Best and worst judges to clerk for Forum

[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.

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.

I guess I must respond now.

It seems that I may be the only one in this group with experience working in prisons, and it is generally known that prisoners who are child pornographers or molesters are not treated well by other inmates or guards. Go look up what happens to tree jumpers and the numerous articles that discuss this. Such prisoners often seek any opportunity to be transferred to medical facilities or removed from the general prison population.

I did not mean to suggest that the individual in question fabricated a story to justify child exploitation. However, it would be inaccurate to disregard other contributing factors, such as the specific circumstances of the prisoner in Duncan's case, who was not a typical civil litigant, or the fact that judges are not obligated to take prisoners word when it is self-serving or provide positive written support for their claims.

If you are not convinced, well, it doesn't really matter to me, so that's my final word on the matter.

[Anonymous User]

I am currently clerking on the Court of Appeals and can assure you that defendants with frivolous case absolutely make up things like things being transgender in order to try to stir up some appealable issues.

[Anonymous User]

I am currently clerking on the Court of Appeals and can assure you that defendants with frivolous case absolutely make up things like things being transgender in order to try to stir up some appealable issues.

Sure but I think there is some sensitivity issues to consider here when a D does do that. Because how you handle the D who makes it up has an impact on other Ds that don't as well as the wider discourse. One of the common (offensive and incorrect) talking points in the zeitgeist is that transgender individuals are not real and this is either something they do for sexual purposes or for nefarious purposes. A judge when confronted with that should be careful to be neutral and avoid. Duncan's opinion was surprisingly cruel. Now say what you want about the individual litigant in this question and whether or not they deserve respect (I opt for respect, but let us say you don't, which ok I get given the individual's conviction). Duncan's opinion was not only cruel to that individual though but to the wider transgender community whose existence is constantly being questioned. That, to me, is the main issue. Now I don't necessarily fault Duncan individually as some sort of uniquely bad actor because I understand his position on this is probably unfortunately shared by a bunch of people. Nonetheless, I find it worrying and dangerous that such hostility is embraced by circuit judges.

For the record, I think SLS students who heckled him and the dean were dumb as it plays in this whole victim narrative and anyways I think Fed Soc students should be allowed to gather together and eat Thai food and discuss Scalia or whatever.

[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?

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.

I guess I must respond now.

It seems that I may be the only one in this group with experience working in prisons, and it is generally known that prisoners who are child pornographers or molesters are not treated well by other inmates or guards. Go look up what happens to tree jumpers and the numerous articles that discuss this. Such prisoners often seek any opportunity to be transferred to medical facilities or removed from the general prison population.

I did not mean to suggest that the individual in question fabricated a story to justify child exploitation. However, it would be inaccurate to disregard other contributing factors, such as the specific circumstances of the prisoner in Duncan's case, who was not a typical civil litigant, or the fact that judges are not obligated to take prisoners word when it is self-serving or provide positive written support for their claims.

If you are not convinced, well, it doesn't really matter to me, so that's my final word on the matter.

Yep, to quote Rust Cohle, "prison is very, very hard on people who hurt kids."

[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.

I guess I must respond now.

It seems that I may be the only one in this group with experience working in prisons, and it is generally known that prisoners who are child pornographers or molesters are not treated well by other inmates or guards. Go look up what happens to tree jumpers and the numerous articles that discuss this. Such prisoners often seek any opportunity to be transferred to medical facilities or removed from the general prison population.

I did not mean to suggest that the individual in question fabricated a story to justify child exploitation. However, it would be inaccurate to disregard other contributing factors, such as the specific circumstances of the prisoner in Duncan's case, who was not a typical civil litigant, or the fact that judges are not obligated to take prisoners word when it is self-serving or provide positive written support for their claims.

If you are not convinced, well, it doesn't really matter to me, so that's my final word on the matter.

You’re right that people convicted of crimes involving child exploitation aren’t treated well in prison. Pretty sure many of them are already removed from gen pop for that reason. But I also don’t think that trans people are treated especially well in prison. Again, if someone wants to improve their position in prison, there are other better things they could make up to do so.

But the anon above me talking about the reasons why Duncan should have been careful to be neutral has the much better take on it, I think.

[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?

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.

Without wading into the merits of Duncan's approach, a child sex offender is going to face serious threats to their wellbeing in the general population of a men's prison. A women's prison, or a special housing ward of the men's prison, would be a significantly less threatening environment for this offender.

I don't have the record of this case in front of me but, especially if there was evidence suggesting that the offender's transition may have been motivated by prudential concerns, there's quite a difference between that claim and a run-of-the-mill public accommodations or workplace discrimination claim.

[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 clerked for a very conservative, very religious Trump-appointed COA judge and he never would have gone out of his way to list some sort of parade of horribles like Judge Duncan did. That is to say, very conservative Trump COA judges are not a monolith. Compare Judges Duncan, Van Dyke, and Branch, with Judges Lagoa, Bumatay, and Park.

That said, if you were the kind of person who would clerk for a judge like Judge Duncan, then this will confirm your priors. If you were the kind of applicant who would never clerk for Judge Duncan, then this confirms your priors.

If you were the kind of applicant (like me) who was trying to get a COA clerkship at any cost, this gives you some helpful color. Do you want to be (for the rest of your life) a Duncan clerk?

[lavarman84]

Worth noting that with additional videos coming out and Duncan's statements to certain media sources after the event, he only looks worse in all of this. He was a massive jerk and behaved in a manner completely unbecoming of his position.

And no, I don't think the student protesters were in the right. My opinion is you should let the FedSoc students have their event, and if you're going to protest, do it outside. But at bare minimum, we should hold a federal judge to the same standards we're holding law students.

How should a person weigh that in the clerkship search? I doubt it weighs heavily. A poster said Duncan treats his clerks well and is a great clerkships experience earlier. I have no reason to doubt that's true, particularly when it comes to likeminded individuals. And I have little reason to believe Duncan is out there hiring liberals left and right.

Ultimately, Duncan is what he seemed to be: a biased culture warrior. But he's hardly the only Trump judge that's true of (especially on the Fifth Circuit).

[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 clerked for a very conservative, very religious Trump-appointed COA judge and he never would have gone out of his way to list some sort of parade of horribles like Judge Duncan did. That is to say, very conservative Trump COA judges are not a monolith. Compare Judges Duncan, Van Dyke, and Branch, with Judges Lagoa, Bumatay, and Park.

That said, if you were the kind of person who would clerk for a judge like Judge Duncan, then this will confirm your priors. If you were the kind of applicant who would never clerk for Judge Duncan, then this confirms your priors.

If you were the kind of applicant (like me) who was trying to get a COA clerkship at any cost, this gives you some helpful color. Do you want to be (for the rest of your life) a Duncan clerk?

How is Branch in the same mold as Duncan and Van Dyke? She was confirmed with bipartisan support along a 73-23 vote and has shown she has zero issues siding with the liberal judges on the Eleventh over her conservative counterparts when the law requires. She is a textualist, but politically she’s nowhere near the level of Duncan and Van Dyke nor does she have the same temperament issues as those two.

[Anonymous User]

This question kind of got glossed over by the Duncan drama, but are there any E.D.N.Y. judges to avoid?

[Anonymous User]

This question kind of got glossed over by the Duncan drama, but are there any E.D.N.Y. judges to avoid?

Block used to have a reputation of being a tough boss, but either he's mellowed or people have become more tight-lipped over the past decade or so. Heard mixed things about Kuntz. Kovner seems to be beyond intense but attracts people with feeder-like credentials, so you're probably fine with "intense" if you're competitive for her chambers.

[Anonymous User]

This question kind of got glossed over by the Duncan drama, but are there any E.D.N.Y. judges to avoid?

Block used to have a reputation of being a tough boss, but either he's mellowed or people have become more tight-lipped over the past decade or so. Heard mixed things about Kuntz. Kovner seems to be beyond intense but attracts people with feeder-like credentials, so you're probably fine with "intense" if you're competitive for her chambers.

I’ve heard from Kovner clerks that she’s a great boss — gives her clerks a lot of independence.

[Anonymous User]

This question kind of got glossed over by the Duncan drama, but are there any E.D.N.Y. judges to avoid?

Block used to have a reputation of being a tough boss, but either he's mellowed or people have become more tight-lipped over the past decade or so. Heard mixed things about Kuntz. Kovner seems to be beyond intense but attracts people with feeder-like credentials, so you're probably fine with "intense" if you're competitive for her chambers.

I’ve heard from Kovner clerks that she’s a great boss — gives her clerks a lot of independence.

Former EDNY clerk. I would avoid: Kuntz, Block, Gujarati, Brodie, DeArcy-Hall, Mauskopf, for either being difficult personalities, bad judges, or both.

[Anonymous User]

This question kind of got glossed over by the Duncan drama, but are there any E.D.N.Y. judges to avoid?

Block used to have a reputation of being a tough boss, but either he's mellowed or people have become more tight-lipped over the past decade or so. Heard mixed things about Kuntz. Kovner seems to be beyond intense but attracts people with feeder-like credentials, so you're probably fine with "intense" if you're competitive for her chambers.

I’ve heard from Kovner clerks that she’s a great boss — gives her clerks a lot of independence.

Former EDNY clerk. I would avoid: Kuntz, Block, Gujarati, Brodie, DeArcy-Hall, Mauskopf, for either being difficult personalities, bad judges, or both.

I’ve heard from the grapevine that Kuntz is a nightmare for various reasons.

[LawBurner1]

This question kind of got glossed over by the Duncan drama, but are there any E.D.N.Y. judges to avoid?

Block used to have a reputation of being a tough boss, but either he's mellowed or people have become more tight-lipped over the past decade or so. Heard mixed things about Kuntz. Kovner seems to be beyond intense but attracts people with feeder-like credentials, so you're probably fine with "intense" if you're competitive for her chambers.

I’ve heard from Kovner clerks that she’s a great boss — gives her clerks a lot of independence.

Former EDNY clerk. I would avoid: Kuntz, Block, Gujarati, Brodie, DeArcy-Hall, Mauskopf, for either being difficult personalities, bad judges, or both.

Any thoughts on Amon and Komitee?

[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.

Of the newest Biden appointees, Perez’s chambers is the most dysfunctional, but she seems nice and her work product is very good imo. Lee’s work product is probably the weakest but not terrible or anything.

[Anonymous User]

This question kind of got glossed over by the Duncan drama, but are there any E.D.N.Y. judges to avoid?

Block used to have a reputation of being a tough boss, but either he's mellowed or people have become more tight-lipped over the past decade or so. Heard mixed things about Kuntz. Kovner seems to be beyond intense but attracts people with feeder-like credentials, so you're probably fine with "intense" if you're competitive for her chambers.

I’ve heard from Kovner clerks that she’s a great boss — gives her clerks a lot of independence.

Former EDNY clerk. I would avoid: Kuntz, Block, Gujarati, Brodie, DeArcy-Hall, Mauskopf, for either being difficult personalities, bad judges, or both.

Any thoughts on Amon and Komitee?

I've heard that Komitee is very demanding and requires long hours, but he has a good reputation as a jurist. No thoughts on Amon. And I have also heard Kovner clerks rave about the judge.

[Anonymous User]

This question kind of got glossed over by the Duncan drama, but are there any E.D.N.Y. judges to avoid?

Block used to have a reputation of being a tough boss, but either he's mellowed or people have become more tight-lipped over the past decade or so. Heard mixed things about Kuntz. Kovner seems to be beyond intense but attracts people with feeder-like credentials, so you're probably fine with "intense" if you're competitive for her chambers.

I’ve heard from Kovner clerks that she’s a great boss — gives her clerks a lot of independence.

Former EDNY clerk. I would avoid: Kuntz, Block, Gujarati, Brodie, DeArcy-Hall, Mauskopf, for either being difficult personalities, bad judges, or both.

Any thoughts on Amon and Komitee?

I've heard that Komitee is very demanding and requires long hours, but he has a good reputation as a jurist. No thoughts on Amon. And I have also heard Kovner clerks rave about the judge.

The Kovner clerks I know work so hard and rave about her so much you would think it is cult. Nonetheless, Kovner is very deliberate about her hiring and my understanding is that you basically need to be on the SCOTUS track before she'll take you as she is trying to build herself up as a district feeder.

[gnarly rae jepsen]

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.

Of the newest Biden appointees, Perez’s chambers is the most dysfunctional, but she seems nice and her work product is very good imo. Lee’s work product is probably the weakest but not terrible or anything.

I'm struck by how few majority opinions the Biden appointees have published so far. Anyone know why this is the case?

[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.

Of the newest Biden appointees, Perez’s chambers is the most dysfunctional, but she seems nice and her work product is very good imo. Lee’s work product is probably the weakest but not terrible or anything.

Question: what makes a newer judge’s work product good or bad? Asking because I’m clerking for a newer Judge

[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.

Of the newest Biden appointees, Perez’s chambers is the most dysfunctional, but she seems nice and her work product is very good imo. Lee’s work product is probably the weakest but not terrible or anything.

Question: what makes a newer judge’s work product good or bad? Asking because I’m clerking for a newer Judge

To me, there's a soft aspect to it that relates to the handling of the material. You can kind of tell when a Judge is sort of floundering and doesn't quite get the bigger picture and is leaning heavily on the briefs. These judges tends to be newer because a lot of them have specialties but may have had zero experience with "x" area of law. Other judges have seen the same issue in some areas 100s of times and they get it. I don't really have any advice on this, beyond trying to keep the bigger picture in mind when you consider these things. I'm a new lawyer though who just kind of vaguely keeps track of these things for fun, and I am sure someone way more knowledgeable can step in here.

[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.

Of the newest Biden appointees, Perez’s chambers is the most dysfunctional, but she seems nice and her work product is very good imo. Lee’s work product is probably the weakest but not terrible or anything.

Question: what makes a newer judge’s work product good or bad? Asking because I’m clerking for a newer Judge

It’s hard to tell without some experience in comparing opinions and work product from different chambers.

The previous poster got most of the things - it’s very much a you know it when you see it type deal.

But aside from obvious things like sloppiness when submitting opinions, things like generally missing the bigger picture, straight up copying parties briefs, not doing proper shepardizing, really struggling in fact specific cases and making conclusory statements left and right, etc. Also, excessive delay when sending work product - some judges are perfectionists and take forever because they quintuple check every period, but if you get work product 3 months late and it’s very poor - yeah the judge is floundering.

[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.

Of the newest Biden appointees, Perez’s chambers is the most dysfunctional, but she seems nice and her work product is very good imo. Lee’s work product is probably the weakest but not terrible or anything.

I'm struck by how few majority opinions the Biden appointees have published so far. Anyone know why this is the case?

The Second Circuit doesn’t publish much and tends to take forever when it does, so the ramp-up period is long, nothing to worry about. And a couple of the Biden appointees, namely Lee and Robinson, seem less inclined to write separately than some other judges.

[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.

Of the newest Biden appointees, Perez’s chambers is the most dysfunctional, but she seems nice and her work product is very good imo. Lee’s work product is probably the weakest but not terrible or anything.

I'm struck by how few majority opinions the Biden appointees have published so far. Anyone know why this is the case?

The Second Circuit doesn’t publish much and tends to take forever when it does, so the ramp-up period is long, nothing to worry about. And a couple of the Biden appointees, namely Lee and Robinson, seem less inclined to write separately than some other judges.

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

[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.

Of the newest Biden appointees, Perez’s chambers is the most dysfunctional, but she seems nice and her work product is very good imo. Lee’s work product is probably the weakest but not terrible or anything.

Can you explain what you mean by “dysfunctional”?