Best and worst judges to clerk for Forum

[Anonymous User]

Also the court is very, very deferential to senior judges when assigning opinions.

To the point where it seems almost like a penalty to be an active judge (more summary orders! no ability to steal opinions by dint of active seniority!).

[Anonymous User]

Also the court is very, very deferential to senior judges when assigning opinions.

To the point where it seems almost like a penalty to be an active judge (more summary orders! no ability to steal opinions by dint of active seniority!).

Exactly. Way different experience clerking for a senior vs active judge on CA2. The newer judges seem to like longer summary orders (defeating the purpose of a "summary"...), so it's an even more brutal penalty.

[Anonymous User]

Menashi is a huge pain in the ass to other chambers, and a strange person in general, but treats his clerks well. He's easily the "Trumpiest" judge on CA2 though and prefers to hire clerks connected to the further reaches of the conservative legal movement.

Strange is an understatement. He's developed a reputation even among fedsoc types at the top schools for being awkward and unpleasant. And as a downstream consequence of that, he tends to get close-but-not-quite-stellar fedsoc clerks. Apparently several of his hires have either been socially off or have lots of reputational baggage that preclude them from clerking for top tier judges despite having the grades.

He'd probably be a contender for the Alito seat down the road if he weren't so personally repellant.

[Anonymous User]

Exactly. Way different experience clerking for a senior vs active judge on CA2. The newer judges seem to like longer summary orders (defeating the purpose of a "summary"...), so it's an even more brutal penalty.

I clerked on a different, "less-prestigious" Circuit (one of the ones in the middle). The way CA2 does things is absolutely baffling; it must work, in some sense, but it seems designed for inefficiency. I've been told by friends who are recent clerks that it extends to other areas, too, like last-minute calendaring changes (often of cases that aren't getting argued anyway), very little central coordination by the clerk's office, no standard formatting for opinions or orders, etc.

I'm sure clerking on CA2 can be fun, and it's damn preftigious, but it also sounds like absolute chaos.

[Anonymous User]

Exactly. Way different experience clerking for a senior vs active judge on CA2. The newer judges seem to like longer summary orders (defeating the purpose of a "summary"...), so it's an even more brutal penalty.

I clerked on a different, "less-prestigious" Circuit (one of the ones in the middle). The way CA2 does things is absolutely baffling; it must work, in some sense, but it seems designed for inefficiency. I've been told by friends who are recent clerks that it extends to other areas, too, like last-minute calendaring changes (often of cases that aren't getting argued anyway), very little central coordination by the clerk's office, no standard formatting for opinions or orders, etc.

I'm sure clerking on CA2 can be fun, and it's damn preftigious, but it also sounds like absolute chaos.

I wouldn't say it's absolute chaos, or even mildly chaotic. The clerk's office staff - and the Clerk herself - are absolutely phenomenal. The presider (for SOs) or opinion author sets the format, that's not a big deal at all. The worst of it is the no real upside/all downside to presiding.

[Anonymous User]

lol, recent former CA2 clerk here. it's not "chaotic" in the slightest. it's very well run, as the other actual CA2 clerk noted. don't hate the game!

[Anonymous User]

CA2 should have a house format, but beyond that behind the scenes it’s much better run than SDNY, which I also clerked on, imo. Of course it’s much easier to run a COA than a major district imo. The only thing I would change is an opt-in liberalization of summary order assignment, both because senior active judges like Livingston and Lohier end up doing a huge share of the SOs and because some senior judges want to do some. CA2 is designed to make people go senior ASAP and it clearly works, with the result being that it has a very reasonable per-judge caseload.

[Anonymous User]

CA2 should have a house format, but beyond that behind the scenes it’s much better run than SDNY, which I also clerked on, imo. Of course it’s much easier to run a COA than a major district imo. The only thing I would change is an opt-in liberalization of summary order assignment, both because senior active judges like Livingston and Lohier end up doing a huge share of the SOs and because some senior judges want to do some. CA2 is designed to make people go senior ASAP and it clearly works, with the result being that it has a very reasonable per-judge caseload.

Umm, Cabranes and Pooler would beg to differ!

[Anonymous User]

It doesn't matter if the litigant was making it up. A simple "motion denied" would have sufficed. The litigant asked to be referred to by certain pronouns and Judge Duncan didn't want to do so.

I've spent years working on prison matters for law enforcement, in a conservative state. This commentary by Judge Duncan is reprehensible. In my state's prison system, whether it's an inmate or a correctional officer, any hint of disrespect toward their sexual orientation or transgender status is not tolerated--period, full stop. This is made crystal clear from the very top down, and anyone with a problem with it will answer to the prison chief.

It's pretty pathetic that a federal judge lacks the mental discipline that even a front line underpaid correctional officer maintains.

I mean, did you watch the video of him at SLS? He quite literally melted down under some of the most mild questioning I've ever seen

[Anonymous User]

It doesn't matter if the litigant was making it up. A simple "motion denied" would have sufficed. The litigant asked to be referred to by certain pronouns and Judge Duncan didn't want to do so.

I've spent years working on prison matters for law enforcement, in a conservative state. This commentary by Judge Duncan is reprehensible. In my state's prison system, whether it's an inmate or a correctional officer, any hint of disrespect toward their sexual orientation or transgender status is not tolerated--period, full stop. This is made crystal clear from the very top down, and anyone with a problem with it will answer to the prison chief.

It's pretty pathetic that a federal judge lacks the mental discipline that even a front line underpaid correctional officer maintains.

I mean, did you watch the video of him at SLS? He quite literally melted down under some of the most mild questioning I've ever seen

While I agree with you, the person you are responding to is clearly a troll. I will venmo you $50 if you can find me a state prison—in a conservative or liberal state either way—where the prison chief personally ensures that all prison guards and prisoners respect each other pronouns.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a 2L and maybe this is not the best thread to pose this question in, but I was wondering if for those of us who aren't like getting the pick of the litter for clerkships, if it is worth it to tough it out with a subpar judge or a judge that is not interested in mentoring in districts like SDNY/DDC etc... Obviously there are limits and you don't want a judge that is outright physically or emotionally abusive or one that will fire you at the drop of a hat, but maybe there is a sense to which sticking it out for a year to get that star on your resume is worth it? Just thinking out loud and maybe if I should lower my expectations enjoyability wise and just apply for some of these "bad" judges in SDNY (whatever they are) among other places since having SDNY on your resume trumps all.

[not2spicy4]

I'm a 2L and maybe this is not the best thread to pose this question in, but I was wondering if for those of us who aren't like getting the pick of the litter for clerkships, if it is worth it to tough it out with a subpar judge or a judge that is not interested in mentoring in districts like SDNY/DDC etc... Obviously there are limits and you don't want a judge that is outright physically or emotionally abusive or one that will fire you at the drop of a hat, but maybe there is a sense to which sticking it out for a year to get that star on your resume is worth it? Just thinking out loud and maybe if I should lower my expectations enjoyability wise and just apply for some of these "bad" judges in SDNY (whatever they are) among other places since having SDNY on your resume trumps all.

If you don't hear anything egregious about the judge, they are probably a perfectly fine person and the quality of your experience will depend on how well you two get along on a personal level.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a 2L and maybe this is not the best thread to pose this question in, but I was wondering if for those of us who aren't like getting the pick of the litter for clerkships, if it is worth it to tough it out with a subpar judge or a judge that is not interested in mentoring in districts like SDNY/DDC etc... Obviously there are limits and you don't want a judge that is outright physically or emotionally abusive or one that will fire you at the drop of a hat, but maybe there is a sense to which sticking it out for a year to get that star on your resume is worth it? Just thinking out loud and maybe if I should lower my expectations enjoyability wise and just apply for some of these "bad" judges in SDNY (whatever they are) among other places since having SDNY on your resume trumps all.

If you don't hear anything egregious about the judge, they are probably a perfectly fine person and the quality of your experience will depend on how well you two get along on a personal level.

The quality of your day-to-day will depend on how well you and the Judge get along. But even if you aren't the best of friends or anywhere close to it, you will still be a district court clerk helping to manage a docket. That's where a lot of the learning comes from, so don't insist on finding a soulmate for a Judge.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a 2L and maybe this is not the best thread to pose this question in, but I was wondering if for those of us who aren't like getting the pick of the litter for clerkships, if it is worth it to tough it out with a subpar judge or a judge that is not interested in mentoring in districts like SDNY/DDC etc... Obviously there are limits and you don't want a judge that is outright physically or emotionally abusive or one that will fire you at the drop of a hat, but maybe there is a sense to which sticking it out for a year to get that star on your resume is worth it? Just thinking out loud and maybe if I should lower my expectations enjoyability wise and just apply for some of these "bad" judges in SDNY (whatever they are) among other places since having SDNY on your resume trumps all.

If you don't hear anything egregious about the judge, they are probably a perfectly fine person and the quality of your experience will depend on how well you two get along on a personal level.

The quality of your day-to-day will depend on how well you and the Judge get along. But even if you aren't the best of friends or anywhere close to it, you will still be a district court clerk helping to manage a docket. That's where a lot of the learning comes from, so don't insist on finding a soulmate for a Judge.

Unless a judge is a clear member of the "Do Not Clerk" list (just read this thread), the biggest red flag for me would be a judge who never comes into the office, has a strong career clerk who acts as a manager to term clerks, or otherwise is inaccessible or disinterested in their clerks. It's only a year; I'd personally rather put up with a judge who works me hard (but reasonable) hours or is occasionally a bit of an ass but who I'll get a lot of day-to-day work with than a judge who will take no interest in my career or development.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a 2L and maybe this is not the best thread to pose this question in, but I was wondering if for those of us who aren't like getting the pick of the litter for clerkships, if it is worth it to tough it out with a subpar judge or a judge that is not interested in mentoring in districts like SDNY/DDC etc... Obviously there are limits and you don't want a judge that is outright physically or emotionally abusive or one that will fire you at the drop of a hat, but maybe there is a sense to which sticking it out for a year to get that star on your resume is worth it? Just thinking out loud and maybe if I should lower my expectations enjoyability wise and just apply for some of these "bad" judges in SDNY (whatever they are) among other places since having SDNY on your resume trumps all.

If you don't hear anything egregious about the judge, they are probably a perfectly fine person and the quality of your experience will depend on how well you two get along on a personal level.

The quality of your day-to-day will depend on how well you and the Judge get along. But even if you aren't the best of friends or anywhere close to it, you will still be a district court clerk helping to manage a docket. That's where a lot of the learning comes from, so don't insist on finding a soulmate for a Judge.

Unless a judge is a clear member of the "Do Not Clerk" list (just read this thread), the biggest red flag for me would be a judge who never comes into the office, has a strong career clerk who acts as a manager to term clerks, or otherwise is inaccessible or disinterested in their clerks. It's only a year; I'd personally rather put up with a judge who works me hard (but reasonable) hours or is occasionally a bit of an ass but who I'll get a lot of day-to-day work with than a judge who will take no interest in my career or development.

My Judge was interested in getting things right, not me or the other clerks. He or she was not a warm person, though he or she was not mean (usually). My day to day was therefore "meh." But would I do it again? 100%, absolutely. It prepared me well for my COA clerkship and I learned a ton just by seeing all that a district court clerk sees. Of course, I would have preferred a more pleasant working environment. But I don't suppose most firms are much more pleasant, and I learned *a ton* in my year that I would not have learned at a firm.

[Anonymous User]

2L here who asked the question. I guess the takeaway is look for people who are good mentors and work with clerks, but do not be super wedded to someone who is highly personable? But let us say someone has a reputation (as documented in this thread and elsewhere) for being very distant to their clerks in SDNY/DDC and not that wedded in their success, would you still encourage me to apply? The thing about the career clerk potentially being a weird gatekeeper and a red flag is interesting and I did not think of that, so that is a good insight too.

[not2spicy4]

2L here who asked the question. I guess the takeaway is look for people who are good mentors and work with clerks, but do not be super wedded to someone who is highly personable? But let us say someone has a reputation (as documented in this thread and elsewhere) for being very distant to their clerks in SDNY/DDC and not that wedded in their success, would you still encourage me to apply? The thing about the career clerk potentially being a weird gatekeeper and a red flag is interesting and I did not think of that, so that is a good insight too.

If you don't know anything about the person who is giving this information about the judge, I would just make a mental note or maybe try to corroborate it from someone you know personally. You typically don't know the circumstances that led to that person giving this opinion, and I just wouldn't take an anonymous post online as God's truth without something more.

[Anonymous User]

2L here who asked the question. I guess the takeaway is look for people who are good mentors and work with clerks, but do not be super wedded to someone who is highly personable? But let us say someone has a reputation (as documented in this thread and elsewhere) for being very distant to their clerks in SDNY/DDC and not that wedded in their success, would you still encourage me to apply? The thing about the career clerk potentially being a weird gatekeeper and a red flag is interesting and I did not think of that, so that is a good insight too.

I don't think it's worth passing on good judges in other districts to work with an unpleasant one in SDNY/DDC. You get a star on your resume from clerking in any district. (That said, I also agree with the person who said that they learned a lot even if the day to day was meh; and "personable" isn't always the best quality to pick for, as some very nice people can be incredibly disorganized or unproductive judges.)

I also think that you can learn a TON from a good career clerk as well, so while I agree that some judges can use a career clerk as a shield not to have to deal with the term clerk, that's also not at all universal.

[Anonymous User]

2L here who asked the question. I guess the takeaway is look for people who are good mentors and work with clerks, but do not be super wedded to someone who is highly personable? But let us say someone has a reputation (as documented in this thread and elsewhere) for being very distant to their clerks in SDNY/DDC and not that wedded in their success, would you still encourage me to apply? The thing about the career clerk potentially being a weird gatekeeper and a red flag is interesting and I did not think of that, so that is a good insight too.

I don't think it's worth passing on good judges in other districts to work with an unpleasant one in SDNY/DDC. You get a star on your resume from clerking in any district. (That said, I also agree with the person who said that they learned a lot even if the day to day was meh; and "personable" isn't always the best quality to pick for, as some very nice people can be incredibly disorganized or unproductive judges.)

I also think that you can learn a TON from a good career clerk as well, so while I agree that some judges can use a career clerk as a shield not to have to deal with the term clerk, that's also not at all universal.

Person who mentioned career clerks here. I agree with you--many, if not most, are great and will enhance your experience, both by teaching you the job and often vacuuming up unpleasant pro se, etc. cases. I would not want to join a chambers, however, where the career clerk is your manager and controls your access to the judge.

[Anonymous User]

2L here who asked the question. I guess the takeaway is look for people who are good mentors and work with clerks, but do not be super wedded to someone who is highly personable? But let us say someone has a reputation (as documented in this thread and elsewhere) for being very distant to their clerks in SDNY/DDC and not that wedded in their success, would you still encourage me to apply? The thing about the career clerk potentially being a weird gatekeeper and a red flag is interesting and I did not think of that, so that is a good insight too.

I don't think it's worth passing on good judges in other districts to work with an unpleasant one in SDNY/DDC. You get a star on your resume from clerking in any district. (That said, I also agree with the person who said that they learned a lot even if the day to day was meh; and "personable" isn't always the best quality to pick for, as some very nice people can be incredibly disorganized or unproductive judges.)

I also think that you can learn a TON from a good career clerk as well, so while I agree that some judges can use a career clerk as a shield not to have to deal with the term clerk, that's also not at all universal.

Person who mentioned career clerks here. I agree with you--many, if not most, are great and will enhance your experience, both by teaching you the job and often vacuuming up unpleasant pro se, etc. cases. I would not want to join a chambers, however, where the career clerk is your manager and controls your access to the judge.

Totally fair, definitely worth looking out for.

[Anonymous User]

It doesn't matter if the litigant was making it up. A simple "motion denied" would have sufficed. The litigant asked to be referred to by certain pronouns and Judge Duncan didn't want to do so.

I've spent years working on prison matters for law enforcement, in a conservative state. This commentary by Judge Duncan is reprehensible. In my state's prison system, whether it's an inmate or a correctional officer, any hint of disrespect toward their sexual orientation or transgender status is not tolerated--period, full stop. This is made crystal clear from the very top down, and anyone with a problem with it will answer to the prison chief.

It's pretty pathetic that a federal judge lacks the mental discipline that even a front line underpaid correctional officer maintains.

I mean, did you watch the video of him at SLS? He quite literally melted down under some of the most mild questioning I've ever seen

While I agree with you, the person you are responding to is clearly a troll. I will venmo you $50 if you can find me a state prison—in a conservative or liberal state either way—where the prison chief personally ensures that all prison guards and prisoners respect each other pronouns.

Nope, not a troll. The prison system I am referring to is run under an exceptionally tight, quasi-military hierarchy with no lapses of discipline to be tolerated. That happens to include the prison chief's point of view that absolutely no disrespect on sexual orientation and transgender grounds is acceptable. And frankly, you sound utterly clueless about the real world operations of a large scale prison system: the treatment and handling of transgender inmates is a very serious and dangerous problem. If not handled properly, people die, are extorted, etc. A prison chief doesn't care about this issue for reasons that you probably ponder while sitting around watching tv. He cares because his damn job is to stop inmates and officers from becoming dead. The real troll here is you.

I think you should name the state prison system here, since that's not something that would compromise you as an anon (even if it's one as small as Wyoming). I have had a good amount of involvement in prison litigation in two deep blue states (MA and CA) and although what you describe is aspirational, it is nothing close to reality in either state--nor in any other state I've heard of.

[Anonymous User]

Oh okay so you are making it up.

[Anonymous User]

An uttering damning portrayal of Allison Burroughs on the District of Massachusetts here. Abused sealing power, decided to try and withhold documents available through FOIA, and bizarre evidentiary rulings, all to protect the public's image of Harvard.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-colu ... ction-case

[Anonymous User]

Soto on D. Ariz. got a smack from Judge Collins for summarily affirming all R&Rs even after the Ninth Circuit told him to cut it out

[Anonymous User]

Soto on D. Ariz. got a smack from Judge Collins for summarily affirming all R&Rs even after the Ninth Circuit told him to cut it out

Soto’s still a great judge to appear before who knows how to run a courtroom (he’s sort of slow but thorough, prepared, and respectful) and I can’t imagine the above would make him a bad judge to clerk for.