Best and worst judges to clerk for Forum

[Anonymous User]

I know Sung is so new that there's not much out there but... does anyone have any insights into her chambers? I have a recommender with a personal connection but we both don't want to play that card unless I'm positive I want to be there.

I know only extremely vague but in-sum positive things.

[Anonymous User]

I know Sung is so new that there's not much out there but... does anyone have any insights into her chambers? I have a recommender with a personal connection but we both don't want to play that card unless I'm positive I want to be there.

I know only extremely vague but in-sum positive things.

It's hard to gauge based on personal interactions, but she seemed down to earth in all my interactions with her, which is a good sign for a judge, in my opinion.

[Anonymous User]

I know Sung is so new that there's not much out there but... does anyone have any insights into her chambers? I have a recommender with a personal connection but we both don't want to play that card unless I'm positive I want to be there.

I know only extremely vague but in-sum positive things.

It's hard to gauge based on personal interactions, but she seemed down to earth in all my interactions with her, which is a good sign for a judge, in my opinion.

Normally this information would be too attenuated and useless and wouldn't bother posting, but since she is new I figure all the information you can get is helpful. This all being said, I know someone who knows someone who has worked with her and says in a professional setting she is nice and easy to work with. Yes, I know this is double—now triple—hearsay, so don't take this as the arbiter of truth or anything.

[Anonymous User]

I know Sung is so new that there's not much out there but... does anyone have any insights into her chambers? I have a recommender with a personal connection but we both don't want to play that card unless I'm positive I want to be there.

I know only extremely vague but in-sum positive things.

It's hard to gauge based on personal interactions, but she seemed down to earth in all my interactions with her, which is a good sign for a judge, in my opinion.

Normally this information would be too attenuated and useless and wouldn't bother posting, but since she is new I figure all the information you can get is helpful. This all being said, I know someone who knows someone who has worked with her and says in a professional setting she is nice and easy to work with. Yes, I know this is double—now triple—hearsay, so don't take this as the arbiter of truth or anything.

OP here! This is all super helpful, even if it's hearsay, so thank you! I mostly was worried there would be some negative murmurs that didn't yet raise to the level of actual reports, so the fact there's none of that is very encouraging.

[Anonymous User]

Judge Rao gave an unusually frank interview to Advisory Opinions this week—I’ve never heard anything quite like it from a sitting judge. Probably a good listen for people applying to her.

[Anonymous User]

Judge Rao gave an unusually frank interview to Advisory Opinions this week—I’ve never heard anything quite like it from a sitting judge. Probably a good listen for people applying to her.

I also felt some of her comments on the podcast were inappropriate for a sitting lower-court judge. To some extent, I suppose it's better to just know what judges think and have frank conversations in the public sphere. And her situation is different than others in that she published extensively on admin law before being a judge, so her views are already out there. But she basically admitted she doesn't faithfully apply Chevron because she thinks it's wrong. That's not great.

[lavarman84]

Judge Rao gave an unusually frank interview to Advisory Opinions this week—I’ve never heard anything quite like it from a sitting judge. Probably a good listen for people applying to her.

I also felt some of her comments on the podcast were inappropriate for a sitting lower-court judge. To some extent, I suppose it's better to just know what judges think and have frank conversations in the public sphere. And her situation is different than others in that she published extensively on admin law before being a judge, so her views are already out there. But she basically admitted she doesn't faithfully apply Chevron because she thinks it's wrong. That's not great.

There's something to be said for being honest. She's far from the only member of the judiciary who disingenuously applies precedents they don't like.

[Anonymous User]

Judge Rao gave an unusually frank interview to Advisory Opinions this week—I’ve never heard anything quite like it from a sitting judge. Probably a good listen for people applying to her.

I also felt some of her comments on the podcast were inappropriate for a sitting lower-court judge. To some extent, I suppose it's better to just know what judges think and have frank conversations in the public sphere. And her situation is different than others in that she published extensively on admin law before being a judge, so her views are already out there. But she basically admitted she doesn't faithfully apply Chevron because she thinks it's wrong. That's not great.

As far as I can tell from listening, she never says this in the podcast

[Anonymous User]

Kovner got an abuse-of-discretion reversal for sua sponte dismissing a pro se case today, between this and the reprimand for gaming the list not too long ago it seems that she might cut some corners

[Anonymous User]

Kovner got an abuse-of-discretion reversal for sua sponte dismissing a pro se case today, between this and the reprimand for gaming the list not too long ago it seems that she might cut some corners

Can't fault her for the sua sponte dismissal, any district clerk will tell you what an enormous pain in the ass it is to manage pro se cases in which the plaintiff is not cooperating. Gaming the list is quite interesting though...do you have a link to that reprimand? I feel like many chambers may currently be thinking about "creative" solutions to 3/31 pressure right about now.

[Anonymous User]

2022 WL 1087144

Spicy footnote.

[Anonymous User]

Wow, yeah, that's a smackdown. I had heard of this tactic for gaming the list but this seems like a clear signal to every district judge in CA2 to not try it.

[Anonymous User]

Any EDNY horror stories or hard-avoids?

[Anonymous User]

How's Duncan on CA5?

[Anonymous User]

How's Duncan on CA5?

Lmao

[Anonymous User]

How's Duncan on CA5?

Great boss, great clerkship. In person he is very kind and soft spoken. Maybe he could have comported himself better today, but the fact that vulgar comments about his wife (among other things) elicited a strong reaction isn’t a mark against him. “Be impervious to direct personal provocation” isn’t a requirement for a federal judge.

[lavarman84]

How's Duncan on CA5?

Great boss, great clerkship. In person he is very kind and soft spoken. Maybe he could have comported himself better today, but the fact that vulgar comments about his wife (among other things) elicited a strong reaction isn’t a mark against him. “Be impervious to direct personal provocation” isn’t a requirement for a federal judge.

Duncan is exactly the person he seemed to be when he went out of his way to disrespect a transgender litigant.

[throwawayt14]

How's Duncan on CA5?

Great boss, great clerkship. In person he is very kind and soft spoken. Maybe he could have comported himself better today, but the fact that vulgar comments about his wife (among other things) elicited a strong reaction isn’t a mark against him. “Be impervious to direct personal provocation” isn’t a requirement for a federal judge.

Duncan is exactly the person he seemed to be when he went out of his way to disrespect a transgender litigant.

By litigant, you mean convicted male child pornographer/sex offender with an oddly convenient transition.

[Anonymous User]

Hold up, this lavarman person has 8416 posts on this website lol

[Anonymous User]

How's Duncan on CA5?

Great boss, great clerkship. In person he is very kind and soft spoken. Maybe he could have comported himself better today, but the fact that vulgar comments about his wife (among other things) elicited a strong reaction isn’t a mark against him. “Be impervious to direct personal provocation” isn’t a requirement for a federal judge.

Duncan is exactly the person he seemed to be when he went out of his way to disrespect a transgender litigant.

By litigant, you mean convicted male child pornographer/sex offender with an oddly convenient transition.

I don’t understand what you mean by this. Is that person not a transgender litigant because they are a convicted sex offender?

[throwawayt14]

I don’t understand what you mean by this. Is that person not a transgender litigant because they are a convicted sex offender?

It's burying the lede to imply that the litigant was your run-of-the-mill, good-faith civil litigant requesting the use of their preferred pronouns because they have a genuine case of gender dysphoria, as compared to a child pornographer with plenty of incentive to claim transgender status.

But in any case, this is completely off-topic for the thread, and I shouldn't have started this digression in the first place, so I won't respond further.

[lavarman84]

I don’t understand what you mean by this. Is that person not a transgender litigant because they are a convicted sex offender?

It's burying the lede to imply that the litigant was your run-of-the-mill, good-faith civil litigant requesting the use of their preferred pronouns because they have a genuine case of gender dysphoria, as compared to a child pornographer with plenty of incentive to claim transgender status.

But in any case, this is completely off-topic for the thread, and I shouldn't have started this digression in the first place, so I won't respond further.

It really says it all that you think only good people deserve to be treated in a courteous manner by the judges deciding their case. It costs the judges absolutely nothing.

[Anonymous User]

I don’t understand what you mean by this. Is that person not a transgender litigant because they are a convicted sex offender?

It's burying the lede to imply that the litigant was your run-of-the-mill, good-faith civil litigant requesting the use of their preferred pronouns because they have a genuine case of gender dysphoria, as compared to a child pornographer with plenty of incentive to claim transgender status.

But in any case, this is completely off-topic for the thread, and I shouldn't have started this digression in the first place, so I won't respond further.

And why would there be an incentive to "claim transgender status"? Are you drinking the DeSantis groomer kool aid? Or is SKD trolling this board?

[nixy]

I don’t understand what you mean by this. Is that person not a transgender litigant because they are a convicted sex offender?

It's burying the lede to imply that the litigant was your run-of-the-mill, good-faith civil litigant requesting the use of their preferred pronouns because they have a genuine case of gender dysphoria, as compared to a child pornographer with plenty of incentive to claim transgender status.

But in any case, this is completely off-topic for the thread, and I shouldn't have started this digression in the first place, so I won't respond further.

And why would there be an incentive to "claim transgender status"? Are you drinking the DeSantis groomer kool aid? Or is SKD trolling this board?

Seriously. I don't know why anyone thinks there's an incentive to "claim transgender status" anywhere in this country. If, as is being implied, someone wants to manufacture some kind of backstory to justify their own child exploitation, there are a lot more effective experiences to "claim" than being trans, if the goal is garner sympathy.

[Anonymous User]

I don’t understand what you mean by this. Is that person not a transgender litigant because they are a convicted sex offender?

It's burying the lede to imply that the litigant was your run-of-the-mill, good-faith civil litigant requesting the use of their preferred pronouns because they have a genuine case of gender dysphoria, as compared to a child pornographer with plenty of incentive to claim transgender status.

But in any case, this is completely off-topic for the thread, and I shouldn't have started this digression in the first place, so I won't respond further.

.