Let's talk 6th Circuit! Forum

(Seek and share information about clerkship applications, clerkship hiring timelines, and post-clerkship employment opportunities)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about clerkship applications and clerkship hiring. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jul 15, 2020 6:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:28 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:14 pm
This court has had a lot of new appointees in recent years. Can anybody provide a good summary of who is the best/most enjoyable to work for - not just for the new appointees, but for all of the active/senior judges? Also, are there any judges who have particularly good employment outcomes for their clerks?
You can pretty much group Sutton, Kethledge, and Thapar together for "best employment outcomes." Of the three, I think Kethledge is probably the most enjoyable to work for, but I haven't heard bad things about any of the three.

As for the rest/who's the best to work for, I would say that Stranch, Larsen, Griffin, and Readler would be higher on my list while Clay, Donald, White and Murphy would be towards the bottom.
I think Sutton is arguably in his own tier on employment outcomes. As for great judges for QOL, I agree on Readler. Seems like his clerks work a little longer hours because he's still getting his footing, but he's a really likable guy on a personal level. Agree on Stranch too. I've heard great things about Nalbandian from his clerks. Cole and Gibbons also seem like delightful people (although, Gibbons has had some health issues of late). And Siler is an absolute gem if you can deal with living in rural Kentucky.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 6:06 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:28 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:14 pm
This court has had a lot of new appointees in recent years. Can anybody provide a good summary of who is the best/most enjoyable to work for - not just for the new appointees, but for all of the active/senior judges? Also, are there any judges who have particularly good employment outcomes for their clerks?
You can pretty much group Sutton, Kethledge, and Thapar together for "best employment outcomes." Of the three, I think Kethledge is probably the most enjoyable to work for, but I haven't heard bad things about any of the three.

As for the rest/who's the best to work for, I would say that Stranch, Larsen, Griffin, and Readler would be higher on my list while Clay, Donald, White and Murphy would be towards the bottom.
I think Sutton is arguably in his own tier on employment outcomes. As for great judges for QOL, I agree on Readler. Seems like his clerks work a little longer hours because he's still getting his footing, but he's a really likable guy on a personal level. Agree on Stranch too. I've heard great things about Nalbandian from his clerks. Cole and Gibbons also seem like delightful people (although, Gibbons has had some health issues of late). And Siler is an absolute gem if you can deal with living in rural Kentucky.
Don't know anything about Siler personally, but also worth noting that he sits by designation very frequently (I've seen him on panels in CA3, CA9, and CA11, and he may go elsewhere, too).

Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:34 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:26 pm
Don't know anything about Siler personally, but also worth noting that he sits by designation very frequently (I've seen him on panels in CA3, CA9, and CA11, and he may go elsewhere, too).
Yeah, he will sit on any circuit that wants help. In recent years, CA3 and CA11 needed it. Although, both seem pretty full right now. CA9 always needs the help, and he sits with that circuit as he frequently as he does CA6.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:01 pm

I've seen Sutton referred to as a "liberal-friendly" or "multipurpose" feeder, and I've heard from a few profs at my LS that he's "not always ideological" in his hiring. Does anyone have an idea of whether he'd be willing to consider an applicant who's actively a member of ACS and has a Democratic politician on their resume, but has top grades at a HYSCCN Sutton frequently hires from and gets a big-shot FedSoc prof to call for them?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:09 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:01 pm
I've seen Sutton referred to as a "liberal-friendly" or "multipurpose" feeder, and I've heard from a few profs at my LS that he's "not always ideological" in his hiring. Does anyone have an idea of whether he'd be willing to consider an applicant who's actively a member of ACS and has a Democratic politician on their resume, but has top grades at a HYSCCN Sutton frequently hires from and gets a big-shot FedSoc prof to call for them?
Ask your professors; I had a similar resume and was told I have a shot. He's fed to all nine and has had some very liberal clerks (see: Leah Litman) before. I think he still probably prefers conservatives, though, and most of the students he's hired from my school recently were Fed Soc.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:22 pm

Nalbandian is full for 2022.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:23 pm

He absolutely hires open liberals and attempts to have ideological balance among his clerks every year.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:13 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:28 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:14 pm
This court has had a lot of new appointees in recent years. Can anybody provide a good summary of who is the best/most enjoyable to work for - not just for the new appointees, but for all of the active/senior judges? Also, are there any judges who have particularly good employment outcomes for their clerks?
You can pretty much group Sutton, Kethledge, and Thapar together for "best employment outcomes." Of the three, I think Kethledge is probably the most enjoyable to work for, but I haven't heard bad things about any of the three.

As for the rest/who's the best to work for, I would say that Stranch, Larsen, Griffin, and Readler would be higher on my list while Clay, Donald, White and Murphy would be towards the bottom.
Any empirical/anecdotal evidence to support any of this, or is it just an assumption? How are these "tiers" being determined exactly?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:35 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:13 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:28 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:14 pm
This court has had a lot of new appointees in recent years. Can anybody provide a good summary of who is the best/most enjoyable to work for - not just for the new appointees, but for all of the active/senior judges? Also, are there any judges who have particularly good employment outcomes for their clerks?
You can pretty much group Sutton, Kethledge, and Thapar together for "best employment outcomes." Of the three, I think Kethledge is probably the most enjoyable to work for, but I haven't heard bad things about any of the three.

As for the rest/who's the best to work for, I would say that Stranch, Larsen, Griffin, and Readler would be higher on my list while Clay, Donald, White and Murphy would be towards the bottom.
Any empirical/anecdotal evidence to support any of this, or is it just an assumption? How are these "tiers" being determined exactly?

I have limited knowledge, but these tiers are not great. Sutton, Kethledge, and Thapar (could include Larsen, she's making a strong push for top FedSoc students) are favored because they are feeders, but there really aren't meaningful distinctions between the new Trump appointees like Readler, Murphy, and Nalbandian. Clay is dead last because he is awful to work for.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:13 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:28 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:14 pm
This court has had a lot of new appointees in recent years. Can anybody provide a good summary of who is the best/most enjoyable to work for - not just for the new appointees, but for all of the active/senior judges? Also, are there any judges who have particularly good employment outcomes for their clerks?
You can pretty much group Sutton, Kethledge, and Thapar together for "best employment outcomes." Of the three, I think Kethledge is probably the most enjoyable to work for, but I haven't heard bad things about any of the three.

As for the rest/who's the best to work for, I would say that Stranch, Larsen, Griffin, and Readler would be higher on my list while Clay, Donald, White and Murphy would be towards the bottom.
Any empirical/anecdotal evidence to support any of this, or is it just an assumption? How are these "tiers" being determined exactly?
I'm previous anon -- this is based on my experience clerking on the court and talking with law clerks in those chambers. And again, I was talking solely about how enjoyable the clerkship would be -- not purporting to rank employment outcomes of say, a Stranch clerk vs a Donald clerk.

Here's a little more of my thinking on why I'd be less interested in clerking for some particular CA6 judges.

White -- works really strange hours, notoriously slow getting decisions out the door
Murphy -- doesn't share (which means some other judges don't share with him), still finding his footing on the court, seems to work clerks fairly hard; not super personable
Donald -- pretty unorganized, could do more to manage chambers and provide structure to clerks -- she's also made some questionable hiring decisions and had a few notoriously bad clerks that have become circuit "lore" -- absolute gem of a person though
Clay -- he's rock bottom. Once fired an entire class of clerks mid-year.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:02 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:31 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:13 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:28 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:14 pm
This court has had a lot of new appointees in recent years. Can anybody provide a good summary of who is the best/most enjoyable to work for - not just for the new appointees, but for all of the active/senior judges? Also, are there any judges who have particularly good employment outcomes for their clerks?
You can pretty much group Sutton, Kethledge, and Thapar together for "best employment outcomes." Of the three, I think Kethledge is probably the most enjoyable to work for, but I haven't heard bad things about any of the three.

As for the rest/who's the best to work for, I would say that Stranch, Larsen, Griffin, and Readler would be higher on my list while Clay, Donald, White and Murphy would be towards the bottom.
Any empirical/anecdotal evidence to support any of this, or is it just an assumption? How are these "tiers" being determined exactly?
I'm previous anon -- this is based on my experience clerking on the court and talking with law clerks in those chambers. And again, I was talking solely about how enjoyable the clerkship would be -- not purporting to rank employment outcomes of say, a Stranch clerk vs a Donald clerk.

Here's a little more of my thinking on why I'd be less interested in clerking for some particular CA6 judges.

White -- works really strange hours, notoriously slow getting decisions out the door
Murphy -- doesn't share (which means some other judges don't share with him), still finding his footing on the court, seems to work clerks fairly hard; not super personable
Donald -- pretty unorganized, could do more to manage chambers and provide structure to clerks -- she's also made some questionable hiring decisions and had a few notoriously bad clerks that have become circuit "lore" -- absolute gem of a person though
Clay -- he's rock bottom. Once fired an entire class of clerks mid-year.
Adding my knowledge: Clay has a bad rep on TLS but I'm friends with a number of recent clerks who totally disagree with this negative reputation and loved their experience.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:13 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:31 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:13 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:28 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:14 pm
This court has had a lot of new appointees in recent years. Can anybody provide a good summary of who is the best/most enjoyable to work for - not just for the new appointees, but for all of the active/senior judges? Also, are there any judges who have particularly good employment outcomes for their clerks?
You can pretty much group Sutton, Kethledge, and Thapar together for "best employment outcomes." Of the three, I think Kethledge is probably the most enjoyable to work for, but I haven't heard bad things about any of the three.

As for the rest/who's the best to work for, I would say that Stranch, Larsen, Griffin, and Readler would be higher on my list while Clay, Donald, White and Murphy would be towards the bottom.
Any empirical/anecdotal evidence to support any of this, or is it just an assumption? How are these "tiers" being determined exactly?
Clay -- he's rock bottom. Once fired an entire class of clerks mid-year.
this needs an explanation - is this documented anywhere? how could he possibly do that? and for what reasons?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:00 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:31 pm

I'm previous anon -- this is based on my experience clerking on the court and talking with law clerks in those chambers. And again, I was talking solely about how enjoyable the clerkship would be -- not purporting to rank employment outcomes of say, a Stranch clerk vs a Donald clerk.

Here's a little more of my thinking on why I'd be less interested in clerking for some particular CA6 judges.

White -- works really strange hours, notoriously slow getting decisions out the door
Murphy -- doesn't share (which means some other judges don't share with him), still finding his footing on the court, seems to work clerks fairly hard; not super personable
Donald -- pretty unorganized, could do more to manage chambers and provide structure to clerks -- she's also made some questionable hiring decisions and had a few notoriously bad clerks that have become circuit "lore" -- absolute gem of a person though
Clay -- he's rock bottom. Once fired an entire class of clerks mid-year.
On Murphy, I wouldn't say he's not personable. I think he's just a tad shy. Once you get him to warm up to you a bit, he's a really friendly guy. But yes, he doesn't share bench memos, and I also got the sense that his clerks work quite a bit harder than your average 6CA clerk.

On Donald, I agree. Her chambers can be so slow getting stuff out, but she's a very nice person. And I've also heard the Clay horror stories. Avoid him.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:18 pm

In my interactions with Judge Murphy I found him to be very nice, although certainly not super gregarious. Also incredibly smart.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Aug 20, 2020 10:16 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:31 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:13 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:28 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:14 pm
This court has had a lot of new appointees in recent years. Can anybody provide a good summary of who is the best/most enjoyable to work for - not just for the new appointees, but for all of the active/senior judges? Also, are there any judges who have particularly good employment outcomes for their clerks?
You can pretty much group Sutton, Kethledge, and Thapar together for "best employment outcomes." Of the three, I think Kethledge is probably the most enjoyable to work for, but I haven't heard bad things about any of the three.

As for the rest/who's the best to work for, I would say that Stranch, Larsen, Griffin, and Readler would be higher on my list while Clay, Donald, White and Murphy would be towards the bottom.
Any empirical/anecdotal evidence to support any of this, or is it just an assumption? How are these "tiers" being determined exactly?
I'm previous anon -- this is based on my experience clerking on the court and talking with law clerks in those chambers. And again, I was talking solely about how enjoyable the clerkship would be -- not purporting to rank employment outcomes of say, a Stranch clerk vs a Donald clerk.

Here's a little more of my thinking on why I'd be less interested in clerking for some particular CA6 judges.

White -- works really strange hours, notoriously slow getting decisions out the door
Murphy -- doesn't share (which means some other judges don't share with him), still finding his footing on the court, seems to work clerks fairly hard; not super personable
Donald -- pretty unorganized, could do more to manage chambers and provide structure to clerks -- she's also made some questionable hiring decisions and had a few notoriously bad clerks that have become circuit "lore" -- absolute gem of a person though
Clay -- he's rock bottom. Once fired an entire class of clerks mid-year.
Would you say that employment outcomes are roughly equal outside of Sutton/Kethledge/Thapar? Just curious.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Aug 20, 2020 11:07 am

Would you say that employment outcomes are roughly equal outside of Sutton/Kethledge/Thapar? Just curious.
I think this is probably fair -- it's hard to make direct comparisons because the judges hire from what seem like pretty different pools (e.g., Larsen having her pick of Fed Soc. folks, while Stranch or Donald are more likely to hire public-interest focused applicants).

I also get the sense that CA6 clerks are a bit more far-flung than other circuits because there is no truly large market to place clerks -- Detroit, Cincinnati/Cleveland/Columbus, and Nashville all seem to attract a few, with the remainder heading back to Chicago/NY/DC or whatever.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:36 pm

To those posters who have commented on the interplay of the different judges, can you elaborate as to why particular judges/chambers are good/bad?

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:28 pm

What are the chances to go from District to Circuit within the 6th Cir if you have a mediocre local school but good stats otherwise?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Sep 13, 2020 11:44 pm

Updates for TN judges (Donald, Gibbons, Stranch, Garland, Gilman, Daughtrey) for 2022-2023 would be much appreciated. Interviewing? Hired? Reviewing?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:10 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:28 pm
What are the chances to go from District to Circuit within the 6th Cir if you have a mediocre local school but good stats otherwise?
Depends what you mean by a “mediocre” local school, to be honest.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:07 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:28 pm
What are the chances to go from District to Circuit within the 6th Cir if you have a mediocre local school but good stats otherwise?
There's a pretty big spread of "mediocre" local schools. If you're top of the class at Ohio State or Kentucky you might have a shot at 6th Cir, and you'd have a decent shot at one of the districts. But not even top of the class at, say, Ohio Northern has a meaningful chance at the 6th Cir. (and would even be lucky to get NDOH).

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:09 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:10 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:28 pm
What are the chances to go from District to Circuit within the 6th Cir if you have a mediocre local school but good stats otherwise?
Depends what you mean by a “mediocre” local school, to be honest.
Honestly, it's tough out there. Even the more active seniors on CA6 tend to get a lot of apps from T14 and then the Big 10 Schools (mostly T1) and and it boxes out some of the lower-tier schools. I think you have a shot from a T2 if you're Top 5-10 and your district judge is well-regarded or connected to particular CA6 judges. Never ever hurts to apply though!

Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Tue Sep 15, 2020 7:58 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:07 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:28 pm
What are the chances to go from District to Circuit within the 6th Cir if you have a mediocre local school but good stats otherwise?
There's a pretty big spread of "mediocre" local schools. If you're top of the class at Ohio State or Kentucky you might have a shot at 6th Cir, and you'd have a decent shot at one of the districts. But not even top of the class at, say, Ohio Northern has a meaningful chance at the 6th Cir. (and would even be lucky to get NDOH).
That’s more of what I’m talking about. I was lucky enough to get District, but I realistically assume 6th Cir. is not possible.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:07 pm

Can anyone tell what changed with Sutton bumping his post on OSCAR?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428103
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's talk 6th Circuit!

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:51 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:02 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:31 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:13 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:28 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:14 pm
This court has had a lot of new appointees in recent years. Can anybody provide a good summary of who is the best/most enjoyable to work for - not just for the new appointees, but for all of the active/senior judges? Also, are there any judges who have particularly good employment outcomes for their clerks?
You can pretty much group Sutton, Kethledge, and Thapar together for "best employment outcomes." Of the three, I think Kethledge is probably the most enjoyable to work for, but I haven't heard bad things about any of the three.

As for the rest/who's the best to work for, I would say that Stranch, Larsen, Griffin, and Readler would be higher on my list while Clay, Donald, White and Murphy would be towards the bottom.
Any empirical/anecdotal evidence to support any of this, or is it just an assumption? How are these "tiers" being determined exactly?
I'm previous anon -- this is based on my experience clerking on the court and talking with law clerks in those chambers. And again, I was talking solely about how enjoyable the clerkship would be -- not purporting to rank employment outcomes of say, a Stranch clerk vs a Donald clerk.

Here's a little more of my thinking on why I'd be less interested in clerking for some particular CA6 judges.

White -- works really strange hours, notoriously slow getting decisions out the door
Murphy -- doesn't share (which means some other judges don't share with him), still finding his footing on the court, seems to work clerks fairly hard; not super personable
Donald -- pretty unorganized, could do more to manage chambers and provide structure to clerks -- she's also made some questionable hiring decisions and had a few notoriously bad clerks that have become circuit "lore" -- absolute gem of a person though
Clay -- he's rock bottom. Once fired an entire class of clerks mid-year.
Adding my knowledge: Clay has a bad rep on TLS but I'm friends with a number of recent clerks who totally disagree with this negative reputation and loved their experience.
Future CA6 here. Super curious about this bad clerk lore re: Donald. What was the deal there?

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Judicial Clerkships”