Judges who female or LGBT law clerks should avoid Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

Sure, but since we don't know who the judge is, it doesn't help anyone at all (not knocking you who posted it, anon; I totally understand why you don't want to put the judge's name, but without that no one else will avoid this in future).

Also, for future applicants, I sort of feel like if a former clerk uses the term "challenging" without a lot of specific enthusiastic context, that probably means "this was a terrible experience AVOID." (which is NOT AT ALL saying it was this clerk's fault that she ended up sexually harassed, which is a terrible thing and I'm very sorry she had to go through that; just as a comment for the future). And of course it's hard to turn down a good clerkship too.

[rpupkin]

Seems to me the anon post also provides a pretty strong anecdote on the substantive point

All the anon post revealed was that the anon's classmate was allegedly sexually harassed by an unidentified judge. The post is consistent with the sad reality that there are judges out there who sexually harass. There are also professors, government attorneys, and law-firm partners who sexually harass female subordinates.

If I understand the sentiment of the "it's ok to anonymously post rumors about sexual harassment" position, the idea is that, in light of the sad reality that various individuals might subject female employees to sexual harassment, we would do job applicants a service by identifying the potential sexual harassers by name on TLS. And because most posters won't feel comfortable sharing damaging rumors unless they can do so anonymously, we should encourage (or at least tolerate) the anonymous posting of rumors about the conduct of specific individuals.

I'll admit there's a logic to the above. I don't doubt that we'd get more information if we encouraged such anonymous posting. And I don't doubt that at least some of the information would be accurate. But, based on what I've seen in other Internet communities, the tone of the community quickly degrades if a "let's out people through sharing anonymous rumors" approach is adopted. And tone aside, I think that approach leads to the publication of a lot of things that just aren't true. Even in the relatively restrained context of this thread, a couple of anons have shared rumors about Kozinski that I suspect are false—they sound like items that perhaps started as something that was true but then got distorted and exaggerated when passed from one person to another.

My opinion is that TLS would be better off staying out of the game of anonymous-rumor telephone. I think the negatives outweigh the positives.

[jd20132013]

Sure, but since we don't know who the judge is, it doesn't help anyone at all (not knocking you who posted it, anon; I totally understand why you don't want to put the judge's name, but without that no one else will avoid this in future).

Also, for future applicants, I sort of feel like if a former clerk uses the term "challenging" without a lot of specific enthusiastic context, that probably means "this was a terrible experience AVOID." (which is NOT AT ALL saying it was this clerk's fault that she ended up sexually harassed, which is a terrible thing and I'm very sorry she had to go through that; just as a comment for the future). And of course it's hard to turn down a good clerkship too.

No, I agree with your first sentence. I think it just shows why the idea that speaking anonymously is cowardly is sure to chill the potential for these disclosures even more. That said I hear where the other side is coming from--I just think judges are in a privileged enough position that the benefits for the unlucky saps who might be stuck for a year with a monster outweigh the risk that someone will make up a bs story about a judge. They're used to that, anyway (check your local sovereign citizens blog)

[rpupkin]

No, I agree with your first sentence. I think it just shows why the idea that speaking anonymously is cowardly is sure to chill the potential for these disclosures even more. That said I hear where the other side is coming from--I just think judges are in a privileged enough position that the benefits for the unlucky saps who might be stuck for a year with a monster outweigh the risk that someone will make up a bs story about a judge.

I don't think the big worry is that someone will make up a bs story (though that can happen); I'm more concerned about how a story can mutate when it gets farther and farther away from its original source. By the time a story has reached the stage of an anonymous poster sharing a rumor, that rumor and objective reality can be pretty far apart.

Also, it's not just the judge who is hurt by these kinds of rumors. Imagine you're a gay clerk and someone without any direct knowledge of your chambers advances the false rumor that your judge is a homophobe. Or imagine you're a female clerk and someone advances the rumor that you can only get a clerkship with the judge by sleeping with him. Many rumors can unfairly tarnish the reputations of the clerks along with the judge.

[bearsfan23]

No, I agree with your first sentence. I think it just shows why the idea that speaking anonymously is cowardly is sure to chill the potential for these disclosures even more. That said I hear where the other side is coming from--I just think judges are in a privileged enough position that the benefits for the unlucky saps who might be stuck for a year with a monster outweigh the risk that someone will make up a bs story about a judge.

I don't think the big worry is that someone will make up a bs story (though that can happen); I'm more concerned about how a story can mutate when it gets farther and farther away from its original source. By the time a story has reached the stage of an anonymous poster sharing a rumor, that rumor and objective reality can be pretty far apart.

Also, it's not just the judge who is hurt by these kinds of rumors. Imagine you're a gay clerk and someone without any direct knowledge of your chambers advances the false rumor that your judge is a homophobe. Or imagine you're a female clerk and someone advances the rumor that you can only get a clerkship with the judge by sleeping with him. Many rumors can unfairly tarnish the reputations of the clerks along with the judge.

What a fucking strawman argument. Discussing the behavior of judges is helpful to future potential clerks, especially if someone has important knowledge of how that judge treats his clerks that you really wouldn't get from a non-anon source.

I get it. You clerked for Kozinski and disagree with the OP. Just leave it at that.

The whole calling anon sources "cowards," saying people who claim sexual harassment are liars, and associating the OP to a rumor of a clerk "sleeping with a judge" is a really bad look though

[A. Nony Mouse]

No, I agree with your first sentence. I think it just shows why the idea that speaking anonymously is cowardly is sure to chill the potential for these disclosures even more. That said I hear where the other side is coming from--I just think judges are in a privileged enough position that the benefits for the unlucky saps who might be stuck for a year with a monster outweigh the risk that someone will make up a bs story about a judge.

I don't think the big worry is that someone will make up a bs story (though that can happen); I'm more concerned about how a story can mutate when it gets farther and farther away from its original source. By the time a story has reached the stage of an anonymous poster sharing a rumor, that rumor and objective reality can be pretty far apart.

Also, it's not just the judge who is hurt by these kinds of rumors. Imagine you're a gay clerk and someone without any direct knowledge of your chambers advances the false rumor that your judge is a homophobe. Or imagine you're a female clerk and someone advances the rumor that you can only get a clerkship with the judge by sleeping with him. Many rumors can unfairly tarnish the reputations of the clerks along with the judge.

What a fucking strawman argument. Discussing the behavior of judges is helpful to future potential clerks, especially if someone has important knowledge of how that judge treats his clerks that you really wouldn't get from a non-anon source.

I get it. You clerked for Kozinski and disagree with the OP. Just leave it at that.

The whole calling anon sources "cowards," saying people who claim sexual harassment are liars, and associating the OP to a rumor of a clerk "sleeping with a judge" is a really bad look though

Dude I think this is a little over the top. He specifically said he didn't think people were making up stories, and he also never said that OP was equivalent to a rumor of a clerk sleeping with a judge.

The thing is, if you get the information here, you're not going to get it from a non-anon source. Everyone here is anon. You can't verify what anyone says. Again, I'm not worried about protecting judges - I'm worried about people acting on bad/incomplete information.

Also stop trying to get him to say he clerked for Kozinski. 1) that's a strawman 2) he said he didn't and 3) it's not your business anyway.

[Anonymous User]

I knew about Kozinski's horrible reputation in 2010 when I was in law school. He's been hiring clerks for way longer than that. It's not a recent revelation at all.

Same here. And to be clear, that reputation took the form of "guy who made you work long hours and who was unreasonably demanding," not "blatant homophobe" or "guy who makes his female clerks wear skimpy outfits."

It's been around much longer than that. I clerk for a judge who themselves clerked 20 years ago and knew the stories then and had an appalling interaction with him while clerking on the circuit. Knowing someone extremely well who clerked for him I can attest that just about all the rumors are true and whether or not there's actual harassment, his penchant for hiring attractive females is well known, well earned, and on at least one occasion well self-professed. Not that any of this matters

[jd20132013]

No, I agree with your first sentence. I think it just shows why the idea that speaking anonymously is cowardly is sure to chill the potential for these disclosures even more. That said I hear where the other side is coming from--I just think judges are in a privileged enough position that the benefits for the unlucky saps who might be stuck for a year with a monster outweigh the risk that someone will make up a bs story about a judge.

I don't think the big worry is that someone will make up a bs story (though that can happen); I'm more concerned about how a story can mutate when it gets farther and farther away from its original source. By the time a story has reached the stage of an anonymous poster sharing a rumor, that rumor and objective reality can be pretty far apart.

Also, it's not just the judge who is hurt by these kinds of rumors. Imagine you're a gay clerk and someone without any direct knowledge of your chambers advances the false rumor that your judge is a homophobe. Or imagine you're a female clerk and someone advances the rumor that you can only get a clerkship with the judge by sleeping with him. Many rumors can unfairly tarnish the reputations of the clerks along with the judge.

If these worries are comparable to you to the worries on the other side of the ledger, then we just have different perspectives on what matters--but that's fine!

[Anonymous User]

all the pearl-clutching in this thread is pathetic lol. kozinski has this reputation and it's his own fault bc of his behavior. no point in being all uptight about it.

[rpupkin]

If these worries are comparable to you to the worries on the other side of the ledger, then we just have different perspectives on what matters--but that's fine!

It's not worries versus worries; it's more benefits versus drawbacks. Look at this thread. We're four pages in--and many folks obviously feel comfortable posting anonymously--and I have yet to see a single post that would help anyone.

Here's a deal: if folks out there want to start anonymously sharing stories and rumors about judges (or law-firm partners or professors or USAs) in this thread, I'll stop complaining. Let's see what happens.

[Anonymous User]

Ladies of, or considering attending, YLS: Unless you enjoy being hit on by a middle-aged, married man who wields power over your career, seriously stay away from Tiger Dad when he is drunk (which is surprisingly often). At least two of my friends were subject to his machinations. I'm told that each "generation" of YLS women has had to learn this the hard way.

[Anonymous User]

Ladies of, or considering attending, YLS: Unless you enjoy being hit on by a middle-aged, married man who wields power over your career, seriously stay away from Tiger Dad when he is drunk (which is surprisingly often). At least two of my friends were subject to his machinations. I'm told that each "generation" of YLS women has had to learn this the hard way.

I've heard similar from a friend who attended YLS some years ago. Apparently "Tiger Dad" made both him and his girlfriend uncomfortable.

Re: judges. The only thing I've heard about Kozinski is that his clerks work horrible hours. In terms of mentoring, he's said to be pretty decent. As for general advice re: clerking, pick a judge that shares at least some of your background and beliefs. If you're biglaw, pick someone who doesn't hate biglaw (there are judges that hate biglaw). If you are PI, pick someone who shares your social outlook. If you have work experience, pick a judge that values that. If you don't, pick a more experienced judge and someone who doesn't mind mentoring young clerks. Lastly, if you hate being an area, don't go there; no amount of telling yourself it'll just be for a few years will make it better.

[Anonymous User]

I was warned in no uncertain terms by both professors and former same-courthouse clerks to stay the hell away from Kozinski because of the sexual harassment issues (I'm a woman at HYS). It seems to be somewhat of an open secret that he's inappropriate (at absolute best) with some female clerks--and not just his own, but with those of other judges, too.

More broadly, I do think a thread like this has significant value, for all of the reasons others have already stated. I was sexually harassed at a pre-law school job, and it's hard to convey 1) the toll it takes on you and 2) the no-win situation you find yourself in through no fault of your own. If this thread saves even one future clerk from going through an experience like that, I think it's worth it--even if it comes at the expense of the occasional exaggerated or false rumor being posted.

FWIW, I hadn't heard the stuff about Kozinski and LGBT clerks. However, it wouldn't have been relevant to me personally, so maybe those who warned me about the sexual harassment issues wouldn't have mentioned it, even if they had known (and this is all assuming it's true, and I have no idea whether it is).

[canoe]

If these worries are comparable to you to the worries on the other side of the ledger, then we just have different perspectives on what matters--but that's fine!

It's not worries versus worries; it's more benefits versus drawbacks. Look at this thread. We're four pages in--and many folks obviously feel comfortable posting anonymously--and I have yet to see a single post that would help anyone.

Here's a deal: if folks out there want to start anonymously sharing stories and rumors about judges (or law-firm partners or professors or USAs) in this thread, I'll stop complaining. Let's see what happens.

ROFL i guess it doesn't occur to you that maybe the reason why it's already 4 pages is because you (and select others) had a hand in conjuring up so much drama about petty shit (while trying to sound reasonable by using eloquent language)

like seriously? you're so concerned that this thread could possibly lead to some inaccurate, exaggerated claims about judges to the extent that you believe the prevention of such things happening is MORE IMPORTANT than the theoretical BENEFITS students could gain from a thread like this?

sure, students have other avenues like talking to previous clerks but an anonymous thread like this has the POTENTIAL to provide information that not even ex-clerks in a non-anonymous environment could ever hope to provide at the risk of professional setback.

a judge whose reputation is terrible to the point rumors about him/her end up being exaggerated has no one to blame but him/herself. the damage a judge may suffer from having a few exaggerated claims being made against him/her in the corner of the internet PALES in comparison to the damage a clerk has to suffer under a insufferable judge.

it's time you took the judge's dick outta your mouth cuz you're being choked hard.

[Nebby]

Next time you shouldn't post under anonymous user but instead under your anonymous username. Makes sense!

[A. Nony Mouse]

Next time you shouldn't post under anonymous user but instead under your anonymous username. Makes sense!

Yes? (I'm not even as dogmatic about not posting this stuff as rpupkin is, but there is a difference between you posting as Nebby and you posting as anonymous, when it comes to being able to evaluate what you've said.)

[A. Nony Mouse]

Also, to be clear: there's no rule that you can't post about this stuff anon and you're not going to get outed for posting about it anon.

[rpupkin]

If these worries are comparable to you to the worries on the other side of the ledger, then we just have different perspectives on what matters--but that's fine!

It's not worries versus worries; it's more benefits versus drawbacks. Look at this thread. We're four pages in--and many folks obviously feel comfortable posting anonymously--and I have yet to see a single post that would help anyone.

Here's a deal: if folks out there want to start anonymously sharing stories and rumors about judges (or law-firm partners or professors or USAs) in this thread, I'll stop complaining. Let's see what happens.

ROFL i guess it doesn't occur to you that maybe the reason why it's already 4 pages is because you (and select others) had a hand in conjuring up so much drama about petty shit (while trying to sound reasonable by using eloquent language)

Yes, that did occur to me. That's why I said I'd stop complaining.

I don't agree with you that the subject of an untrue rumor has "no one to blame but him/herself," but I meant what I said: I'll stop complaining about anyone who posts stuff anonymously. Go ahead—post your rumors.

[Anonymous User]

I have been told that Judge Reinhardt evaluates the attractiveness (and especially the size) of female law clerks when making hiring decisions. I have heard that he regularly talks about the physical attractiveness of former and current law clerks to his current clerks and his fellow judges.

[Mr. Blackacre]

I have been told that Judge Reinhardt evaluates the attractiveness (and especially the size) of female law clerks when making hiring decisions. I have heard that he regularly talks about the physical attractiveness of former and current law clerks to his current clerks and his fellow judges.

Can you substantiate such a claim though? With your address, phone number, and SSN, so that we can verify its validity? Oh and your employer too please.

/s

[Nebby]

I have been told that Judge Reinhardt evaluates the attractiveness (and especially the size) of female law clerks when making hiring decisions. I have heard that he regularly talks about the physical attractiveness of former and current law clerks to his current clerks and his fellow judges.

Can you substantiate such a claim though? With your address, phone number, and SSN, so that we can verify its validity? Oh and your employer too please.

/s

Why would someone make that up?

[Mr. Blackacre]

Why would someone make that up?

Obviously because law students are evil schemers who have nothing better to do with their time than to make up false rumors about important people.

[Nebby]

Who the fuck is Judge Reinhardt?

[lawlorbust]

Who the fuck is Judge Reinhardt?

(CLS grad)

[UVA2B]

Who the fuck is Judge Reinhardt?

(CLS grad)

Meant Judge Reinhold.