Best and worst judges to clerk for Forum

[Anonymous User]

Andrea Wood on NDIL got a benchslap from CA7 for being really late on an opinion after she filed a decision on the docket stating that an opinion would follow to avoid the six month list. She’s gotten at least one before as well.

[Anonymous User]

Andrea Wood on NDIL got a benchslap from CA7 for being really late on an opinion after she filed a decision on the docket stating that an opinion would follow to avoid the six month list. She’s gotten at least one before as well.

I have seen one judge do this to get around the six month motion reporting requirement. They entire a short order to terminate the motion from the CM/ECF system. Then they will draft and enter the full opinion a year to a year and a half later, sometimes ruling the opposite way.

[Anonymous User]

Andrea Wood on NDIL got a benchslap from CA7 for being really late on an opinion after she filed a decision on the docket stating that an opinion would follow to avoid the six month list. She’s gotten at least one before as well.

I have seen one judge do this to get around the six month motion reporting requirement. They entire a short order to terminate the motion from the CM/ECF system. Then they will draft and enter the full opinion a year to a year and a half later, sometimes ruling the opposite way.

Yeah, it's actually kinda crazy how many ways there are around the six-month list (administratively stay the case, have motions filed as "letters", enter a decision with opinion forthcoming, . . . )

[Wild Card]

Andrea Wood on NDIL got a benchslap from CA7 for being really late on an opinion after she filed a decision on the docket stating that an opinion would follow to avoid the six month list. She’s gotten at least one before as well.

I have seen one judge do this to get around the six month motion reporting requirement. They entire a short order to terminate the motion from the CM/ECF system. Then they will draft and enter the full opinion a year to a year and a half later, sometimes ruling the opposite way.

Yeah, it's actually kinda crazy how many ways there are around the six-month list (administratively stay the case, have motions filed as "letters", enter a decision with opinion forthcoming, . . . )

This is awesome. I would love to clerk for a judge who did this. Another trick is, if a party files two closely related motions, one after the other, the district judge can refer the motion to a magistrate judge and order the party to withdraw its motions and to refile its motions as one motion for everyone's convenience.

[Anonymous User]

General Question: what is the order of the prestige/career outcome bump of the federal circuits. I know the DC/2/9 are the most prestigious, but could someone perhaps rank all of them? And any basis that supports the ranking would be noteworthy. Or perhaps they are all equal after the aforementioned ones?

Hopefully this will help me and others decide what circuits to shoot for.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea of circuit ranking in the first place. I think the idea that 2/9/DC are more prestigious confuses two factors. First, 2/9/DC tend to have a lot of (especially liberal) feeders, but feeders are already ranked, so when we are talking about circuits, presumably we are talking about clerkships with non-feeders. Secondly, 2/9/DC tend to be more desirable because lots of people want to live/practice in NY, LA, and SF, but its not clear why that fact would make a judge in Idaho or Vermont more prestigious than a judge in Wyoming or New Hampshire.

Therefore, you shouldn't be worried about "circuit" rankings. Try to find a well-regarded judge in a place you want to live, but other than that, just apply broadly and see what you get. If you don't have the grades for a feeder, the idea that anyone is going to care about the difference between a non-feeder in San Diego and a non-feeder in Atlanta seems highly unlikely. And if you have the grades for a feeder, the idea of turning down someone like Kethledge or Barron for a 2/9/DC non-feeder doesn't make much sense.

I mostly agree with this but would push back a little on the idea that circuit "prestige" doesn't exist or doesn't matter. Anon because I've been involved in hiring at two lit boutiques. Having a 2/7/9/DC clerkship - any of them - was generally viewed as a plus over, say, a CA11 clerkship. (Of course, absent SCOTUS, clerking in our home circuit was the biggest plus, and I totally agree with what's been said already about clerking in the place you want to work unless you're in feeder contention.) There was some granularity in that to the extent that we were aware of which judges were harder "gets" in our home circuit, but not as much as you might expect, and we obviously had less insight into how competitive the non-feeders outside our home circuit are.

Any circuit "prestige" effect is at least partly just proxy for applicant quality overall, so it's hard to say how much this actually matters. But it is the sort of thing that comes up, sometimes explicitly and sometimes obliquely - e.g. someone saying that a candidate has "good clerkships" when those clerkships are in a 2/7/9/DC circuit, and not saying the same when a candidate's clerkships are in flyovers.

That all said, I ultimately agree with these takeaways even while disagreeing that circuit prestige "exists". In particular, which individual judge you clerk for, and whether they're a good boss and someone who will care about your professional development, matters so much more IMO than any incremental boost in hiring at snobby employers. Yes, it's hard to figure that stuff out and that often requires calling former clerks and just doing harder work than "this judge is on a 'prestigious' circuit so they're better." But doing that work is worth it and should outweigh any circuit "prestige" concerns.

Different anon. At least in my experience, it's mostly middle-of-the-road firms that care about 2/7/9/DC. Truly "snobby" firms know the names (and reputations) of the best circuit judges. A clerkship with Bill Pryor, Kevin Newsom, or Britt Grant (11th circuit) comes more clout than a clerkship with all save a few 7th circuit/9th circuits judges.

My experience is that feeder> random dc/2/9/7 > fly-over. Obviously some exceptions.

It's what the other poster said. Kids from YHS and other T6 schools are mostly going to those circuits, so they're more competitive. Clerks there beat out other fantastic applicants.


As far as the OPS question about judges...

Carter in CD Cal rubber stamps his clerks orders. So great learning experience it is not, but it's an easy clerkship. Bress in CA9 works his clerks hard but is a great mentor. Same for Sullivan CA2. Any DC clerkship is likely to be easier workload than other circuits (fewer cases). Everyone has been extremely impressed with Judge Kovner on EDNY, and her clerks seem to all be SCOTUS quality. Eid on CA10 is supposed to be nice, good mentor, and light work. Oetken on SDNY is fantastic, and his clerks all seem to be SCOTUS quality.

[Anonymous User]

General Question: what is the order of the prestige/career outcome bump of the federal circuits. I know the DC/2/9 are the most prestigious, but could someone perhaps rank all of them? And any basis that supports the ranking would be noteworthy. Or perhaps they are all equal after the aforementioned ones?

Hopefully this will help me and others decide what circuits to shoot for.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea of circuit ranking in the first place. I think the idea that 2/9/DC are more prestigious confuses two factors. First, 2/9/DC tend to have a lot of (especially liberal) feeders, but feeders are already ranked, so when we are talking about circuits, presumably we are talking about clerkships with non-feeders. Secondly, 2/9/DC tend to be more desirable because lots of people want to live/practice in NY, LA, and SF, but its not clear why that fact would make a judge in Idaho or Vermont more prestigious than a judge in Wyoming or New Hampshire.

Therefore, you shouldn't be worried about "circuit" rankings. Try to find a well-regarded judge in a place you want to live, but other than that, just apply broadly and see what you get. If you don't have the grades for a feeder, the idea that anyone is going to care about the difference between a non-feeder in San Diego and a non-feeder in Atlanta seems highly unlikely. And if you have the grades for a feeder, the idea of turning down someone like Kethledge or Barron for a 2/9/DC non-feeder doesn't make much sense.

I mostly agree with this but would push back a little on the idea that circuit "prestige" doesn't exist or doesn't matter. Anon because I've been involved in hiring at two lit boutiques. Having a 2/7/9/DC clerkship - any of them - was generally viewed as a plus over, say, a CA11 clerkship. (Of course, absent SCOTUS, clerking in our home circuit was the biggest plus, and I totally agree with what's been said already about clerking in the place you want to work unless you're in feeder contention.) There was some granularity in that to the extent that we were aware of which judges were harder "gets" in our home circuit, but not as much as you might expect, and we obviously had less insight into how competitive the non-feeders outside our home circuit are.

Any circuit "prestige" effect is at least partly just proxy for applicant quality overall, so it's hard to say how much this actually matters. But it is the sort of thing that comes up, sometimes explicitly and sometimes obliquely - e.g. someone saying that a candidate has "good clerkships" when those clerkships are in a 2/7/9/DC circuit, and not saying the same when a candidate's clerkships are in flyovers.

That all said, I ultimately agree with these takeaways even while disagreeing that circuit prestige "exists". In particular, which individual judge you clerk for, and whether they're a good boss and someone who will care about your professional development, matters so much more IMO than any incremental boost in hiring at snobby employers. Yes, it's hard to figure that stuff out and that often requires calling former clerks and just doing harder work than "this judge is on a 'prestigious' circuit so they're better." But doing that work is worth it and should outweigh any circuit "prestige" concerns.

Different anon. At least in my experience, it's mostly middle-of-the-road firms that care about 2/7/9/DC. Truly "snobby" firms know the names (and reputations) of the best circuit judges. A clerkship with Bill Pryor, Kevin Newsom, or Britt Grant (11th circuit) comes more clout than a clerkship with all save a few 7th circuit/9th circuits judges.

My experience is that feeder> random dc/2/9/7 > fly-over. Obviously some exceptions.

It's what the other poster said. Kids from YHS and other T6 schools are mostly going to those circuits, so they're more competitive. Clerks there beat out other fantastic applicants.


As far as the OPS question about judges...

Carter in CD Cal rubber stamps his clerks orders. So great learning experience it is not, but it's an easy clerkship. Bress in CA9 works his clerks hard but is a great mentor. Same for Sullivan CA2. Any DC clerkship is likely to be easier workload than other circuits (fewer cases). Everyone has been extremely impressed with Judge Kovner on EDNY, and her clerks seem to all be SCOTUS quality. Eid on CA10 is supposed to be nice, good mentor, and light work. Oetken on SDNY is fantastic, and his clerks all seem to be SCOTUS quality.

I would agree with the caveat that there are some excellent judges in the "flyover" circuits who are not feeders, yet would likely be viewed just as favorably as your average 2/9 judge. Specifically, Hardiman and Tymkovich come to mind (I am sure there are plenty of others). Neither are big-time feeders, but both command a lot of respect. The real answer here is that 99% of the time the judge matters more than the circuit.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think it's true that top students at top schools mostly go to 2/7/9 (it might be true for DC), especially for Fed Soc students. They choose judge by judge--Newsom and Stras are going to be more selective than Walker despite being nowhere near major coastal metros. Plus in 9 in particular there's going to be big differences in geographic desirability across judges, most aren't in LA/SF (actually very few are in SF).

[Anonymous User]

I don't think it's true that top students at top schools mostly go to 2/7/9 (it might be true for DC), especially for Fed Soc students. They choose judge by judge--Newsom and Stras are going to be more selective than Walker despite being nowhere near major coastal metros. Plus in 9 in particular there's going to be big differences in geographic desirability across judges, most aren't in LA/SF (actually very few are in SF).

Knowing most of the recently hired Newsom, Stras, and Walker clerks, this is not really true.

[Anonymous User]

I get the general vibe that DC is different because of its heavy admin docket. It is much easier to convince yourself to do another clerkship when it involves a substantially different caseload. With a lot of FedSoc students willing to do two appellate court clerkships, this gives someone like Judge Walker an advantage in hiring over someone in the 2nd or 9th Circuits.

That being said, outside of the DC Circuit, I get the vibe that FedSoc students are really picking judges and not circuits.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think it's true that top students at top schools mostly go to 2/7/9 (it might be true for DC), especially for Fed Soc students. They choose judge by judge--Newsom and Stras are going to be more selective than Walker despite being nowhere near major coastal metros. Plus in 9 in particular there's going to be big differences in geographic desirability across judges, most aren't in LA/SF (actually very few are in SF).

Knowing most of the recently hired Newsom, Stras, and Walker clerks, this is not really true.

Yeah Walker in particular might be a bad example because of the DC Circuit thing that's mentioned (though the Newsom and Stras clerks I know were very strong applicants), maybe better examples are Lee and Bumatay, who do not seem to be near the top of the Fed Soc applicant pile despite being in one of the best locations in the country

[Anonymous User]

I can tell you from experience as an applicant, clerk, and interviewer that top students from top schools target (1) feeders; then (2) prominent judges who aren't quite feeders; (3) then any judges on 2/9/DC, and then other federal appellate judges. (1) and (2) precede (3), but (3) generally precedes any other downstream judge-by-judge preference (with the wayward exceptions of applications to judges in places like Hawaii).

Why 2/9/DC? It's a combination of the locations and perceived prestige. But it's definitely noticeable and a priority over the sort of individualized judge-by-judge applications the above poster described.

[Quichelorraine]

This is fascinating. As a representative of the Rest Of Us, I targeted 1) judges who existed and were alive, and 2) judges whose name recognition didn't seem to preclude their consideration of riff raff like myself.

I couldn't imagine having the sort of credentials or right-wing sheen to allow for actual selectivity.

[Anonymous User]

This is fascinating. As a representative of the Rest Of Us, I targeted 1) judges who existed and were alive, and 2) judges whose name recognition didn't seem to preclude their consideration of riff raff like myself.

I couldn't imagine having the sort of credentials or right-wing sheen to allow for actual selectivity.

Uh, sorry, I guess? Welcome to reality.

[Quichelorraine]

Uh, sorry, I guess? Welcome to reality.

Not complaining at all! It worked out fine. But again, getting a glimpse into the thought process behind the applications of the toppermost of the poppermost is really like looking into a different universe. I knew that universe existed, but I never otherwise get reminded of it. And since I clerked for "regular" flyover judges, who tended to both hire late, we would never see cutting-edge applicants.

[nixy]

This is fascinating. As a representative of the Rest Of Us, I targeted 1) judges who existed and were alive, and 2) judges whose name recognition didn't seem to preclude their consideration of riff raff like myself.

I couldn't imagine having the sort of credentials or right-wing sheen to allow for actual selectivity.

I had EXACTLY the same reaction, from a very similar clerkship experience (and no, it’s not a universe I encounter much, either. Pretty sure it’s not a very big universe!).

That said, I also think what the anon observed (of “top” applicants) is also just a function of information access. It’s not hard to figure out who feeders and prominent-but-not-quite-feeders are; it’s a lot harder to parse the general mass of the rest of judges. So I’m sure people do focus on 2/9/DC, but it’s going to be because those are places a lot of people want to live/work, and it’s a lot of judges (and a lot of top schools are in those circuits. I bet if you go to Michigan you’re going to get a better handle on great 6th Circuit judges than if you go to Stanford).

And in any case, top applicants picking 2/9/DC over everyone else isn’t actually proof of some kind of objective prestige in the profession. Plenty of law school applicants get caught up in whether a school ranked 43 is more prestigious than a school ranked 79 and we know that’s not really how it works.

(As to what top FedSoc applicants are doing, I don’t think prioritizing 2/9/DC necessarily means an applicant isn’t also finding out about specific judges, but as I’ve made clear, I can’t comment on that from personal experience!)

[Anonymous User]

I can tell you from experience as an applicant, clerk, and interviewer that top students from top schools target (1) feeders; then (2) prominent judges who aren't quite feeders; (3) then any judges on 2/9/DC, and then other federal appellate judges. (1) and (2) precede (3), but (3) generally precedes any other downstream judge-by-judge preference (with the wayward exceptions of applications to judges in places like Hawaii).

Why 2/9/DC? It's a combination of the locations and perceived prestige. But it's definitely noticeable and a priority over the sort of individualized judge-by-judge applications the above poster described.

I'm certain there are people that parse applications to this degree, but 99.9999999% of people hiring don't.

[Anonymous User]

Imo the synthesis is that the applicants who can be super picky (like top 10% T6 Fed Soc types) will make finer-grained judge-by-judge comparisons. But it's true 2/7/9 are more competitive because (1) more people want to live/work/practice there, (2) they maybe have a bit of an aura for people who aren't making fine-grained judge-by-judge distinctions, and (3) they have high concentrations of especially prominent judges who draw apps from the sorts of people making picky judge-by-judge comparisons.

Like it's probably fair to describe every active-status judge in the Manhattan courthouse as at least a "nationally prominent judge who isn't quite a feeder." The same isn't true of, say, CA8, which generously has maybe three nationally prominent judges (Colloton, Stras, Kelly), one of whom is in Cedar Rapids. That results in a significantly different app pool.

But also, yes, the true advice is to apply everywhere unless you're a really really special snowflake, and the best clerkship is the one you get.

[Anonymous User]

FWIW, I've heard that all of the judges in Cedar Rapids (Kelly, Melloy, Williams) and (Roberts - MJ, Collins - Bankuptcy J.) are great judges and bosses.

[Anonymous User]

FWIW, I've heard that all of the judges in Cedar Rapids (Kelly, Melloy, Williams) and (Roberts - MJ, Collins - Bankuptcy J.) are great judges and bosses.

I've also heard great things about Kelly and Williams, and I've heard that Melloy is a nice guy, but his clerks' workload is so light since he went senior that it's not a great learning experience. In Des Moines, Colloton is a well-known asshole, Ebinger is uptight but seems good to her clerks, Jarvey, Rose, Pratt, and MJ Locher are great people. Jarvey's a bit of a party animal. No idea on Gritzner. Wolle seems like an odd duck and works out of Nevada mostly, plus I don't think he hires term clerks.

[Anonymous User]

For applicants to CA5 there's been a lot of wild stuff out of this month's motions panel--Jones, Engelhardt, and Duncan--between the OSHA and abortion stay rulings that's pretty transparently lawless in a way you don't associate with even very conservative respectable federal judges. For example, entering a de facto injunction in the guise of a stay today trying to preempt the multicircuit lottery for the OSHA rule, and an incoherent one-sentence ruling in US v Texas citing only Whole Woman's Health, which involved completely different issues procedurally.

[Anonymous User]

For applicants to CA5 there's been a lot of wild stuff out of this month's motions panel--Jones, Engelhardt, and Duncan--between the OSHA and abortion stay rulings that's pretty transparently lawless in a way you don't associate with even very conservative respectable federal judges. For example, entering a de facto injunction in the guise of a stay today trying to preempt the multicircuit lottery for the OSHA rule, and an incoherent one-sentence ruling in US v Texas citing only Whole Woman's Health, which involved completely different issues procedurally.

If you just found out Jones is conservative this week I don't really know what to tell you

[Anonymous User]

If you just found out Jones is conservative this week I don't really know what to tell you

She really is ahead of her time.

My judge sat by designation on the Fifth Circuit once. She was on the panel. The experience was apparently so upsetting that my judge never went back.

(usualbilgeaboutgreatmentorreallyopensdoorsshe'sextremelymeanwhichmeansherjurisprudenceissupervalidlolololololololol)

[lavarman84]

Yeah, Edith Jones is basically the entire package when it comes to being a terrible judge. She's bigoted, discourteous, and a total partisan hack.

[Anonymous User]

Judge Carlton W. Reeves on the SD of Mississippi is an amazing person and I 100% recommend applying esp. someone who is public interest oriented. I know at one point he didn't post positions on OSCAR because he wanted mailed applications from people who really sought him out--not sure if that's the case now.

[Anonymous User]

Judge Carlton W. Reeves on the SD of Mississippi is an amazing person and I 100% recommend applying esp. someone who is public interest oriented. I know at one point he didn't post positions on OSCAR because he wanted mailed applications from people who really sought him out--not sure if that's the case now.

He has written some of the best opinions (orders) I’ve ever seen. Well, you might have to be liberal to appreciate them (though to be clear, I’m not saying he’s a political hack in any way, they’re well-reasoned and beautifully written; just if you think CRT is ruining our schools you won’t like them). But it’s nice to know he’s an awesome person too.