Best and worst judges to clerk for Forum

[nixy]

That’s fair enough, but the point is that you and lavarman disagree on what makes a good federal judge. A “conservative leaning” judge isn’t the same thing as a partisan judge, and you’re casting O’Connor as the former while lavarman is casting him as the latter. Lavarman’s issue with him isn’t that he’s conservative leaning, but that he’s a bad judge on the very terms you decry (“partisan tribalism”).

Lib AUSA. I actually never cast O'Connor as anything because I know next to jack squat about him. Per googling, he has issued some standard conservative-biased rulings on a few controversial topics, only a couple of which were reversed--which isn't unusual for any judge liberal or conservative. That's not a measure of anything. 99% of his cases aren't in that category because that's not the nature of federal district court work. As someone who knows very little about him, I still have't seen any anon poster here explain why he's a bad judge to clerk for.

Does he know how the hearsay rule works? Is he pretty good at reigning in rambling witnesses? Does he have a measured temperament while handling lawyers in open court during jury trials? Does he appreciate the nuances of civil discovery standards, including proportionality review? These things matter too.

I mean, I don’t know anything about O’Connor either, but the point isn’t whether he, specifically, is or isn’t a partisan hack. The point is that *if* he’s a partisan hack, that would be a reason not to clerk for him (regardless of how he handles himself in court or his knowledge about hearsay). People who clearly follow this stuff more closely than you or I do think he’s a partisan hack (for what look like decent reasons). You may not think this particular judge is a partisan hack, but you clearly suggest that clerking for a partisan hack (who displays “partisan tribalism”) would be something to avoid.

I agree that a lot of district court stuff doesn’t turn on the judge’s political leanings, as would lavarman, I’m sure. That’s not the point here, because the people saying O’Connor is bad are saying it’s because he’s outside that heartland of standard district court judge behavior. That could be entirely consistent with knowing the rules of evidence etc and treating the parties before him respectfully etc., so your focus on that narrow kind of courtroom demeanor (which I get, that’s what matters if you’re appearing before him) is kind of irrelevant here. (Did you clerk? Clerking for a judge is pretty different from appearing before them.) In essence, you’re saying that you actually don’t care about the outcomes that a particular judge reaches as long as he conducts his courtroom well. That’s great, but also not really consistent with your dislike of “partisan tribalism” (it’s sort of telling that you’re assuming the people calling out O’Connor as partisan have to be the partisan ones?).

ETA: and he may be a partisan hack and his clerks may still get a good experience, who knows. (Certainly people can have terrible experiences with excruciatingly impartisan judges who run their courtrooms brilliantly.) It is still fair to bring up that perception of him to people asking about clerking for him.

[Anonymous User]

I agree that a lot of district court stuff doesn’t turn on the judge’s political leanings, as would lavarman, I’m sure. That’s not the point here, because the people saying O’Connor is bad are saying it’s because he’s outside that heartland of standard district court judge behavior...

Without citing a single measly example of such behavior.

"The people saying O'Connor is bad" sounds a lot like that orange f*cktard who runs around saying "People tell me all the time."

Which people? What are they saying? What are the goddamned facts? Why is a run of the mill Bush appointee who resides within the conservative Fifth Circuit a bad judge to clerk for? I'm a *liberal* and you haven't persuaded me.

[Anonymous User]

I agree that a lot of district court stuff doesn’t turn on the judge’s political leanings, as would lavarman, I’m sure. That’s not the point here, because the people saying O’Connor is bad are saying it’s because he’s outside that heartland of standard district court judge behavior...

Without citing a single measly example of such behavior.

"The people saying O'Connor is bad" sounds a lot like that orange f*cktard who runs around saying "People tell me all the time."

Which people? What are they saying? What are the goddamned facts? Why is a run of the mill Bush appointee who resides within the conservative Fifth Circuit a bad judge to clerk for? I'm a *liberal* and you haven't persuaded me.

I'll bite and feed this troll (even a conservative knows that O'Connor is no "run of the mill Bush appointee") one last time - these are literally the 2nd and 3rd results on Google after his court page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_O%27Connor
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/12/19 ... en-paxton/

[Anonymous User]

Any info on the district court judges in the Western District of Washington (especially Seattle, but Tacoma is fine too), especially the new ones?

[Anonymous User]

Any info on the district court judges in the Western District of Washington (especially Seattle, but Tacoma is fine too), especially the new ones?

Estudillo is wonderful

[nixy]

I agree that a lot of district court stuff doesn’t turn on the judge’s political leanings, as would lavarman, I’m sure. That’s not the point here, because the people saying O’Connor is bad are saying it’s because he’s outside that heartland of standard district court judge behavior...

Without citing a single measly example of such behavior.

"The people saying O'Connor is bad" sounds a lot like that orange f*cktard who runs around saying "People tell me all the time."

Which people? What are they saying? What are the goddamned facts? Why is a run of the mill Bush appointee who resides within the conservative Fifth Circuit a bad judge to clerk for? I'm a *liberal* and you haven't persuaded me.

The “people” are posters here, including lavarman (who consistently posts under his account, not anon), not imaginary Trump boogeymen. And the facts they have repeatedly identified (in addition to the Google results above) are that conservative causes judge-shop for O’Connor, which isn’t something that happens just because a judge is conservative - it’s because a judge bends over backwards to reach a conservative result.

But I also don’t really care whether O’Connor is good/bad. My point was more that you and the people you’re arguing with don’t really disagree conceptually on what makes someone bad to clerk for. You’re being pissy about how anonymous posters on an internet board prove the information about a specific judge that they’ve picked up through working in the judiciary. Sorry they can’t offer you courtroom-ready proof BRD. I’m not telling people not to clerk for O’Connor and I’ve acknowledged that he may offer a great clerkship experience. My point is only that the commentary about the political issues clerking for him is fair.

Besides, anyone who relies exclusively on this site for picking a judge to clerk for is an idiot, so I don’t get why you’re white knighting O’Connor so hard.

[Anonymous User]

This discussion is tedious, but anyone who says that O’Connor doesn’t have a reputation as a hack (regardless of whether it’s true—I’m not a Texas practitioner who sees his work regularly) doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

[Anonymous User]

This discussion is tedious, but anyone who says that O’Connor doesn’t have a reputation as a hack (regardless of whether it’s true—I’m not a Texas practitioner who sees his work regularly) doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

One more thing to add here, which is probably far more relevant to the O'Connor OP than whether the ACLU or a liberal USAO will automatically trash a resume with O'Connor on it, is that he's going to have the opposite effect on "conservative impact litigation" employers. He is one of the more recognizable district judges in conservative circles, so if you want to work for Becket or First Liberty or a future GOP administration, he might be a good play.

I am not equating the two at all as judges, but it's similar to how Carlton Reeves is one of a few hundred liberal district judges out there, but a random state ACLU office is more likely to have heard of him (and know his reputation positively) than of a more anonymous out-of-state Obama appointee.

[Anonymous User]

Any info on the district court judges in the Western District of Washington (especially Seattle, but Tacoma is fine too), especially the new ones?

Estudillo is wonderful

A lot of the newer WDWA ask for a “Statement of Qualifications” explaining why the applicant thinks they’re compatible with the judge personally and professionally, along with some other stuff - I haven’t seen it as a requirement for other clerkships and it seems like a lot of work, but maybe it weeds out folks who are applying just for the sake of applying?

I don’t know anything about the judges, but I wonder if Lauren King in particular will be up for elevation if Ronald Gould goes senior in the next 2 years. She’s young and would be the first Native American federal appellate judge, which fits with the Biden administration’s priorities.

[Anonymous User]

Clerking for Reed is a statement. Depending on who you want to work for, it could be a good statement or a bad statement. But a statement either way.

[lavarman84]

This discussion is tedious, but anyone who says that O’Connor doesn’t have a reputation as a hack (regardless of whether it’s true—I’m not a Texas practitioner who sees his work regularly) doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

One more thing to add here, which is probably far more relevant to the O'Connor OP than whether the ACLU or a liberal USAO will automatically trash a resume with O'Connor on it, is that he's going to have the opposite effect on "conservative impact litigation" employers. He is one of the more recognizable district judges in conservative circles, so if you want to work for Becket or First Liberty or a future GOP administration, he might be a good play.

I am not equating the two at all as judges, but it's similar to how Carlton Reeves is one of a few hundred liberal district judges out there, but a random state ACLU office is more likely to have heard of him (and know his reputation positively) than of a more anonymous out-of-state Obama appointee.

This is true.

[Anonymous User]

Any info on the district court judges in the Western District of Washington (especially Seattle, but Tacoma is fine too), especially the new ones?

Estudillo is wonderful

A lot of the newer WDWA ask for a “Statement of Qualifications” explaining why the applicant thinks they’re compatible with the judge personally and professionally, along with some other stuff - I haven’t seen it as a requirement for other clerkships and it seems like a lot of work, but maybe it weeds out folks who are applying just for the sake of applying?

I don’t know anything about the judges, but I wonder if Lauren King in particular will be up for elevation if Ronald Gould goes senior in the next 2 years. She’s young and would be the first Native American federal appellate judge, which fits with the Biden administration’s priorities.

Doubtful about LK.

[Anonymous User]

Imo Cartwright is the most Bideny potential nominee in Washington. Young, SLS, B. Fletcher clerk, career civil rights lawyer. Whereas King was a midlaw commercial lit partner. Though Biden appears to prioritize diversity over public interest focus in some cases (e.g. Sanchez, Davis, Mathis, Montgomery-Reeves).

[Anonymous User]

Any info on the district court judges in the Western District of Washington (especially Seattle, but Tacoma is fine too), especially the new ones?

Estudillo is wonderful

A lot of the newer WDWA ask for a “Statement of Qualifications” explaining why the applicant thinks they’re compatible with the judge personally and professionally, along with some other stuff - I haven’t seen it as a requirement for other clerkships and it seems like a lot of work, but maybe it weeds out folks who are applying just for the sake of applying?

I don’t know anything about the judges, but I wonder if Lauren King in particular will be up for elevation if Ronald Gould goes senior in the next 2 years. She’s young and would be the first Native American federal appellate judge, which fits with the Biden administration’s priorities.

Doubtful about LK.

Can you elaborate?

[Anonymous User]

Any info on the district court judges in the Western District of Washington (especially Seattle, but Tacoma is fine too), especially the new ones?

Estudillo is wonderful

A lot of the newer WDWA ask for a “Statement of Qualifications” explaining why the applicant thinks they’re compatible with the judge personally and professionally, along with some other stuff - I haven’t seen it as a requirement for other clerkships and it seems like a lot of work, but maybe it weeds out folks who are applying just for the sake of applying?

I don’t know anything about the judges, but I wonder if Lauren King in particular will be up for elevation if Ronald Gould goes senior in the next 2 years. She’s young and would be the first Native American federal appellate judge, which fits with the Biden administration’s priorities.

Have long thought Gould will stay on active status until he's physically or mentally not able to continue, as his MO is refusal to give in to his disability. But that's not based on any inside information.

[Anonymous User]

Any info on the district court judges in the Western District of Washington (especially Seattle, but Tacoma is fine too), especially the new ones?

Estudillo is wonderful

A lot of the newer WDWA ask for a “Statement of Qualifications” explaining why the applicant thinks they’re compatible with the judge personally and professionally, along with some other stuff - I haven’t seen it as a requirement for other clerkships and it seems like a lot of work, but maybe it weeds out folks who are applying just for the sake of applying?

I don’t know anything about the judges, but I wonder if Lauren King in particular will be up for elevation if Ronald Gould goes senior in the next 2 years. She’s young and would be the first Native American federal appellate judge, which fits with the Biden administration’s priorities.

Have long thought Gould will stay on active status until he's physically or mentally not able to continue, as his MO is refusal to give in to his disability. But that's not based on any inside information.

I've also thought that Gould was one of the judges who will never go senior (Rovner on CA7 is another one) - I don't understand their thinking, and I certainly hope I'm wrong. Gould is also one of the most moderate Dem appointees, so I wasn't surprised that he still hasn't gone senior under Biden. Would be a shame for him to be replaced by a far-right hack because of his personal hang-ups though.

[Anonymous User]

Saw Eric Murphy just posted. Anyone have thoughts on him good or bad?

[Anonymous User]

Saw Eric Murphy just posted. Anyone have thoughts on him good or bad?

Former Murphy clerk. He's one of the best judges out there to clerk for in a lot of ways. He's incredibly smart and hardworking, and his output is very thorough and well-written. He digs deep into the facts and the law in every case (often deeper than the clerks themselves do), and is very intellectually curious so he ends up writing opinions that often wade into any unsettled or contradictory areas of law implicated by his cases. I'm not sure any of his clerks try to match his hours (and he doesn't insist that you do), but you may end up working harder than some other clerks on the circuit just because he himself is so hardworking. Around people he doesn't know, he's quiet and reserved, but he's very kind and a good boss to his clerks. He's less connected than some other judges are (given his personality) and travels less than many, but you will learn more about research and writing in that clerkship and have more facetime with your judge than you will in many other clerkships. His hiring has been less ideological than many Trump appointees, and has also been pretty competitive, with several Murphy/Sutton clerks and some other solid clerkship pairings. Overall, it's a pretty unbeatable clerkship in terms of substantive experience; the biggest drawback would just be that, compared to some other judges of his caliber, he has fewer connections at SCOTUS and otherwise.

[Anonymous User]

Saw Eric Murphy just posted. Anyone have thoughts on him good or bad?

Former Murphy clerk. He's one of the best judges out there to clerk for in a lot of ways. He's incredibly smart and hardworking, and his output is very thorough and well-written. He digs deep into the facts and the law in every case (often deeper than the clerks themselves do), and is very intellectually curious so he ends up writing opinions that often wade into any unsettled or contradictory areas of law implicated by his cases. I'm not sure any of his clerks try to match his hours (and he doesn't insist that you do), but you may end up working harder than some other clerks on the circuit just because he himself is so hardworking. Around people he doesn't know, he's quiet and reserved, but he's very kind and a good boss to his clerks. He's less connected than some other judges are (given his personality) and travels less than many, but you will learn more about research and writing in that clerkship and have more facetime with your judge than you will in many other clerkships. His hiring has been less ideological than many Trump appointees, and has also been pretty competitive, with several Murphy/Sutton clerks and some other solid clerkship pairings. Overall, it's a pretty unbeatable clerkship in terms of substantive experience; the biggest drawback would just be that, compared to some other judges of his caliber, he has fewer connections at SCOTUS and otherwise.

When you say fewer connections could you elaborate. Don't want to clerk at SCOTUS or anything, but would like to work in DC in the federal government to some extent in the future.

[Anonymous User]

Saw Eric Murphy just posted. Anyone have thoughts on him good or bad?

Former Murphy clerk. He's one of the best judges out there to clerk for in a lot of ways. He's incredibly smart and hardworking, and his output is very thorough and well-written. He digs deep into the facts and the law in every case (often deeper than the clerks themselves do), and is very intellectually curious so he ends up writing opinions that often wade into any unsettled or contradictory areas of law implicated by his cases. I'm not sure any of his clerks try to match his hours (and he doesn't insist that you do), but you may end up working harder than some other clerks on the circuit just because he himself is so hardworking. Around people he doesn't know, he's quiet and reserved, but he's very kind and a good boss to his clerks. He's less connected than some other judges are (given his personality) and travels less than many, but you will learn more about research and writing in that clerkship and have more facetime with your judge than you will in many other clerkships. His hiring has been less ideological than many Trump appointees, and has also been pretty competitive, with several Murphy/Sutton clerks and some other solid clerkship pairings. Overall, it's a pretty unbeatable clerkship in terms of substantive experience; the biggest drawback would just be that, compared to some other judges of his caliber, he has fewer connections at SCOTUS and otherwise.

When you say fewer connections could you elaborate. Don't want to clerk at SCOTUS or anything, but would like to work in DC in the federal government to some extent in the future.

Judge Murphy spent one year in DC (his SCOTUS clerkship) and otherwise practiced in Ohio, at Jones Day and as Ohio's SG. So he knows people from the firm (e.g., he used to be Judge Katsas's go-to associate) and from state SG circles, but his DC connections just aren't as strong as someone who spent their career (or larger parts of it) in DC. Getting a DC federal government position in the future as a Murphy clerk would just be more on you than on him, so it would make sense to practice in DC afterwards and build your own connections.

[Anonymous User]

Saw Eric Murphy just posted. Anyone have thoughts on him good or bad?

Former Murphy clerk. He's one of the best judges out there to clerk for in a lot of ways. He's incredibly smart and hardworking, and his output is very thorough and well-written. He digs deep into the facts and the law in every case (often deeper than the clerks themselves do), and is very intellectually curious so he ends up writing opinions that often wade into any unsettled or contradictory areas of law implicated by his cases. I'm not sure any of his clerks try to match his hours (and he doesn't insist that you do), but you may end up working harder than some other clerks on the circuit just because he himself is so hardworking. Around people he doesn't know, he's quiet and reserved, but he's very kind and a good boss to his clerks. He's less connected than some other judges are (given his personality) and travels less than many, but you will learn more about research and writing in that clerkship and have more facetime with your judge than you will in many other clerkships. His hiring has been less ideological than many Trump appointees, and has also been pretty competitive, with several Murphy/Sutton clerks and some other solid clerkship pairings. Overall, it's a pretty unbeatable clerkship in terms of substantive experience; the biggest drawback would just be that, compared to some other judges of his caliber, he has fewer connections at SCOTUS and otherwise.

When you say fewer connections could you elaborate. Don't want to clerk at SCOTUS or anything, but would like to work in DC in the federal government to some extent in the future.

Judge Murphy spent one year in DC (his SCOTUS clerkship) and otherwise practiced in Ohio, at Jones Day and as Ohio's SG. So he knows people from the firm (e.g., he used to be Judge Katsas's go-to associate) and from state SG circles, but his DC connections just aren't as strong as someone who spent their career (or larger parts of it) in DC. Getting a DC federal government position in the future as a Murphy clerk would just be more on you than on him, so it would make sense to practice in DC afterwards and build your own connections.

I know nothing about either judge's hiring practices or what they are like as a boss, but it's worth noting that Judge Readler, the other CA6 judge in Columbus who was appointed at the same time as Murphy, was principal deputy at Civil DOJ for two years before he took the bench. Between the two, he is likely to have more robust fedgov connections.

[Anonymous User]

Saw Judge Trevor McFadden just posted for 26-27! Other than that he hires three and a half years out (and seems to require semi-feeder credentials), does anyone know how he is as a boss/what it's like clerking for him?

[Anonymous User]

Saw Eric Murphy just posted. Anyone have thoughts on him good or bad?

Former Murphy clerk. He's one of the best judges out there to clerk for in a lot of ways. He's incredibly smart and hardworking, and his output is very thorough and well-written. He digs deep into the facts and the law in every case (often deeper than the clerks themselves do), and is very intellectually curious so he ends up writing opinions that often wade into any unsettled or contradictory areas of law implicated by his cases. I'm not sure any of his clerks try to match his hours (and he doesn't insist that you do), but you may end up working harder than some other clerks on the circuit just because he himself is so hardworking. Around people he doesn't know, he's quiet and reserved, but he's very kind and a good boss to his clerks. He's less connected than some other judges are (given his personality) and travels less than many, but you will learn more about research and writing in that clerkship and have more facetime with your judge than you will in many other clerkships. His hiring has been less ideological than many Trump appointees, and has also been pretty competitive, with several Murphy/Sutton clerks and some other solid clerkship pairings. Overall, it's a pretty unbeatable clerkship in terms of substantive experience; the biggest drawback would just be that, compared to some other judges of his caliber, he has fewer connections at SCOTUS and otherwise.

When you say fewer connections could you elaborate. Don't want to clerk at SCOTUS or anything, but would like to work in DC in the federal government to some extent in the future.

Judge Murphy spent one year in DC (his SCOTUS clerkship) and otherwise practiced in Ohio, at Jones Day and as Ohio's SG. So he knows people from the firm (e.g., he used to be Judge Katsas's go-to associate) and from state SG circles, but his DC connections just aren't as strong as someone who spent their career (or larger parts of it) in DC. Getting a DC federal government position in the future as a Murphy clerk would just be more on you than on him, so it would make sense to practice in DC afterwards and build your own connections.

I know nothing about either judge's hiring practices or what they are like as a boss, but it's worth noting that Judge Readler, the other CA6 judge in Columbus who was appointed at the same time as Murphy, was principal deputy at Civil DOJ for two years before he took the bench. Between the two, he is likely to have more robust fedgov connections.

Murphy is ten times the judge that Readler is from a writing and analysis perspective. That said Readler can definitely connect you to the anti-administrative state, new-fedsoc crowd in DC.

Source: sat with both of them a bunch during my term.

[Anonymous User]

Saw Eric Murphy just posted. Anyone have thoughts on him good or bad?

Former Murphy clerk. He's one of the best judges out there to clerk for in a lot of ways. He's incredibly smart and hardworking, and his output is very thorough and well-written. He digs deep into the facts and the law in every case (often deeper than the clerks themselves do), and is very intellectually curious so he ends up writing opinions that often wade into any unsettled or contradictory areas of law implicated by his cases. I'm not sure any of his clerks try to match his hours (and he doesn't insist that you do), but you may end up working harder than some other clerks on the circuit just because he himself is so hardworking. Around people he doesn't know, he's quiet and reserved, but he's very kind and a good boss to his clerks. He's less connected than some other judges are (given his personality) and travels less than many, but you will learn more about research and writing in that clerkship and have more facetime with your judge than you will in many other clerkships. His hiring has been less ideological than many Trump appointees, and has also been pretty competitive, with several Murphy/Sutton clerks and some other solid clerkship pairings. Overall, it's a pretty unbeatable clerkship in terms of substantive experience; the biggest drawback would just be that, compared to some other judges of his caliber, he has fewer connections at SCOTUS and otherwise.

Former 6CA clerk here (but not a Murphy clerk). You'll work harder for Murphy than you will for most other judges on the circuit. My recollection is that he was one of a small handful of judges on the Sixth who didn't participate in the sharing of bench memos. That creates more work for clerks.

That all said, I will echo what the former Murphy clerk is saying here. Judge Murphy is one of the smartest judges on the circuit. He prepares extremely well. He sees angles that other judges and clerks don't. And he's a nice guy. He definitely is quiet and reserved compared to many of the other judges, but I found it wasn't hard to have a conversation with him if I made an effort.

[Anonymous User]

Saw Eric Murphy just posted. Anyone have thoughts on him good or bad?

Former Murphy clerk. He's one of the best judges out there to clerk for in a lot of ways. He's incredibly smart and hardworking, and his output is very thorough and well-written. He digs deep into the facts and the law in every case (often deeper than the clerks themselves do), and is very intellectually curious so he ends up writing opinions that often wade into any unsettled or contradictory areas of law implicated by his cases. I'm not sure any of his clerks try to match his hours (and he doesn't insist that you do), but you may end up working harder than some other clerks on the circuit just because he himself is so hardworking. Around people he doesn't know, he's quiet and reserved, but he's very kind and a good boss to his clerks. He's less connected than some other judges are (given his personality) and travels less than many, but you will learn more about research and writing in that clerkship and have more facetime with your judge than you will in many other clerkships. His hiring has been less ideological than many Trump appointees, and has also been pretty competitive, with several Murphy/Sutton clerks and some other solid clerkship pairings. Overall, it's a pretty unbeatable clerkship in terms of substantive experience; the biggest drawback would just be that, compared to some other judges of his caliber, he has fewer connections at SCOTUS and otherwise.

Former 6CA clerk here (but not a Murphy clerk). You'll work harder for Murphy than you will for most other judges on the circuit. My recollection is that he was one of a small handful of judges on the Sixth who didn't participate in the sharing of bench memos. That creates more work for clerks.

That all said, I will echo what the former Murphy clerk is saying here. Judge Murphy is one of the smartest judges on the circuit. He prepares extremely well. He sees angles that other judges and clerks don't. And he's a nice guy. He definitely is quiet and reserved compared to many of the other judges, but I found it wasn't hard to have a conversation with him if I made an effort.

Former Murphy clerk again. My understanding is he now shares bench memos, so I don't think that's a factor anymore, but I don't disagree that it's still likely to be a hard-working clerkship.