2d versus 9th Forum

[Anonymous User]

Have my first two interviews coming up, one on the 2d in NYC and the other on the 9th in Pasadena. Both judges seem like they would be good to work for, but they aren't too well known for being feeders. I would like to try for a SCOTUS gig and am told by the school's clerkship adviser that would be competitive if I kept up my grades and professor connections. I am not complaining about the interviews and I will take whatever I can get, but if I get non-exploding offers from both judges, is there any advantage to taking one circuit over the other? I've done a fair amount of research and it doesn't look like either judge has obvious connections to SCOTUS. Just in terms of the circuits, is one better than the other, and if so, why? Should I wait and hope to hear from a feeder? I don't think I could turn down an offer, based on what the school's clerkship adviser has said, so I guess I would have to hope that the two interviews I have coming up don't parlay into offers. Any advice appreciated. TIA.

ETA: Another thing. I am hesitant to just sit back and hope to hear from feeders because even though my application is pretty strong, I was pretty late to the game and did not submit stuff until very recently. A lot of the feeder positions for 2015 are already gone at this point, so I am looking at a pretty small pool of possibilities. One option would be to try and secure a position with one of the non-feeder 2/9 judges I'm going to be interviewing with and then try for a feeder position for the year after (assuming I submit early this time and don't make the same mistake). I've read some conflicting stuff on this board about a second COA gig with a feeder. I could also try for a good District Court for 2015, and then a feeder COA for 2016, but I don't know much about District Court positions and it seems like most of the good ones (like on SDNY) are also long gone at this point.

[Anonymous User]

Three comments:

1. I don't think either circuit is "better", more prestigious or anything like that. This being said, the type of cases will be really different - 9th is known to have heavy immigration and criminal dockets, while 2nd will be more of a mixture between criminal, admin, corporate, etc.

2. You can try to use your upcoming interviews to compel the feeders on the 2nd and 9th to see if they would interview you while you visit to interview. Call or email chambers to be like, "I will be in California next week interviewing for another judge on the 9th Circuit and I was wondering if the judge might have time to interview me while I'm there." (Obviously phrased more gracefully).

3. Although many feeders are done for 2015, you could ask to interview for 2016 and do sequential CoAs. That's a personal call that depends on what you want and your professor connections.

[Anonymous User]

Have my first two interviews coming up, one on the 2d in NYC and the other on the 9th in Pasadena. Both judges seem like they would be good to work for, but they aren't too well known for being feeders. I would like to try for a SCOTUS gig and am told by the school's clerkship adviser that would be competitive if I kept up my grades and professor connections. I am not complaining about the interviews and I will take whatever I can get, but if I get non-exploding offers from both judges, is there any advantage to taking one circuit over the other? I've done a fair amount of research and it doesn't look like either judge has obvious connections to SCOTUS. Just in terms of the circuits, is one better than the other, and if so, why? Should I wait and hope to hear from a feeder? I don't think I could turn down an offer, based on what the school's clerkship adviser has said, so I guess I would have to hope that the two interviews I have coming up don't parlay into offers. Any advice appreciated. TIA.

ETA: Another thing. I am hesitant to just sit back and hope to hear from feeders because even though my application is pretty strong, I was pretty late to the game and did not submit stuff until very recently. A lot of the feeder positions for 2015 are already gone at this point, so I am looking at a pretty small pool of possibilities. One option would be to try and secure a position with one of the non-feeder 2/9 judges I'm going to be interviewing with and then try for a feeder position for the year after (assuming I submit early this time and don't make the same mistake). I've read some conflicting stuff on this board about a second COA gig with a feeder. I could also try for a good District Court for 2015, and then a feeder COA for 2016, but I don't know much about District Court positions and it seems like most of the good ones (like on SDNY) are also long gone at this point.

It'd be easier to give you advice if you post credentials. That is, if your credentials are truly SCOTUS caliber, my advice to you might be different than if you think you are SCOTUS caliber but are probably more of a long shot.

In any event, the difference between a clerkship on the 9th and the 2nd isn't important for the median judge. Clerkships, imo, are more about the individual judge than the circuit. Where would you rather live? The Northeast or out West?

Some judges, e.g., Judge Tatel, prefer people who have done prior clerkships (I think he expresses a preference for district court but I do know people who do COA before clerking for him). So I think that I would probably try and clerk before trying to secure a feeder clerkship, as that can only really help you. As far as whether to do a COA or a district court that's a tougher call.

[apparentlynew]

It'd be easier to give you advice if you post credentials. That is, if your credentials are truly SCOTUS caliber, my advice to you might be different than if you think you are SCOTUS caliber but are probably more of a long shot.

You know, if your advice depends on whether he's scotus caliber or a long shot, just give him both pieces of advice and he can decide which kind of scotus clerk candidate he is and which piece of advice he should take.

I also love the suggestion that you can tell who is scotus clerk caliber and the OP's school's clerkship adviser can't.

[Anonymous User]

It'd be easier to give you advice if you post credentials. That is, if your credentials are truly SCOTUS caliber, my advice to you might be different than if you think you are SCOTUS caliber but are probably more of a long shot.

You know, if your advice depends on whether he's scotus caliber or a long shot, just give him both pieces of advice and he can decide which kind of scotus clerk candidate he is and which piece of advice he should take.

I also love the suggestion that you can tell who is scotus clerk caliber and the OP's school's clerkship adviser can't.

It's hard to give accurate advice in some situations without some sort of information. OP has given us none. It's not a matter of just doing A or B. We don't even know what school range we are talking about. Imagine trying to give advice on say, which firm you should go to in the legal employment forum or which law school in the choosing law school forum without some sort of information on the person to help provide better advice for their decision.

What's wrong with that suggestion? Or maybe I just don't want to rely on second-hand information. Same reason why primary sources are generally better than secondary sources. We don't know the caliber of the school's OCS. They are not always stellar.

Not sure why you have to attack my post, you have added literally nothing helpful or informative. You could just ignore it or post your own advice.

[Anonymous User]

I was in a similar position when I first applied for clerkships a few years ago. On paper, I was probably competitive for feeder clerkships, but I applied relatively late in the cycle.

I ended up targeting district court judges and then angled for a feeder the next year. It worked out well. I was a stronger candidate the following cycle, as I had two more semesters of grades and additional professors going to bat on my behalf. My COA judge made clear that he/she saw my district court clerkship as a significant plus, too.

At the same time, this process is just so chaotic. My "plan" worked out for me, but it easily could have backfired. In any event, I'd recommend doing a district court clerkship if you're interested in litigation. To me, it makes much more practical sense than doing two COA gigs (although doing the D.C. Cir. second makes some sense).

[Anonymous User]

If you are legitimately SCOTUS caliber (i.e. top of your class at a top school) then I know at least one feeder judge on CA9 is still hiring for 2015.

[Tangerine Gleam]

I think it's more about the judge, not the circuit. But if we're going by name recognition of the circuit alone, I think they're equal.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Appreciate the advice, skeptics included. Not at HYS but within top 2-3% at CCN + LR. I don't know if I'm the top student at my school or not - I wouldn't be surprised if I either was or wasn't - but the advisers I've spoken to have had plenty of nice things to say about my transcript. HTH.

If anyone has more info on strong district court judges, I'd be all ears. Thanks.

[Doorkeeper]

OP here. Appreciate the advice, skeptics included. Not at HYS but within top 2-3% at CCN + LR. I don't know if I'm the top student at my school or not - I wouldn't be surprised if I either was or wasn't - but the advisers I've spoken to have had plenty of nice things to say about my transcript. HTH.

If anyone has more info on strong district court judges, I'd be all ears. Thanks.

If your transcript is strong enough at CCN where the clerkship advisers think you have a legit shot, then you should talk with the faculty clerkship advisers that most schools have to ask these questions (or even better your recommenders if any of them keep close tabs on the process).

[Anonymous User]

All things being equal, I'd take 2nd over 9th. I did a non-feeder 9th Circuit clerkship, and I found the immigration cases terrible to work on, and there's so many of them. I have no idea which one I'd take to land SCOTUS. Among the feeders, they're probably equal, and among th enon-feeders they're probably equal. Who is a non-feeder in Pasadena? Wardlaw or Fisher? I thought the rest all sent at least some clerks to SCOTUS.

[Citizen Genet]

All things being equal, I'd take 2nd over 9th. I did a non-feeder 9th Circuit clerkship, and I found the immigration cases terrible to work on, and there's so many of them. I have no idea which one I'd take to SCOTUS. Among the feeders, they're probably equal, and among th enon-feeders they're probably equal. Who is a non-feeder in Pasadena? Wardlaw or Fisher? I thought the rest all sent at least some clerks to SCOTUS.

Smith runs his little shop in El Segundo; not sure if people lump him in with the Pasadena crowd, but he hasn't sent anyone to SCOTUS.

[Anonymous User]

All things being equal, I'd take 2nd over 9th. I did a non-feeder 9th Circuit clerkship, and I found the immigration cases terrible to work on, and there's so many of them. I have no idea which one I'd take to SCOTUS. Among the feeders, they're probably equal, and among th enon-feeders they're probably equal. Who is a non-feeder in Pasadena? Wardlaw or Fisher? I thought the rest all sent at least some clerks to SCOTUS.

Smith runs his little shop in El Segundo; not sure if people lump him in with the Pasadena crowd, but he hasn't sent anyone to SCOTUS.

El Segundo is awesome. I don't know if Smith would be good to work for, but he struck me as incredibly arrogant.

[Anonymous User]

Watford and Nguyen have not (yet) sent anyone to SCOTUS. Maybe Paez has, but not recently.

I guess it depends, too, on what you call a "feeder." Ikuta has sent one or two (I think), which is of course much less than Kozinski or Fletcher.

[Anonymous User]

Watford and Nguyen have not (yet) sent anyone to SCOTUS. Maybe Paez has, but not recently.

I guess it depends, too, on what you call a "feeder." Ikuta has sent one or two (I think), which is of course much less than Kozinski or Fletcher.

I was lumping those ones in. Clearly there's a difference between Kozinski and Ikuta, but I labeled them both feeders because they do send clerks to SCOTUS. I'm assuming Watford will be a feeder, but you're right that he hasn't sent anyone since he got there in late 2012. I know nothing about Nguyen--she wasn't even a judge when I was there, but I figured time would tell there too. I thought Paez was on the same level as Ikuta. For some reason I thought Reinhardt was in Pasadena, but I just looked and he's in LA.