Best and worst judges to clerk for Forum

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have any insight into what Judge Reed O'Connor is like as a boss? Hours, temperament, etc.? I've heard generally good things, but would appreciate any concrete experience.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have any insight into what Judge Reed O'Connor is like as a boss? Hours, temperament, etc.? I've heard generally good things, but would appreciate any concrete experience.

Gird your loins for the response you're about to get.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have any insight into what Judge Reed O'Connor is like as a boss? Hours, temperament, etc.? I've heard generally good things, but would appreciate any concrete experience.

Gird your loins for the response you're about to get.

It's like the OP was designed in a lab to produce maximum chaos on this forum.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have any insight into what Judge Reed O'Connor is like as a boss? Hours, temperament, etc.? I've heard generally good things, but would appreciate any concrete experience.

Gird your loins for the response you're about to get.

It's like the OP was designed in a lab to produce maximum chaos on this forum.

Anon OP here - did not realize this would be a chaotic question! Have been able to get info on most of the other NDTX judges, but been struggling with O'Connor.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have any insight into what Judge Reed O'Connor is like as a boss? Hours, temperament, etc.? I've heard generally good things, but would appreciate any concrete experience.

Gird your loins for the response you're about to get.

It's like the OP was designed in a lab to produce maximum chaos on this forum.

Anon OP here - did not realize this would be a chaotic question! Have been able to get info on most of the other NDTX judges, but been struggling with O'Connor.

So far this question has been all hype and no action.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have any insight into what Judge Reed O'Connor is like as a boss? Hours, temperament, etc.? I've heard generally good things, but would appreciate any concrete experience.

Gird your loins for the response you're about to get.

It's like the OP was designed in a lab to produce maximum chaos on this forum.

Anon OP here - did not realize this would be a chaotic question! Have been able to get info on most of the other NDTX judges, but been struggling with O'Connor.

So far this question has been all hype and no action.

I have heard Judge O'Connor is an awesome boss but works his clerks very hard. I have also heard Judge O'Connor is himself an extremely hard worker, who basically doesn't sleep.

[Anonymous User]

Re: O'Connor, it's probably worth mentioning regardless of how he is as a boss, he is sort of an infamous district judge because of the nationwide injunction issue so having him on your resume could be very helpful or very bad depending on the job you're applying to. I'm sure the person who asked this knew this, but just want to say that in case they didn't.

[Anonymous User]

Re: O'Connor, it's probably worth mentioning regardless of how he is as a boss, he is sort of an infamous district judge because of the nationwide injunction issue so having him on your resume could be very helpful or very bad depending on the job you're applying to. I'm sure the person who asked this knew this, but just want to say that in case they didn't.

I'm an AUSA and a liberal, I argue in front of judges of all stripes routinely, and this doesn't seem like such a big deal. His injunction case and the others he's gotten some press for are pretty run of the mill parts of the job that any federal district court has to do on hot button issues. His rulings are by and large between the lines of rationality, unlike the abject stupidity of rulings like Aileen Cannon's Trump search warrant case. Some of O'Connor's conservative-leaning rulings were reversed on appeal, but that's bound to happen when you're a federal district judge whose job it is to rule on controversial subjects.

Whether a judge is liberal or conservative, my expectation as a professional is that they will follow legal precedent closely and stay loyal only to the facts, not to some irrational blather they make up in their heads (Aileen Cannon). If you're a good conservative judge who fits in this category, a liberal like me will still adore you and respect you.

[Anonymous User]

Re: O'Connor, it's probably worth mentioning regardless of how he is as a boss, he is sort of an infamous district judge because of the nationwide injunction issue so having him on your resume could be very helpful or very bad depending on the job you're applying to. I'm sure the person who asked this knew this, but just want to say that in case they didn't.

Anecdotally, I'm sure that if you asked 100 lawyers to name the federal judge they view as most purely motivated by political outcomes, some would name Reed O'Connor. Regardless of whether that is true or not, you may prefer not to fight that perception on your resume forever.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, look at the reactions to O'Connor's ACA opinion in CA v. Texas from FedSoc academic types. He was skewered as aggressively as Cannon was for the Trump decision.

And of course there have been other decisions of his as well that have given him a reputation (most recently his HIV drug decision & COVID Vax). He is known by many nationally as a one-stop shop for conservative litigants to get favorable rulings, so plaintiffs seek out his jury division in Texas when they have a hot-button lawsuit. Absolutely something applicants should be aware of going in--I know some seek him out for this reason, but it's not for everyone.

[Anonymous User]

Re: O'Connor, it's probably worth mentioning regardless of how he is as a boss, he is sort of an infamous district judge because of the nationwide injunction issue so having him on your resume could be very helpful or very bad depending on the job you're applying to. I'm sure the person who asked this knew this, but just want to say that in case they didn't.

I'm an AUSA and a liberal, I argue in front of judges of all stripes routinely, and this doesn't seem like such a big deal. His injunction case and the others he's gotten some press for are pretty run of the mill parts of the job that any federal district court has to do on hot button issues. His rulings are by and large between the lines of rationality, unlike the abject stupidity of rulings like Aileen Cannon's Trump search warrant case. Some of O'Connor's conservative-leaning rulings were reversed on appeal, but that's bound to happen when you're a federal district judge whose job it is to rule on controversial subjects.

Whether a judge is liberal or conservative, my expectation as a professional is that they will follow legal precedent closely and stay loyal only to the facts, not to some irrational blather they make up in their heads (Aileen Cannon). If you're a good conservative judge who fits in this category, a liberal like me will still adore you and respect you.

I mean if you're an AUSA, you're probably less liberal than you think—but, anyways, that's beside the point. In more left-leaning spaces (and not just PD offices or the ACLU), an O'Connor clerkship would def raise an eyebrow. People know who he is. Not making a normative judgment, just making a descriptive one especially since a lot of times district judges are not very politically charged and the only ones widely known are widely known for good reasons (i.e. Weinstein, Furman, etc...). Now-a-days, though, there are a lot of district judges that have more split opinions especially with O'Connor.

And, in non-left leaning spaces, an O'Connor clerkship may not be actively harmful but it's certainly a "louder" resume-line as far as district judges go.

FWIW, though, I've heard he's a decent guy.

[Anonymous User]

I think the impact of having a judge like that on your resume depends a little on whether they're known to hire ideologically. Not entirely, but somewhat.

[Anonymous User]

Re: O'Connor, it's probably worth mentioning regardless of how he is as a boss, he is sort of an infamous district judge because of the nationwide injunction issue so having him on your resume could be very helpful or very bad depending on the job you're applying to. I'm sure the person who asked this knew this, but just want to say that in case they didn't.

I'm an AUSA and a liberal, I argue in front of judges of all stripes routinely, and this doesn't seem like such a big deal. His injunction case and the others he's gotten some press for are pretty run of the mill parts of the job that any federal district court has to do on hot button issues. His rulings are by and large between the lines of rationality, unlike the abject stupidity of rulings like Aileen Cannon's Trump search warrant case. Some of O'Connor's conservative-leaning rulings were reversed on appeal, but that's bound to happen when you're a federal district judge whose job it is to rule on controversial subjects.

Whether a judge is liberal or conservative, my expectation as a professional is that they will follow legal precedent closely and stay loyal only to the facts, not to some irrational blather they make up in their heads (Aileen Cannon). If you're a good conservative judge who fits in this category, a liberal like me will still adore you and respect you.

I mean if you're an AUSA, you're probably less liberal than you think—but, anyways, that's beside the point. In more left-leaning spaces (and not just PD offices or the ACLU), an O'Connor clerkship would def raise an eyebrow. People know who he is. Not making a normative judgment, just making a descriptive one especially since a lot of times district judges are not very politically charged and the only ones widely known are widely known for good reasons (i.e. Weinstein, Furman, etc...). Now-a-days, though, there are a lot of district judges that have more split opinions especially with O'Connor.

And, in non-left leaning spaces, an O'Connor clerkship may not be actively harmful but it's certainly a "louder" resume-line as far as district judges go.

FWIW, though, I've heard he's a decent guy.

Haha... the lib AUSA here, and that's a funny observation, maybe not totally off. But ... Sotomayor is my favorite justice, I'm pro-choice, anti-trans-bigotry (in fairness, Bostock was authored by Gorsuch so I wish more conservatives would actually read it much less respect it), anti-NRA, skeptical of law enforcement culture that I think needs a massive overhaul (but will passionately defend any good officer based on the individual facts of every individual case), pro-Obamacare, pro-Black Lives Matter, and wouldn't mind if ICE was completely dismantled so we could start over with a professionally-run immigration enforcement agency untainted by the white supremacist bullshit that Trumpism infused into it.

But also, how is any of that relevant to doing my damn job? I'm not POTUS so who cares what I think about those things. It's not so different for federal district judges.

A conservative judge who completely 100% disagrees with me in the voting booth on every single one of those issues is still someone I can respect, admire, and will defend until I am blue if his or her judicial independence is attacked. That's because the job we do as government lawyers and judges is first judge cases based on the facts, and established precedents. Our ideologies really don't interfere with that job very frequently. A good judge is a good judge. So if Reed is in that category, and I am an old liberal guy looking at the resume of a law grad who interned for Reed, that resume is definitely not getting chucked into the trash. (Bragging about being in the Fed Soc might get annoying enough to get a chuck, but otherwise, I'm open minded.)

[Anonymous User]

Re: O'Connor, it's probably worth mentioning regardless of how he is as a boss, he is sort of an infamous district judge because of the nationwide injunction issue so having him on your resume could be very helpful or very bad depending on the job you're applying to. I'm sure the person who asked this knew this, but just want to say that in case they didn't.

I'm an AUSA and a liberal, I argue in front of judges of all stripes routinely, and this doesn't seem like such a big deal. His injunction case and the others he's gotten some press for are pretty run of the mill parts of the job that any federal district court has to do on hot button issues. His rulings are by and large between the lines of rationality, unlike the abject stupidity of rulings like Aileen Cannon's Trump search warrant case. Some of O'Connor's conservative-leaning rulings were reversed on appeal, but that's bound to happen when you're a federal district judge whose job it is to rule on controversial subjects.

Whether a judge is liberal or conservative, my expectation as a professional is that they will follow legal precedent closely and stay loyal only to the facts, not to some irrational blather they make up in their heads (Aileen Cannon). If you're a good conservative judge who fits in this category, a liberal like me will still adore you and respect you.

I mean if you're an AUSA, you're probably less liberal than you think—but, anyways, that's beside the point. In more left-leaning spaces (and not just PD offices or the ACLU), an O'Connor clerkship would def raise an eyebrow. People know who he is. Not making a normative judgment, just making a descriptive one especially since a lot of times district judges are not very politically charged and the only ones widely known are widely known for good reasons (i.e. Weinstein, Furman, etc...). Now-a-days, though, there are a lot of district judges that have more split opinions especially with O'Connor.

And, in non-left leaning spaces, an O'Connor clerkship may not be actively harmful but it's certainly a "louder" resume-line as far as district judges go.

FWIW, though, I've heard he's a decent guy.

Skipping the political discussions, because I really don't think most of the people applying to him particularly care, but I can confirm he's a super nice guy. But he works like a maniac, and I can't imagine its a lifestyle clerkship by any means.

[lavarman84]

Haha... the lib AUSA here, and that's a funny observation, maybe not totally off. But ... Sotomayor is my favorite justice, I'm pro-choice, anti-trans-bigotry (in fairness, Bostock was authored by Gorsuch so I wish more conservatives would actually read it much less respect it), anti-NRA, skeptical of law enforcement culture that I think needs a massive overhaul (but will passionately defend any good officer based on the individual facts of every individual case), pro-Obamacare, pro-Black Lives Matter, and wouldn't mind if ICE was completely dismantled so we could start over with a professionally-run immigration enforcement agency untainted by the white supremacist bullshit that Trumpism infused into it.

But also, how is any of that relevant to doing my damn job? I'm not POTUS so who cares what I think about those things. It's not so different for federal district judges.

A conservative judge who completely 100% disagrees with me in the voting booth on every single one of those issues is still someone I can respect, admire, and will defend until I am blue if his or her judicial independence is attacked. That's because the job we do as government lawyers and judges is first judge cases based on the facts, and established precedents. Our ideologies really don't interfere with that job very frequently. A good judge is a good judge. So if Reed is in that category, and I am an old liberal guy looking at the resume of a law grad who interned for Reed, that resume is definitely not getting chucked into the trash. (Bragging about being in the Fed Soc might get annoying enough to get a chuck, but otherwise, I'm open minded.)

I imagine any person applying to Reed O'Connor is likely comfortable with his politics. But Republicans judge-shopped their culture war cases to the guy for years. (Now, they can have a bit more variety with some of the Trump appointees in Texas.) And they did that because they knew that he's not just an unbiased judge calling balls and strikes. He's one of the most extreme people at the district court level and bends over backwards to rule in favor of Republican causes. He's so extreme that even this very right-wing Supreme Court reversed him 7-2.

As somebody who works in impact litigation on the liberal side, I wouldn't automatically trash the resume of a person who clerked for O'Connor. There are many valid reasons for a liberal to clerk for a conservative judge. But if at the interview the person responded similarly to how you are now, I wouldn't vote for them to move forward in the process. A big part of my job is understanding the politics involved in what we do, including the politics of the judges before whom we have our cases. We can't afford to have rose-tinted glasses when it comes to the judiciary. You seem to have an idealized view of an institution that has become very politically polarized.

[Anonymous User]

Haha... the lib AUSA here, and that's a funny observation, maybe not totally off. But ... Sotomayor is my favorite justice, I'm pro-choice, anti-trans-bigotry (in fairness, Bostock was authored by Gorsuch so I wish more conservatives would actually read it much less respect it), anti-NRA, skeptical of law enforcement culture that I think needs a massive overhaul (but will passionately defend any good officer based on the individual facts of every individual case), pro-Obamacare, pro-Black Lives Matter, and wouldn't mind if ICE was completely dismantled so we could start over with a professionally-run immigration enforcement agency untainted by the white supremacist bullshit that Trumpism infused into it.

But also, how is any of that relevant to doing my damn job? I'm not POTUS so who cares what I think about those things. It's not so different for federal district judges.

A conservative judge who completely 100% disagrees with me in the voting booth on every single one of those issues is still someone I can respect, admire, and will defend until I am blue if his or her judicial independence is attacked. That's because the job we do as government lawyers and judges is first judge cases based on the facts, and established precedents. Our ideologies really don't interfere with that job very frequently. A good judge is a good judge. So if Reed is in that category, and I am an old liberal guy looking at the resume of a law grad who interned for Reed, that resume is definitely not getting chucked into the trash. (Bragging about being in the Fed Soc might get annoying enough to get a chuck, but otherwise, I'm open minded.)

I imagine any person applying to Reed O'Connor is likely comfortable with his politics. But Republicans judge-shopped their culture war cases to the guy for years. (Now, they can have a bit more variety with some of the Trump appointees in Texas.) And they did that because they knew that he's not just an unbiased judge calling balls and strikes. He's one of the most extreme people at the district court level and bends over backwards to rule in favor of Republican causes. He's so extreme that even this very right-wing Supreme Court reversed him 7-2.

As somebody who works in impact litigation on the liberal side, I wouldn't automatically trash the resume of a person who clerked for O'Connor. There are many valid reasons for a liberal to clerk for a conservative judge. But if at the interview the person responded similarly to how you are now, I wouldn't vote for them to move forward in the process. A big part of my job is understanding the politics involved in what we do, including the politics of the judges before whom we have our cases. We can't afford to have rose-tinted glasses when it comes to the judiciary. You seem to have an idealized view of an institution that has become very politically polarized.

Anon who said he was less liberal than he probably thinks. And yeah this is basically what I was getting at. Although, I don't have the hiring background for that additional context—I was more speaking to the general temperature among left-leaning lawyer spaces.

[Anonymous User]

I imagine any person applying to Reed O'Connor is likely comfortable with his politics. But Republicans judge-shopped their culture war cases to the guy for years. (Now, they can have a bit more variety with some of the Trump appointees in Texas.) And they did that because they knew that he's not just an unbiased judge calling balls and strikes. He's one of the most extreme people at the district court level and bends over backwards to rule in favor of Republican causes. He's so extreme that even this very right-wing Supreme Court reversed him 7-2.

As somebody who works in impact litigation on the liberal side, I wouldn't automatically trash the resume of a person who clerked for O'Connor. There are many valid reasons for a liberal to clerk for a conservative judge. But if at the interview the person responded similarly to how you are now, I wouldn't vote for them to move forward in the process. A big part of my job is understanding the politics involved in what we do, including the politics of the judges before whom we have our cases. We can't afford to have rose-tinted glasses when it comes to the judiciary. You seem to have an idealized view of an institution that has become very politically polarized.

Lib AUSA here. You've gotten me wrong, and are also offering bad advice to other readers, but I will ignore the ad hominem and just focus on the latter.

You just admitted that you work on "impact litigation on the liberal side." Ok, so let's fiction-pretend that you're ACLU. If you are a law student with aspirations to join the ACLU, yes, clerking for a conservative judge who has made headlines for a few conservative-biased rulings is probably going to impact you. This should be obvious to all but the stupid.

But if you are the 97% of the law student population that is not applying to the ACLU after law school, this still makes no difference. I have interviewed and hired interns in my job for many years now, with my liberal bias, and with my open-minded eye for diversity when it comes to race, gender, orientation, socio-economic status, and even politics. No, students with Fed Soc on their resumes don't really have a leg up when I am the reviewer. But nor have I chucked every such resume out without a look. Thankfully, there are enough people in our profession who still care about the rule of law more than they care about partisan tribalism that we keep the system moving forward, one painful inch at a time, and sometimes with setbacks, but always forward. And so it goes with a young student who clerks for a good federal judge who happens to be conservative leaning. I stand by my point that such a student need not worry that much.

[nixy]

I imagine any person applying to Reed O'Connor is likely comfortable with his politics. But Republicans judge-shopped their culture war cases to the guy for years. (Now, they can have a bit more variety with some of the Trump appointees in Texas.) And they did that because they knew that he's not just an unbiased judge calling balls and strikes. He's one of the most extreme people at the district court level and bends over backwards to rule in favor of Republican causes. He's so extreme that even this very right-wing Supreme Court reversed him 7-2.

As somebody who works in impact litigation on the liberal side, I wouldn't automatically trash the resume of a person who clerked for O'Connor. There are many valid reasons for a liberal to clerk for a conservative judge. But if at the interview the person responded similarly to how you are now, I wouldn't vote for them to move forward in the process. A big part of my job is understanding the politics involved in what we do, including the politics of the judges before whom we have our cases. We can't afford to have rose-tinted glasses when it comes to the judiciary. You seem to have an idealized view of an institution that has become very politically polarized.

Lib AUSA here. You've gotten me wrong, and are also offering bad advice to other readers, but I will ignore the ad hominem and just focus on the latter.

You just admitted that you work on "impact litigation on the liberal side." Ok, so let's fiction-pretend that you're ACLU. If you are a law student with aspirations to join the ACLU, yes, clerking for a conservative judge who has made headlines for a few conservative-biased rulings is probably going to impact you. This should be obvious to all but the stupid.

But if you are the 97% of the law student population that is not applying to the ACLU after law school, this still makes no difference. I have interviewed and hired interns in my job for many years now, with my liberal bias, and with my open-minded eye for diversity when it comes to race, gender, orientation, socio-economic status, and even politics. No, students with Fed Soc on their resumes don't really have a leg up when I am the reviewer. But nor have I chucked every such resume out without a look. Thankfully, there are enough people in our profession who still care about the rule of law more than they care about partisan tribalism that we keep the system moving forward, one painful inch at a time, and sometimes with setbacks, but always forward. And so it goes with a young student who clerks for a good federal judge who happens to be conservative leaning. I stand by my point that such a student need not worry that much.

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”).

[Anonymous User]

.

[lavarman84]

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”).

Well said. There are some conservative judges I greatly respect. There are others I begrudgingly respect. And then there's a group I see as politicians in robes. I have no doubt people know which category I'd put O'Connor in.

[Anonymous User]

Love how 90% of every discussion is just people grappling with the fact that conservatives exist in the profession.

[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”).

Well said. There are some conservative judges I greatly respect. There are others I begrudgingly respect. And then there's a group I see as politicians in robes. I have no doubt people know which category I'd put O'Connor in.

Yes, and I should have added, contrary to what some posters might think, liberal posters here are capable of distinguishing between "conservative" and "partisan" and don't just knee-jerk equate the two (although it's probably fair that political leanings influence where exactly each person thinks the line between those categories falls).

[Anonymous User]

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.

[Anonymous User]

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.

Look I'm not casting a judgment on your political views. But the prior person saying you're probably not as left-leaning as you think is right. The idea that his ability to manage voir dire and understands evidence rules makes up for insane nationwide injunctions is an institutionalist moderate liberal take—which, again, I am not saying is wrong or right. When other commenters speak of the effect that an O'Connor clerkship has on left-leaning orgs and individuals they are not referring to people who are like yeah O'Connor has some shitty opinions but man can that guy conduct discovery. O'Connor is infamous for being the judge conservatives shop for—that is what he is known for.

[Anonymous User]

“Lib AUSA” is just a troll and not worth the effort debating, so no need to clog up this thread with engaging his naive and unrealistic outlook on judges.

Bottom line on O’Connor is that he’s very conservative, but unless OP is incapable of doing a Google search, that’s not news to anyone. Seems like he’s a decent boss if you’re on his wavelength, and he probably won’t hire you if you’re not.

Next topic please.