Magistrate questions Forum

[timmyd]

I am hitting the clerkship cycle late in the game and probably a little under qualified (top 20%ish at UT). I am focusing mainly on district judges in flyover districts but I am also thinking about magistrates. My question is really, what do magistrate judges do that differentiates them from district court judges? Is there any benefit to taking such a position? Is it possible to do a magistrate clerkship and then parlay that into a district courtship upon completion of the term?

[A. Nony Mouse]

What magistrate judges do varies by district, but generally speaking, they are much less likely to conduct trials than district court judges (the parties must consent to have the magistrate judge conduct the trial). On the civil side, they often handle the discovery for the cases before a district judge, they can resolve non-dispositive motions, and they can write a report/recommendation to the district court resolving a dispositive motion (it depends on whether the district court refers to the matter to the magistrate, I think. Some district court judges do this a lot, some don't as much because the parties have the right to object the report to the district court and so they district court judge will just have to figure out the issue further down the line). I believe (but am hazier on this) that in a lot of districts, they often handle habeas petitions and tend to deal with very routine cases like social security and prisoner pro se cases. On the criminal side, they can conduct changes of plea, and they hear pre-pretrial motions (like motions to suppress, competency issues, motions for new counsel) and handle detention issues and warrants, as well as misdemeanor sentencings.

My sense is that a magistrate judge clerk does very little criminal work (possibly for motions to suppress) and mostly does civil. (This is often true for district court clerks, too, though.) Again, though, I'm sure it varies. The general sense is that a magistrate clerkship involves less complex/substantive work than a district court clerkship, although you will get very good at dealing with discovery, and in some districts at least, you can have a lot of contact with the attorneys on cases.

I do know people who have been able to parlay the magistrate clerkship into a district court clerkship, generally in the same district. If the magistrate is willing to recommend you to district court judges, that can help a lot.

[timmyd]

Thanks, a nosy mouse. That was very informative and helpful. I think I will apply to some magistrates.

[Anonymous User]

What magistrate judges do varies by district, but generally speaking, they are much less likely to conduct trials than district court judges (the parties must consent to have the magistrate judge conduct the trial). On the civil side, they often handle the discovery for the cases before a district judge, they can resolve non-dispositive motions, and they can write a report/recommendation to the district court resolving a dispositive motion (it depends on whether the district court refers to the matter to the magistrate, I think. Some district court judges do this a lot, some don't as much because the parties have the right to object the report to the district court and so they district court judge will just have to figure out the issue further down the line). I believe (but am hazier on this) that in a lot of districts, they often handle habeas petitions and tend to deal with very routine cases like social security and prisoner pro se cases. On the criminal side, they can conduct changes of plea, and they hear pre-pretrial motions (like motions to suppress, competency issues, motions for new counsel) and handle detention issues and warrants, as well as misdemeanor sentencings.

My sense is that a magistrate judge clerk does very little criminal work (possibly for motions to suppress) and mostly does civil. (This is often true for district court clerks, too, though.) Again, though, I'm sure it varies. The general sense is that a magistrate clerkship involves less complex/substantive work than a district court clerkship, although you will get very good at dealing with discovery, and in some districts at least, you can have a lot of contact with the attorneys on cases.

I do know people who have been able to parlay the magistrate clerkship into a district court clerkship, generally in the same district. If the magistrate is willing to recommend you to district court judges, that can help a lot.

Not OP, but curious - do you think that future employers (fed gov or big law) 'look down' on magistrate clerkships the way they might with state court clerkships? I've been given the impression that it's not a good idea to pursue state court clerkships because for some reason employers aren't impressed by it. Was I mislead? If I wasn't mislead, does this extend to non-DC/Circuit court clerkships like magistrate/ALJ clerkships as well?

[ResIpsa21]

Not OP, but curious - do you think that future employers (fed gov or big law) 'look down' on magistrate clerkships the way they might with state court clerkships? I've been given the impression that it's not a good idea to pursue state court clerkships because for some reason employers aren't impressed by it. Was I mislead? If I wasn't mislead, does this extend to non-DC/Circuit court clerkships like magistrate/ALJ clerkships as well?

Speaking from my experience in biglaw, the answer is yes, definitely. The general rule for biglaw is "article III or bust." That means magistrate judges, bankruptcy judges, and state-level clerkships are generally looked down upon in biglaw. Now, I am NOT saying that all non-AIII clerkships are useless to biglaw. For example: firms that handle government contracts are more impressed by ALJ clerks, IP firms are more impressed by Federal Claims clerks, and firms that do tax controversy are more impressed by Tax Court clerks. What I'm saying is, if you're doing anything other than AIII, you need to be very careful to identify exactly the job you want and know how the clerkship will help you get there. If your only option is a magistrate judge, it's not sufficient to say "clerking is good for my resume and it'll help me down the line no matter what."

I don't know how USAO or other government offices view non-AIII clerkships. I also don't know how much of a boost a magistrate judge clerkship can give to a district judge application.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know that employers "look down on" non-AIII clerkships, as much as the experience doesn't give you a bump because it isn't relevant/ helpful for some employers. For instance, if the employer does exclusively federal work, state clerkships don't help. I don't think anyone says, "this guy did a SSC clerkship, what a loser," as much as someone says, "this guy did a SSC, that's nice, but we do federal work and we don't do much appellate."

Of course my caveat is that I'm outside biglaw circles, so my knowledge is limited. But people on TLS tend to talk about state clerkships like they're a black mark on a resume, and in my experience, that just hasn't been the case; in my law school market, SSC clerks did very well and state COA clerks could do so as well.

It's also true many of these clerks would have done well if they hadn't clerked at all (many went back to the firms where they summered), but I do know state clerks who "traded up" via clerking. And this is pretty consistent with what people say about federal clerkships (to get the clerkship, you had good enough stats to do well on the employment market without the clerkship; if you didn't have the qualifications for biglaw, clerking may not save you).

I'm sure, too, that the value of any state clerkship depends on the state and what kind of work you're doing where. And I'll admit there's a sharper prestige drop-off as you move down the state hierarchy (I know of a firm that holds offers for federal clerks and SSC clerks but not state COA or trial clerks, for instance). And I've been in almost entirely secondary markets, so that also colors my take on this. I just think people here are a little quick to dismiss all state clerkships as if they're all the same.

Re: magistrate clerks - I don't have a lot of information. I know a former magistrate clerk who's now an AUSA, so that's certainly possible, but I have no idea how common. I think again it depends on what you do as the clerk and what you want to do after. I was told that magistrate clerks in my law school district had lots of contact with attorneys and so a lot of opportunities to network, but I don't know how that plays out in practice. I'll admit that on firm bios, I see a lot of federal dist/COA clerks and some SSC clerks, but I can't remember ever seeing a magistrate clerkship listed.

D. ct. clerk here. I second A Nony's post entirely. I especially want to second that state court clerkships are pretty much dismissed as useless on TLS. I think that is total non-sense for a lot of reasons. (Caveat: I'm only familiar with CA state courts/clerkships). First, clerking is fantastic experience regardless of the court. Second, plenty of firms do mostly/a majority of work in state courts. Hell, my family friend told me a CA Superior Court clerkship is more relevant to her firm than my fed clerkship because they do 90%+ CA state court litigation. Third, it can be a lot easier to network. I have little to no contact with litigants in my current clerkship. That's not the case in CA Superior Court. Lastly, judges are almost always very connected in the community. A strong rec from just about every judge can go a long way.

I think the same can be said about MJs. But I do admit I would be hesitant to clerk for a MJ because it can be extremely rote. It depends A LOT on the district. The different between clerking for, say, Judge Grewal (N.D. Cal.), is probably vastly different than clerking for a MJ in Alaska. In my district, MJs handle a shitton of SSDI and habeas/prisoner's rights cases. Parties rarely consent to MJ jurisdiction (which is frustrating), so their clerks are often doing mostly discovery/scheduling/case management stuff. There is a lot to be said for that. I think it probably prepares you better to jump into a firm and start litigating better than handling almost exclusively dispositive motions like we do. How much you go to trial can vary tremendously in any given year, so it's hard to gauge that in some respects, though I am almost certain DJs go to trial much more frequently than MJs.

[Anonymous User]

Anon poster who asked about MJ/ALJs - thanks for the excellent responses everyone. I appreciate it.

[Anonymous User]

I think the same can be said about MJs. But I do admit I would be hesitant to clerk for a MJ because it can be extremely rote. It depends A LOT on the district. The different between clerking for, say, Judge Grewal (N.D. Cal.), is probably vastly different than clerking for a MJ in Alaska.

Sorry for hijacking, but curious about this--I have an EE/CS background and want to do patent lit, and I was thinking about applying for only district court clerkships because I'd heard that firms don't regard magistrate clerkships as highly. Would it be worth sending an application in to Judge Grewal?

[Anonymous User]

Sorry for hijacking, but curious about this--I have an EE/CS background and want to do patent lit, and I was thinking about applying for only district court clerkships because I'd heard that firms don't regard magistrate clerkships as highly. Would it be worth sending an application in to Judge Grewal?

Absolutely. Judge Grewal is widely respected in patent litigation circles. I suspect that most patent litigation practice groups would value a Judge Grewal clerkship over a random district court clerkship in a division that sees few patent cases.

Judge Grewal is also well known among district court judges on both coasts. If you secured a clerkship with him, you almost certainly could follow it with a district court clerkship in a patent-heavy district.

(And, no, I did not clerk for Judge Grewal.)

[Jchance]

Find out whether the MJ does Social Security cases exclusively. If s/he does, it wont be a fun year for the clerks. Arkansas MJ is known to do this, dont apply there.

[Anonymous User]

I think the same can be said about MJs. But I do admit I would be hesitant to clerk for a MJ because it can be extremely rote. It depends A LOT on the district. The different between clerking for, say, Judge Grewal (N.D. Cal.), is probably vastly different than clerking for a MJ in Alaska.

Sorry for hijacking, but curious about this--I have an EE/CS background and want to do patent lit, and I was thinking about applying for only district court clerkships because I'd heard that firms don't regard magistrate clerkships as highly. Would it be worth sending an application in to Judge Grewal?

The N.D. Cal. is kind of a different beast in a lot of ways w/r/t patent lit, MJs, etc. The court's docket is so disproportionately IP heavy compared to other dockets that you're almost certain to come across IP cases regardless of who you clerk for. (I clerk elsewhere in CA, so I'm fairly familiar with these things.)

You might also want to look into judges doing the patent pilot program. There's also some position(s) in C.D. Cal. for exclusively patent clerks. It's a new program that other courts might start emulating.

[Anonymous User]

OP who asked about Judge Grewal here.

Thanks for the tips! That's all incredibly useful.

[Anonymous User]

Don't want to hijack this thread but since it says Magistrate QuestionS, i thought it would be appropriate to ask here.

I work for a magistrate judge now -- on a lot of firm websites, when someone clerked for a judge they simply list it as "Law Clerk to the Honorable So and So, U.S. Dist. Court for Whatever District" regardless of whether its a magistrate judge or district judge. Is that an appropriate thing to do on a resume or is that misleading?


I ask not because I want to mislead people, but because I interned for a district judge in law school and have always only ever identified him as The Honorable ___, but did not mention specifically "district judge". If I add the clarifier of Magistrate Judge I'll have to clarify on my internship portion as well.

[Anonymous User]

Don't want to hijack this thread but since it says Magistrate QuestionS, i thought it would be appropriate to ask here.

I work for a magistrate judge now -- on a lot of firm websites, when someone clerked for a judge they simply list it as "Law Clerk to the Honorable So and So, U.S. Dist. Court for Whatever District" regardless of whether its a magistrate judge or district judge. Is that an appropriate thing to do on a resume or is that misleading?


I ask not because I want to mislead people, but because I interned for a district judge in law school and have always only ever identified him as The Honorable ___, but did not mention specifically "district judge". If I add the clarifier of Magistrate Judge I'll have to clarify on my internship portion as well.

I think that's totally appropriate. What do your clerks' email signatures say? I think that is somewhat of an indicator.

But I do intentionally make it explicit I clerk for a DJ on my resume.

[Anonymous User]

In email sigs I just have

Law Clerk to the Honorable ___
Whatever Dist. of Whatever

My initial reaction also is it's not a big deal, but I just didn't want it to be something where in an interview it would come out that I had not made clear on my resume that I worked for (god forbid ) a magistrate judge.