more senior of the two in the majority will choose who writes.

Further, the choice regarding whether an opinion is published or unpublished is often influenced by whoever the preliminary assignment is. There are always some clear decisions calls (new issues vs obviously pointless cases), but preliminary assignment judge has greater say on the close calls. So some judges just make more of their preliminary assignments into published decisions

When thinking about clerkships, how much could/should one read into the volume of a judge’s published decisions relative to other judges? For example, all else being equal, does it matter that judge A has historically issued more published opinions than judge B?

No.

It’s not going to matter to anyone but you as the clerk working on it. If you want to draft a bunch of published opinions, go work for Milan Smith. Personally, I’d prefer to draft 2-3 opinions over the course of the year. Opinions are a lot of work.

Only 2-3? I think I drafted close to 11-13 my term.

[Greenbabushka]

Can someone explain how CA9 opinions are assigned? What explains the discrepancy between some judges authoring tons of opinions vs others writing far fewer published decisions?

Preliminary assignments are given by the presiding judge (the most senior CA9 judge on active status of the three) over a month in advance of oral argument. After argument, the most senior judge in the majority assigns the opinion. This almost always goes to the judge who had the preliminary assignment unless, of course, they're dissenting, in which case the more senior of the two in the majority will choose who writes.

Further, the choice regarding whether an opinion is published or unpublished is often influenced by whoever the preliminary assignment is. There are always some clear decisions calls (new issues vs obviously pointless cases), but preliminary assignment judge has greater say on the close calls. So some judges just make more of their preliminary assignments into published decisions

When thinking about clerkships, how much could/should one read into the volume of a judge’s published decisions relative to other judges? For example, all else being equal, does it matter that judge A has historically issued more published opinions than judge B?

No.

It’s not going to matter to anyone but you as the clerk working on it. If you want to draft a bunch of published opinions, go work for Milan Smith. Personally, I’d prefer to draft 2-3 opinions over the course of the year. Opinions are a lot of work.

Only 2-3? I think I drafted close to 11-13 my term.

11-13 published opinions?

[Anonymous User]

Can someone explain how CA9 opinions are assigned? What explains the discrepancy between some judges authoring tons of opinions vs others writing far fewer published decisions?

Preliminary assignments are given by the presiding judge (the most senior CA9 judge on active status of the three) over a month in advance of oral argument. After argument, the most senior judge in the majority assigns the opinion. This almost always goes to the judge who had the preliminary assignment unless, of course, they're dissenting, in which case the more senior of the two in the majority will choose who writes.

Further, the choice regarding whether an opinion is published or unpublished is often influenced by whoever the preliminary assignment is. There are always some clear decisions calls (new issues vs obviously pointless cases), but preliminary assignment judge has greater say on the close calls. So some judges just make more of their preliminary assignments into published decisions

When thinking about clerkships, how much could/should one read into the volume of a judge’s published decisions relative to other judges? For example, all else being equal, does it matter that judge A has historically issued more published opinions than judge B?

No.

It’s not going to matter to anyone but you as the clerk working on it. If you want to draft a bunch of published opinions, go work for Milan Smith. Personally, I’d prefer to draft 2-3 opinions over the course of the year. Opinions are a lot of work.

Only 2-3? I think I drafted close to 11-13 my term.

I assume that includes unpublished though? I don't even think there are many judges who have 12 published opinions a term let alone have one clerk write 12 of them.