Clerks Taking Questions Forum

[Anonymous User]

Do you all look negatively on not doing a clinic? I want to do one 3L but thinking about skipping out to take classes, etc.

And how about pass/fail? Is it seen as a negative to use your allotted pass/fail credits? Assume they'd be used on black letter classes, but not Fed Courts, etc.

I don't think any judges would look negatively on not doing a clinic, but some judges--particularly district judges--would like to see some actual substantive legal experience on your resume. That could be a clinic or it could be an externship with a USAO. Something that shows you have more experience with the law than pontificating about the Constitution and reading appellate opinions. Also, some clinics--particularly those that involve appellate practice--can be a valuable gold star.

Whether the clinic is otherwise a negative depends on what you would be giving up. If you have room to take solid black-letter law classes (or you did a lot in 2L), go for it. If your schedule is otherwise seminars, then probably not.

My chambers generally sees taking a class pass/fail as a negative. If you've done so, we always ask about it. Barring some compelling personal circumstances (of the death in the family/chronic illness/childbirth variety) there's few ways to answer that question in a way that portrays you as a hard worker. As far as looking at a transcript goes, we would probably look at it as though it was a B or B-, depending on the school. That said, if you're at the cusp of latin honors or among the top few people in your class and you're sure that not going Pass/Fail would push you down the wrong side, the benefits of holding onto your rank outweigh the awkwardness of having to explain why you took a class Pass/Fail.

Thanks for this detailed response. It puts me in a tough position because I am on the border of Coif and the arbitrariness of clinic grading is making me wary. Maybe I will just apply for the appellate one on the reasoning that even if the grading knocks me out of magna, it is still worth it as a gold star, and if I don't get appellate just not do a clinic.

I know some might argue I should make decisions based on something other than gunning but I'm looking for only true big chungo gunner responses only. This is TLS, we all know why we're here.

I hate to like add fuel to the indecisive fire but I think magna cum laude + no appellate clinic looks way better than cum laude + appellate clinic (like leagues better). The magna cum laude and cum laude distinction is huge because magna is typically the top 10% cutoff which if you don't have in a lot of appellate chambers will get you cut at the outset.

I hear that. Insight into clinic grading would be helpful but I can't seem to get good info about it without asking people too explicitly and being annoying ... it's on the seminar curve but I've heard people say most people just get an A-, which would knock me out of magna given the super heavy credit load of clinic.

A few people I've seen graduated coif and did appellate clinic and are now clerking for COAs, but I have to think these were all-stars who might have been walking into clinic with a 3.95+ and able to withstand a system shock (or maybe just killed it in clinic and got the professor to give them all As).

A way to slightly offset harm of being in, say, the top 11% instead of the top 10% is to have a professor mention it in a LoR. In my COA chambers we try to have a general idea about what different GPAs mean at different law schools, but it's not an exact science, and it's particularly difficult for law schools that don't provide cumulative GPAs on a transcript (which I do not understand whatsoever). But we've had a couple of letters of rec that explain that even though an applicant only has "honors," they're on the cusp of high honors.

A slightly worse but easier alternative if your school doesn't provide clear rankings or cumulative GPAs is to put your cumulative GPA on your resume and note historically what the latin honors cutoffs are. A U Chicago resume that lists your average class grade as a 180.4 and notes that the high honors cutoff is historically 180.5 is much more immediately impressive than one that just says "Honors" and leaves us to do the math.

[Anonymous User]

law schools that don't provide cumulative GPAs on a transcript (which I do not understand whatsoever).

FU, Penn Law, for all of the longhand math you needlessly made me do. It absolutely blows my mind how entitled the student records office at this school must be to think that excluding the cumulative GPA from the transcript will encourage employers to "look past the GPA" or whatever the intention is. No, all you are accomplishing is wasting some poor law clerk's or JA's or legal personnel staffer's time doing what each of your peer schools that gives letter grades is kind enough to do for us.

[Anonymous User]

Anybody have insight into how opinions are selected for the Federal Supplement? I've written two opinions thus far in my clerkship that my judge designated as "to be published" to our docketing clerks. However, according to Westlaw, only one is slated for the Federal Supplement whereas the other is only entered as a slip copy. I had been under the impression that all opinions deemed "to be published" by district court judges end up in the Federal Supplement, but is that not the case?

[Anonymous User]

Graduating 3L. Was hired into the lit group at a V50 but have strong reason to suspect I will be moved into a transactional group by the time I start. For judges who prefer some work experience in their clerks, would being in a transactional group hurt me/will they generally just disregard any work experience that isn't litigation focused? I still really want to clerk and go into lit long-term.

[Anonymous User]

Anybody have insight into how opinions are selected for the Federal Supplement? I've written two opinions thus far in my clerkship that my judge designated as "to be published" to our docketing clerks. However, according to Westlaw, only one is slated for the Federal Supplement whereas the other is only entered as a slip copy. I had been under the impression that all opinions deemed "to be published" by district court judges end up in the Federal Supplement, but is that not the case?

That's not the case. It's select cases...

[Anonymous User]

Anybody have insight into how opinions are selected for the Federal Supplement? I've written two opinions thus far in my clerkship that my judge designated as "to be published" to our docketing clerks. However, according to Westlaw, only one is slated for the Federal Supplement whereas the other is only entered as a slip copy. I had been under the impression that all opinions deemed "to be published" by district court judges end up in the Federal Supplement, but is that not the case?

That's not the case. It's select cases...

The Fed Supp criteria are completely inscrutable to me, after clerking I’ve realized that it’s much more random than you’d think

[Anonymous User]

Anybody have insight into how opinions are selected for the Federal Supplement? I've written two opinions thus far in my clerkship that my judge designated as "to be published" to our docketing clerks. However, according to Westlaw, only one is slated for the Federal Supplement whereas the other is only entered as a slip copy. I had been under the impression that all opinions deemed "to be published" by district court judges end up in the Federal Supplement, but is that not the case?

That's not the case. It's select cases...

Well that sucks. The unpublished opinion was among the first to decide a certain way on a very important but underdiscussed issue of federal sovereign immunity, so I'm glad the powers that be who run the Federal Supplement decided it was less worthy of publication than the one I wrote that covered nothing new or interesting.

[Anonymous User]

Do the unpublished district court opinions have any tangible distinctions from published ones when it comes to precedent? My understanding was published and unpublished district court opinions are both equally persuasive and not precedential.

[lavarman84]

Do the unpublished district court opinions have any tangible distinctions from published ones when it comes to precedent? My understanding was published and unpublished district court opinions are both equally persuasive and not precedential.

While technically true, I am far more likely to cite a published opinion than an unpublished one. I feel like published opinions are seen as more credible.

[Anonymous User]

District court opinions have no precedential value. We cite them at the district court level to illustrate an idea or to do a string cite of district court cases ruling in the manner the Court is ruling.

But published vs unpublished has no tangible value (although it feels good when your orders get published).

[Anonymous User]

District court opinions have no precedential value. We cite them at the district court level to illustrate an idea or to do a string cite of district court cases ruling in the manner the Court is ruling.

But published vs unpublished has no tangible value (although it feels good when your orders get published).

It used to be sanctionable in some (all?) jurisdictions to cite an unpublished opinion in a brief. Perhaps there is still a state or two where that's the case, but the acceptance of unpublished opinions as citeable authority has made publication at the district level far less important.

[Anonymous User]

District court opinions have no precedential value. We cite them at the district court level to illustrate an idea or to do a string cite of district court cases ruling in the manner the Court is ruling.

But published vs unpublished has no tangible value (although it feels good when your orders get published).

It used to be sanctionable in some (all?) jurisdictions to cite an unpublished opinion in a brief. Perhaps there is still a state or two where that's the case, but the acceptance of unpublished opinions as citeable authority has made publication at the district level far less important.

Do you mean sanctionable for citing an unpublished circuit opinion?

[Anonymous User]

Do the unpublished district court opinions have any tangible distinctions from published ones when it comes to precedent? My understanding was published and unpublished district court opinions are both equally persuasive and not precedential.

While technically true, I am far more likely to cite a published opinion than an unpublished one. I feel like published opinions are seen as more credible.

Now that F Appx has been killed there are going to be a lot more ugly WL cites in briefs unfortunately

[lavarman84]

Do the unpublished district court opinions have any tangible distinctions from published ones when it comes to precedent? My understanding was published and unpublished district court opinions are both equally persuasive and not precedential.

While technically true, I am far more likely to cite a published opinion than an unpublished one. I feel like published opinions are seen as more credible.

Now that F Appx has been killed there are going to be a lot more ugly WL cites in briefs unfortunately

I didn't know they killed the F. App'x. Goodnight sweet prince.

[Anonymous User]

Do the unpublished district court opinions have any tangible distinctions from published ones when it comes to precedent? My understanding was published and unpublished district court opinions are both equally persuasive and not precedential.

While technically true, I am far more likely to cite a published opinion than an unpublished one. I feel like published opinions are seen as more credible.

Now that F Appx has been killed there are going to be a lot more ugly WL cites in briefs unfortunately

I didn't know they killed the F. App'x. Goodnight sweet prince.

They killed the Fed App'x!? Why

[Anonymous User]

District court opinions have no precedential value. We cite them at the district court level to illustrate an idea or to do a string cite of district court cases ruling in the manner the Court is ruling.

But published vs unpublished has no tangible value (although it feels good when your orders get published).

It used to be sanctionable in some (all?) jurisdictions to cite an unpublished opinion in a brief. Perhaps there is still a state or two where that's the case, but the acceptance of unpublished opinions as citeable authority has made publication at the district level far less important.

No. Not sanctionable. In no jurisdiction should it be sanctionable to cite an unpublished opinion in a brief. That is the equivalent of sanctioning someone for citing persuasive authority.

[Anonymous User]

District court opinions have no precedential value. We cite them at the district court level to illustrate an idea or to do a string cite of district court cases ruling in the manner the Court is ruling.

But published vs unpublished has no tangible value (although it feels good when your orders get published).

It used to be sanctionable in some (all?) jurisdictions to cite an unpublished opinion in a brief. Perhaps there is still a state or two where that's the case, but the acceptance of unpublished opinions as citeable authority has made publication at the district level far less important.

No. Not sanctionable. In no jurisdiction should it be sanctionable to cite an unpublished opinion in a brief. That is the equivalent of sanctioning someone for citing persuasive authority.

There is a rule in California state court that expressly prohibits citing unpublished California Court of Appeal cases except for preclusion/res judicata/law of the case purposes. The Ninth Circuit also forbids citation of unpublished Ninth Circuit opinions issued before January 1, 2007, and many people (including the district judge I clerked for) interpret this rule to forbid citing unpublished Ninth Circuit opinions before 2007 in district courts within the Ninth Circuit. I have seen judges and litigants fly off the handle when people violate these rules. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's definitely still the rule in a lot of places.

[Anonymous User]

District court opinions have no precedential value. We cite them at the district court level to illustrate an idea or to do a string cite of district court cases ruling in the manner the Court is ruling.

But published vs unpublished has no tangible value (although it feels good when your orders get published).

It used to be sanctionable in some (all?) jurisdictions to cite an unpublished opinion in a brief. Perhaps there is still a state or two where that's the case, but the acceptance of unpublished opinions as citeable authority has made publication at the district level far less important.

No. Not sanctionable. In no jurisdiction should it be sanctionable to cite an unpublished opinion in a brief. That is the equivalent of sanctioning someone for citing persuasive authority.

There is a rule in California state court that expressly prohibits citing unpublished California Court of Appeal cases except for preclusion/res judicata/law of the case purposes. The Ninth Circuit also forbids citation of unpublished Ninth Circuit opinions issued before January 1, 2007, and many people (including the district judge I clerked for) interpret this rule to forbid citing unpublished Ninth Circuit opinions before 2007 in district courts within the Ninth Circuit. I have seen judges and litigants fly off the handle when people violate these rules. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's definitely still the rule in a lot of places.

Yes, but "appears in Fed. Appx" does not mean "published." AFAIK It makes no difference whether something is selected to be in Fed Appx (back in the day) or not, and, for district court equivalent, no difference whether something is selected to appear in Fed Supplement.

[Anonymous User]

District court opinions have no precedential value. We cite them at the district court level to illustrate an idea or to do a string cite of district court cases ruling in the manner the Court is ruling.

But published vs unpublished has no tangible value (although it feels good when your orders get published).

It used to be sanctionable in some (all?) jurisdictions to cite an unpublished opinion in a brief. Perhaps there is still a state or two where that's the case, but the acceptance of unpublished opinions as citeable authority has made publication at the district level far less important.

No. Not sanctionable. In no jurisdiction should it be sanctionable to cite an unpublished opinion in a brief. That is the equivalent of sanctioning someone for citing persuasive authority.

There is a rule in California state court that expressly prohibits citing unpublished California Court of Appeal cases except for preclusion/res judicata/law of the case purposes. The Ninth Circuit also forbids citation of unpublished Ninth Circuit opinions issued before January 1, 2007, and many people (including the district judge I clerked for) interpret this rule to forbid citing unpublished Ninth Circuit opinions before 2007 in district courts within the Ninth Circuit. I have seen judges and litigants fly off the handle when people violate these rules. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's definitely still the rule in a lot of places.

Yes, but "appears in Fed. Appx" does not mean "published." AFAIK It makes no difference whether something is selected to be in Fed Appx (back in the day) or not, and, for district court equivalent, no difference whether something is selected to appear in Fed Supplement.

"Appears in Fed. App'x" is the opposite of "published." You cannot cite a pre-2007 unpublished Ninth Circuit case in the Ninth Circuit, regardless of whether it was published in the Federal Appendix or as a memorandum or table opinion in the Federal Reporter.

[Anonymous User]

District court opinions have no precedential value. We cite them at the district court level to illustrate an idea or to do a string cite of district court cases ruling in the manner the Court is ruling.

But published vs unpublished has no tangible value (although it feels good when your orders get published).

It used to be sanctionable in some (all?) jurisdictions to cite an unpublished opinion in a brief. Perhaps there is still a state or two where that's the case, but the acceptance of unpublished opinions as citeable authority has made publication at the district level far less important.

No. Not sanctionable. In no jurisdiction should it be sanctionable to cite an unpublished opinion in a brief. That is the equivalent of sanctioning someone for citing persuasive authority.

Whether it "should" be has no bearing on whether it is or was. I have also been present for judges flying off the handle when pre-2007 unpublished CA9 opinions are cited. I have not seen sanctions issued, and I doubt they are with any frequency, but violations of rules are sanctionable.

[Anonymous User]

District court opinions have no precedential value. We cite them at the district court level to illustrate an idea or to do a string cite of district court cases ruling in the manner the Court is ruling.

But published vs unpublished has no tangible value (although it feels good when your orders get published).

It used to be sanctionable in some (all?) jurisdictions to cite an unpublished opinion in a brief. Perhaps there is still a state or two where that's the case, but the acceptance of unpublished opinions as citeable authority has made publication at the district level far less important.

No. Not sanctionable. In no jurisdiction should it be sanctionable to cite an unpublished opinion in a brief. That is the equivalent of sanctioning someone for citing persuasive authority.

Whether it "should" be has no bearing on whether it is or was. I have also been present for judges flying off the handle when pre-2007 unpublished CA9 opinions are cited. I have not seen sanctions issued, and I doubt they are with any frequency, but violations of rules are sanctionable.

I learned in LWR that unpublished cases were "bad" to use for your argument but I had no idea it rose to this level! Learning about the Ninth Circuit rules is fascinating - thank you all for educating.

[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.

[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.

Roughly where is the district and for what term? I clerked for a relatively new district judge in a very flyover area, and we probably got about 40-50 applications for terms about a year or two out. The numbers might have gone up since then as she has stronger channels in place now and a good reputation.

[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.

Roughly where is the district and for what term? I clerked for a relatively new district judge in a very flyover area, and we probably got about 40-50 applications for terms about a year or two out. The numbers might have gone up since then as she has stronger channels in place now and a good reputation.

This answer will likely make it easy to identify my judge, but it's next term (2023–24), which I know wouldn't work for people who don't have the flexibility to drop everything and move so suddenly. Still, didn't expect numbers to be this low. The chambers isn't in a major city but it's within an hour and a half from two major ones, and it itself certainly isn't in what I'd call flyover country.

[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.

Roughly where is the district and for what term? I clerked for a relatively new district judge in a very flyover area, and we probably got about 40-50 applications for terms about a year or two out. The numbers might have gone up since then as she has stronger channels in place now and a good reputation.

This answer will likely make it easy to identify my judge, but it's next term (2023–24), which I know wouldn't work for people who don't have the flexibility to drop everything and move so suddenly. Still, didn't expect numbers to be this low. The chambers isn't in a major city but it's within an hour and a half from two major ones, and it itself certainly isn't in what I'd call flyover country.

I suspect it is the 2023-24 aspect of it. If I was your judge I'd reccomend also posting for 2024-25 prior to June and he will avoid "meh" clerks in the future and get a lot of apps.