Best and worst judges to clerk for Forum

[Anonymous User]

Bibas wrote a pretty scathing and extreme dissent in a 2A case recently that got the conservative blogosphere excited. I don’t think he’s trying out for SCOTUS or anything—he’s smart enough to know he has no shot with his views on criminal justice—but I wouldn’t describe it as either moderate or collegial. Though he doesn’t seem like an ideologue in general, maybe just idiosyncratic.

Right; that's why I singled him out as being an uneasy fit with the atmosphere. But the cooling saucer of court-wide email chains about grandkids might get to him yet.

[Anonymous User]

In the spirit of the thread, former SDNY clerk here willing to take questions.

[Anonymous User]

In the spirit of the thread, former SDNY clerk here willing to take questions.

Are most chambers basically 11-12 hour days besides the seniors? Who to avoid, who to apply to if grades strong enough to make all at least within the realm of possibility? Is a two-year stint with Caproni not worth it? Seems like a lot of work for the reward. Is Kimba Wood still as prestigious? Thoughts on her as a boss? Also interested in thoughts on Furman and Abrams, to the extent you have any. Thank you!

[Anonymous User]

In the spirit of the thread, former SDNY clerk here willing to take questions.

Are most chambers basically 11-12 hour days besides the seniors? Who to avoid, who to apply to if grades strong enough to make all at least within the realm of possibility? Is a two-year stint with Caproni not worth it? Seems like a lot of work for the reward. Is Kimba Wood still as prestigious? Thoughts on her as a boss? Also interested in thoughts on Furman and Abrams, to the extent you have any. Thank you!

For an (1) active judge that (2) cares about the CJRA list, you are looking at biglaw hours. SDNY is the busiest trial court in the country, and the amount of work is truly extraordinary. Clerks are very, very busy. However, that does not mean that every judge in this category is the same. Some, like Woods and Failla, require substantially more in-chambers hours than others, like Oetken and Nathan. Some, like Woods again, also require significant weekend facetime, because they themselves are in the office. So even though everyone is working a lot, you should be mindful of these differences, because they significantly affect quality of life.

As to the two-year stint with Caproni, whether it's worth it depends on your stats, personal circumstances, and your career goals. Are you competitive for a one-year stint with other judges? Are you willing to take the salary hit (assuming you're coming from/going to a firm) for two years? Do you want to be an AUSA in SDNY? If this is your only shot at an SDNY clerkship and you really want it, I would go for it. I've also heard good things about Caproni.

I've likewise heard good things about Furman and Abrams. One thing to note is that these questions are harder to answer than for clerks on the COA. At the circuit-level, you regularly sit with other judges, so you encounter them and their clerks. SDNY has 30 or so judges, and their clerks do not interact in the same way as at the COA. In other words, it's harder to know how other judges are and how their clerks feel. But I've heard very positive things about both RA and JMF. I did not personally interact with either. But they are well-regarded judges on the court. Both are very well-connected to the legal market and will go to bat for clerks. JMF obviously is turning into quite a feeder, and it's a very competitive clerkship—much more so than RA.

I've heard positive things about KW. She is senior and has taken herself out of most wheels, so I think she has a very small civil docket and largely does criminal stuff. Depending on your interests, that could be great or really bad. But definitely better hours than an active judge. She is well-known in the legal community, but she's not a feeder.

[Anonymous User]

Anything on John Bush, Eric Murphy, or Chad Readler on the Sixth? Based on qualifications/confirmation the first looks like a nut and the other two look bright and well-qualified.

[Anonymous User]

Anything on John Bush, Eric Murphy, or Chad Readler on the Sixth? Based on qualifications/confirmation the first looks like a nut and the other two look bright and well-qualified.

That's pretty much what I've heard from people who practice in CA6, though no personal knowledge nor any idea how they are as bosses.

[lavarman84]

Anything on John Bush, Eric Murphy, or Chad Readler on the Sixth? Based on qualifications/confirmation the first looks like a nut and the other two look bright and well-qualified.

Some info in here.
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=305438

[floatie]

Does anyone have any info on the judges on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit?

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have any info on the judges on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit?

There are threads on this elsewhere and I'm definitely not a patent specialist, but I believe that Judge Taranto is both very well-respected and very competitive. The Federal Circuit's reputation is historically pretty poor--lots of 9-0 reversals by SCOTUS--but I believe that it's improved significantly since Obama appointed a ton of patent specialists to it.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have any info on the judges on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit?

There are threads on this elsewhere and I'm definitely not a patent specialist, but I believe that Judge Taranto is both very well-respected and very competitive. The Federal Circuit's reputation is historically pretty poor--lots of 9-0 reversals by SCOTUS--but I believe that it's improved significantly since Obama appointed a ton of patent specialists to it.

More than any other court of appeals, hiring practices differ pretty significantly between the various judges. Taranto and Dyk are the only active judges who largely hire clerks directly out of law school. They're definitely not feeder competitive, but about the same as other competitive COA judges (top 10% @ T14; top 1/3 at HYS). This practice tracks pretty closely with their backgrounds -- SCOTUS clerks, SGs office, private SCOTUS practice. Bryson and Clevenger have similar backgrounds/had similar practices, but they're senior now (although Bryson sits by designation in D. Del and E.D. Tex. so clerks get to do trials).

Rest of the court generally requires some degree of patent litigation experience/technical background and grades/school aren't as important (of course, there's a gradient here). As previous poster alluded to, there's been a changing of the guard -- Newman and Lourie are the only active judges left from the wild west days of the CAFC. Newman in particular seems to be the last bastion of brazenly pro-patent jurisprudence (she's also 92 y/o).

Out of the other recent appointees, I think anybody interested in patent litigation would have a good experience with Stoll or Chen. Both are young/energetic, have relatively neutral jurisprudence (Stoll perhaps a bit pro-patent and Chen a bit pro-government, but not materially so), and had great pre-bench experience. Not saying the other judges would be bad clerkships, but the experience would probably depend more on a fit between personalities/interests.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have any info on the judges on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit?

There are threads on this elsewhere and I'm definitely not a patent specialist, but I believe that Judge Taranto is both very well-respected and very competitive. The Federal Circuit's reputation is historically pretty poor--lots of 9-0 reversals by SCOTUS--but I believe that it's improved significantly since Obama appointed a ton of patent specialists to it.

More than any other court of appeals, hiring practices differ pretty significantly between the various judges. Taranto and Dyk are the only active judges who largely hire clerks directly out of law school. They're definitely not feeder competitive, but about the same as other competitive COA judges (top 10% @ T14; top 1/3 at HYS). This practice tracks pretty closely with their backgrounds -- SCOTUS clerks, SGs office, private SCOTUS practice. Bryson and Clevenger have similar backgrounds/had similar practices, but they're senior now (although Bryson sits by designation in D. Del and E.D. Tex. so clerks get to do trials).

Rest of the court generally requires some degree of patent litigation experience/technical background and grades/school aren't as important (of course, there's a gradient here). As previous poster alluded to, there's been a changing of the guard -- Newman and Lourie are the only active judges left from the wild west days of the CAFC. Newman in particular seems to be the last bastion of brazenly pro-patent jurisprudence (she's also 92 y/o).

Out of the other recent appointees, I think anybody interested in patent litigation would have a good experience with Stoll or Chen. Both are young/energetic, have relatively neutral jurisprudence (Stoll perhaps a bit pro-patent and Chen a bit pro-government, but not materially so), and had great pre-bench experience. Not saying the other judges would be bad clerkships, but the experience would probably depend more on a fit between personalities/interests.

One of the posters from way back that finished #1 at UCLA and wrote a 1L success guide clerked directly for a CAFC judge and did an AMA about it a few years ago. Might be worth trying to track that down if you are interested.

[Anonymous User]

Real died last year, so no need to avoid.

Re: new CA9 judges: I've also heard positive things about Miller and Bennett in terms of pleasantness to work/interact with, and similarly heard Collins is a hard avoid.

Bade also struck me as a delightful person. Didn't get great vibes from R. Nelson.

R. Nelson is very ideological as a person, not quite sure as a judge. I am pretty sure he requires FedSoc connections.

[Anonymous User]

Real died last year, so no need to avoid.

Re: new CA9 judges: I've also heard positive things about Miller and Bennett in terms of pleasantness to work/interact with, and similarly heard Collins is a hard avoid.

Bade also struck me as a delightful person. Didn't get great vibes from R. Nelson.

R. Nelson is very ideological as a person, not quite sure as a judge. I am pretty sure he requires FedSoc connections.

I think that perfectly describes what rubbed me the wrong way. He wore his politics on his sleeve.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have any info on the judges on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit?

There are threads on this elsewhere and I'm definitely not a patent specialist, but I believe that Judge Taranto is both very well-respected and very competitive. The Federal Circuit's reputation is historically pretty poor--lots of 9-0 reversals by SCOTUS--but I believe that it's improved significantly since Obama appointed a ton of patent specialists to it.

More than any other court of appeals, hiring practices differ pretty significantly between the various judges. Taranto and Dyk are the only active judges who largely hire clerks directly out of law school. They're definitely not feeder competitive, but about the same as other competitive COA judges (top 10% @ T14; top 1/3 at HYS). This practice tracks pretty closely with their backgrounds -- SCOTUS clerks, SGs office, private SCOTUS practice. Bryson and Clevenger have similar backgrounds/had similar practices, but they're senior now (although Bryson sits by designation in D. Del and E.D. Tex. so clerks get to do trials).

Rest of the court generally requires some degree of patent litigation experience/technical background and grades/school aren't as important (of course, there's a gradient here). As previous poster alluded to, there's been a changing of the guard -- Newman and Lourie are the only active judges left from the wild west days of the CAFC. Newman in particular seems to be the last bastion of brazenly pro-patent jurisprudence (she's also 92 y/o).

Out of the other recent appointees, I think anybody interested in patent litigation would have a good experience with Stoll or Chen. Both are young/energetic, have relatively neutral jurisprudence (Stoll perhaps a bit pro-patent and Chen a bit pro-government, but not materially so), and had great pre-bench experience. Not saying the other judges would be bad clerkships, but the experience would probably depend more on a fit between personalities/interests.

Former CAFC clerk. Largely agree with the second Anon. Ignore the first Anon - just because CAFC and SCOTUS disagree about patent law doesn't mean the clerkship isn't valuable.

I think many judges are less traditional prestige/grade sensitive, and look for strong relevant experience. Most active judges are looking for work experience, often substantial experience in patent law (e.g., 2-3+ years at a firm). Work as a patent agent and/or an advanced degree is also beneficial. Prior district court clerkship in a patent-heavy court (e.g., Delaware, EDTX) could also be very valuable.

Each senior judge is his own thing - Schall has close ties to Finnegan, Bryson often relies on professor referrals, Plager and Mayer generally have only career clerks.

I don't think there are any judges to avoid. Judges run their chambers differently, so ask during the interview about work hours, etc. - some chambers work MUCH harder than others.

[Wild Card]

In the spirit of the thread, former SDNY clerk here willing to take questions.

How does Rakoff-Katzmann hiring work?

[Anonymous User]

In the spirit of the thread, former SDNY clerk here willing to take questions.

How does Rakoff-Katzmann hiring work?

I am not sure of the exact details. Katzmann is one of the founders of the current clerkship hiring plan, and I think it's his goodwill (and that of Garland) in the 2d Cir, D.C. Cir, and around the country that has encouraged many judges to go along. So obviously he hires some according to the plan and he strictly does not consider 1L apps. But I know he also hires people who, by the time they begin the clerkship, will have been several years out. So he also considers 3L and, maybe, post-grad applications.

I know both Rakoff and Katzmann interview candidates, either back to back or within a few days. They have very different personalities. Katzmann is truly one of the nicest people in the federal courts. He will give you a tour of his office. He is also a former academic, and I think likes hiring people who fit that mold. Rakoff is quirky but very personable and funny. In general, you obviously need top grades. They both teach at schools in the city (Katzmann at NYU, Rakoff at Columbia), and may pull promising students through that pipeline. Both also rely heavily on professor reccs — they are well-connected to profs at all the top schools. It seems they hire mainly from the usual suspect schools: YLS, HLS, SLS, Chicago, NYU, Columbia. I'm not sure how often they drop below the T6. The duo also feeds, and thus they look for potential feeder material in the clerks they hire. Katzmann may have an ideological litmus test — the people who I know have gone to clerk for him have been liberal, and he is obviously a purposivist (he wrote the leading modern defense of that theory of statutory interpretation).

One thing to keep in mind with Rakoff is that he has a very small civil docket and, like Judge Wood, mainly does criminal trials. That materially affects the substantive work of your clerkship and QOL. Trials are grueling experiences for judges and clerks. But you get to be in the fire of trial with one of the best crim pro minds in the nation.

[yejeje]

I don't think there are any judges to avoid. Judges run their chambers differently, so ask during the interview about work hours, etc. - some chambers work MUCH harder than others.

Any more specific info on which chambers work MUCH harder than the others?

[LBJ's Hair]

I don't think there are any judges to avoid. Judges run their chambers differently, so ask during the interview about work hours, etc. - some chambers work MUCH harder than others.

Any more specific info on which chambers work MUCH harder than the others?

Well for one, Rakoff

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have any info on the judges on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit?

There are threads on this elsewhere and I'm definitely not a patent specialist, but I believe that Judge Taranto is both very well-respected and very competitive. The Federal Circuit's reputation is historically pretty poor--lots of 9-0 reversals by SCOTUS--but I believe that it's improved significantly since Obama appointed a ton of patent specialists to it.

More than any other court of appeals, hiring practices differ pretty significantly between the various judges. Taranto and Dyk are the only active judges who largely hire clerks directly out of law school. They're definitely not feeder competitive, but about the same as other competitive COA judges (top 10% @ T14; top 1/3 at HYS). This practice tracks pretty closely with their backgrounds -- SCOTUS clerks, SGs office, private SCOTUS practice. Bryson and Clevenger have similar backgrounds/had similar practices, but they're senior now (although Bryson sits by designation in D. Del and E.D. Tex. so clerks get to do trials).

Rest of the court generally requires some degree of patent litigation experience/technical background and grades/school aren't as important (of course, there's a gradient here). As previous poster alluded to, there's been a changing of the guard -- Newman and Lourie are the only active judges left from the wild west days of the CAFC. Newman in particular seems to be the last bastion of brazenly pro-patent jurisprudence (she's also 92 y/o).

Out of the other recent appointees, I think anybody interested in patent litigation would have a good experience with Stoll or Chen. Both are young/energetic, have relatively neutral jurisprudence (Stoll perhaps a bit pro-patent and Chen a bit pro-government, but not materially so), and had great pre-bench experience. Not saying the other judges would be bad clerkships, but the experience would probably depend more on a fit between personalities/interests.

Former CAFC clerk. Largely agree with the second Anon. Ignore the first Anon - just because CAFC and SCOTUS disagree about patent law doesn't mean the clerkship isn't valuable.

I think many judges are less traditional prestige/grade sensitive, and look for strong relevant experience. Most active judges are looking for work experience, often substantial experience in patent law (e.g., 2-3+ years at a firm). Work as a patent agent and/or an advanced degree is also beneficial. Prior district court clerkship in a patent-heavy court (e.g., Delaware, EDTX) could also be very valuable.

Each senior judge is his own thing - Schall has close ties to Finnegan, Bryson often relies on professor referrals, Plager and Mayer generally have only career clerks.

I don't think there are any judges to avoid. Judges run their chambers differently, so ask during the interview about work hours, etc. - some chambers work MUCH harder than others.

First anon. I didn't say CAFC is not valuable. It's obviously a fantastic credential for anyone interested in patent lit. I also said that I thought the problems had been resolved to an extent. (To pick another nit, though, my understanding is that the problem wasn't SCOTUS and CAFC disagreeing on patent law, but that CAFC had problems with industry capture and ignoring binding precedent of which regular unanimous reversals were a symptom).

[yejeje]

I don't think there are any judges to avoid. Judges run their chambers differently, so ask during the interview about work hours, etc. - some chambers work MUCH harder than others.

Any more specific info on which chambers work MUCH harder than the others?

Well for one, Rakoff

Oh, I meant for the Federal Circuit. Which of those chambers involve especially long hours?

[Anonymous User]

I have no interest in Houston, but a clerkship feeder prof at a T10 told me sua sponte that he thinks Lee Rosenthal on S.D. Texas is the best federal trial judge in the country. She does have crazy high ratings from the Houston Bar Association poll. Interestingly, Jimmy Blacklock on S Ct Texas has abysmal ratings in said poll (and it doesn't appear to be an ideology thing from the ratings of others).

[Anonymous User]

I have no interest in Houston, but a clerkship feeder prof at a T10 told me sua sponte that he thinks Lee Rosenthal on S.D. Texas is the best federal trial judge in the country. She does have crazy high ratings from the Houston Bar Association poll. Interestingly, Jimmy Blacklock on S Ct Texas has abysmal ratings in said poll (and it doesn't appear to be an ideology thing from the ratings of others).

How does one determine who is the best federal trial judge in the country?

[SamuelDanforth]

I have no interest in Houston, but a clerkship feeder prof at a T10 told me sua sponte that he thinks Lee Rosenthal on S.D. Texas is the best federal trial judge in the country. She does have crazy high ratings from the Houston Bar Association poll. Interestingly, Jimmy Blacklock on S Ct Texas has abysmal ratings in said poll (and it doesn't appear to be an ideology thing from the ratings of others).

I also hear fantastic things about Rosenthal. She's not a softy, but seems like an extraordinary trial judge. If you can stand the weather, I think Houston has three of the best clerkships in the country between Rosenthal, Keith Ellison, and Gregg Costa.

[lavarman84]

Rosenthal is a great writer. I know she has taught judicial writing classes to other judges. And yes, agreed, Costa is phenomenal.

[Anonymous User]

Any intel on other federal judges with chambers in Houston besides those mentioned above?

Specifically looking for insight/opinions on Jones (5th Cir.), Hanen (S.D. Tex.), and Eskridge (S.D. Tex.).