Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=260253
Not necessarily.ggocat wrote:You go with the judge most likely.
I could see them pushing clerks without COA experience to 2018 or 2019, hiring more experienced clerks for 2017, and offering their replacement (on COA) their original 2017/2018 clerks so they can get experience.rpupkin wrote:Not necessarily.ggocat wrote:You go with the judge most likely.
Judges didn't use to hire 2-3 years in advance. We're in uncharted territory.
A SCOTUS judge can, of course, attract candidates that a COA judge cannot. For obvious reasons, SCOTUS judges prefer clerks with COA experience. I can see someone getting on SCOTUS and deciding that they want better (or at least more experienced) clerks then they could attract as a COA judge.
Agreed. One possible hitch in this plan is that it might take awhile for the replacement to get confirmed to the circuit court. During the Clinton, Bush, and Obama presidencies, some vacant D.C. Circuit seats remained unfilled for years. But, overall, I think you have the right idea: If someone has a SCOTUS clerkship lined up for a future term, it shouldn't be hard for them to land a COA clerkship in the meantime.xael wrote:I could see them pushing clerks without COA experience to 2018 or 2019, hiring more experienced clerks for 2017, and offering their replacement (on COA) their original 2017/2018 clerks so they can get experience.rpupkin wrote:Not necessarily.ggocat wrote:You go with the judge most likely.
Judges didn't use to hire 2-3 years in advance. We're in uncharted territory.
A SCOTUS judge can, of course, attract candidates that a COA judge cannot. For obvious reasons, SCOTUS judges prefer clerks with COA experience. I can see someone getting on SCOTUS and deciding that they want better (or at least more experienced) clerks then they could attract as a COA judge.
Unlikely. The new justice isn't going to hire clerks that don't have COA experience, so OP would need to find another clerkship to be in the running. And I imagine most judges will be more likely to take past clerks they know and trust rather than the relatively unknown commodity of someone they hired for the COA but who never actually served as the judge's clerk.ggocat wrote:You go with the judge most likely.
I imagine the sri/watford/garland/whoever clerks for 2017 would be added to the chambers of another judge in the circuit (similar to the backups older judges have in case of their passing), and then the new SCOTUS justice would take them after. They wont just go directly from the district court or 3L to scotus.Emma. wrote:Unlikely. The new justice isn't going to hire clerks that don't have COA experience, so OP would need to find another clerkship to be in the running. And I imagine most judges will be more likely to take past clerks they know and trust rather than the relatively unknown commodity of someone they hired for the COA but who never actually served as the judge's clerk.ggocat wrote:You go with the judge most likely.
I don't think so. Once you've been formally hired (i.e. Gone through the HR stuff) you have the job regardless of whether your judge is on the bench for the whole year. But incoming clerks don't get slotted in with other chambers on that court if the judge leaves before they start. I don't even think Scalia's OT 2016 clerks have jobs at The Court.jbagelboy wrote:I imagine the sri/watford/garland/whoever clerks for 2017 would be added to the chambers of another judge in the circuit (similar to the backups older judges have in case of their passing), and then the new SCOTUS justice would take them after. They wont just go directly from the district court or 3L to scotus.Emma. wrote:Unlikely. The new justice isn't going to hire clerks that don't have COA experience, so OP would need to find another clerkship to be in the running. And I imagine most judges will be more likely to take past clerks they know and trust rather than the relatively unknown commodity of someone they hired for the COA but who never actually served as the judge's clerk.ggocat wrote:You go with the judge most likely.
First, although you may be offered the job years in advance, you generally don't "go through your HR stuff" until immediately before your start date. While the judge may have privately offered you a clerkship, you have no formal employment relationship with the Court or the federal government until you start work (or right before you start). Second, once you are hired, I don't think it's accurate to say that you are employed for the whole year. I've never heard of a Court entering into one-year employment contracts with clerks. Like start date, a clerk's term of employment (12 months, 18 months, 24 months, whatever)) is something the clerk works out informally with the judge.Anonymous User wrote:I don't think so. Once you've been formally hired (i.e. Gone through the HR stuff) you have the job regardless of whether your judge is on the bench for the whole year. But incoming clerks don't get slotted in with other chambers on that court if the judge leaves before they start. I don't even think Scalia's OT 2016 clerks have jobs at The Court.jbagelboy wrote:I imagine the sri/watford/garland/whoever clerks for 2017 would be added to the chambers of another judge in the circuit (similar to the backups older judges have in case of their passing), and then the new SCOTUS justice would take them after. They wont just go directly from the district court or 3L to scotus.Emma. wrote:Unlikely. The new justice isn't going to hire clerks that don't have COA experience, so OP would need to find another clerkship to be in the running. And I imagine most judges will be more likely to take past clerks they know and trust rather than the relatively unknown commodity of someone they hired for the COA but who never actually served as the judge's clerk.ggocat wrote:You go with the judge most likely.
I'm not sure I get your point. What I'm saying is that you don't have any guarantees until you actually start work. Judges aren't going to rescind their informal offers, but if the judge leaves the court all bets are are off. But courts will typically find room in other chamber for clerks who've already started work when their judge leaves the bench.rpupkin wrote:First, although you may be offered the job years in advance, you generally don't "go through your HR stuff" until immediately before the job. Although the judge may have privately offered you a clerkship, you have no formal employment relationship with the Court or the federal government until you start work (or right before you start). Second, once you are hired, I don't think it's accurate to say that you are employed for the whole year. I've never heard of a Court entering into one-year employment contracts with clerks. Again, your term (12 months, 18 months, 24 months) is something the clerk works out informally with the judge.Anonymous User wrote:I don't think so. Once you've been formally hired (i.e. Gone through the HR stuff) you have the job regardless of whether your judge is on the bench for the whole year. But incoming clerks don't get slotted in with other chambers on that court if the judge leaves before they start. I don't even think Scalia's OT 2016 clerks have jobs at The Court.jbagelboy wrote:I imagine the sri/watford/garland/whoever clerks for 2017 would be added to the chambers of another judge in the circuit (similar to the backups older judges have in case of their passing), and then the new SCOTUS justice would take them after. They wont just go directly from the district court or 3L to scotus.Emma. wrote:Unlikely. The new justice isn't going to hire clerks that don't have COA experience, so OP would need to find another clerkship to be in the running. And I imagine most judges will be more likely to take past clerks they know and trust rather than the relatively unknown commodity of someone they hired for the COA but who never actually served as the judge's clerk.ggocat wrote:You go with the judge most likely.
I agree with this. I'm not sure what point you think I'm not getting: I was responding to the anon poster above, who suggested that being "formally hired" had some significance here.Emma. wrote:rpupkin wrote:I'm not sure I get your point. What I'm saying is that you don't have any guarantees until you actually start work. Judges aren't going to rescind their informal offers, but if the judge leaves the court all bets are are off. But courts will typically find room in other chamber for clerks who've already started work when their judge leaves the bench.
Ah lol, I was that poster. It was an accidental anon.rpupkin wrote:I agree with this. I'm not sure what point you think I'm not getting: I was responding to the anon poster above, who suggested that being "formally hired" had some significance here.Emma. wrote:rpupkin wrote:I'm not sure I get your point. What I'm saying is that you don't have any guarantees until you actually start work. Judges aren't going to rescind their informal offers, but if the judge leaves the court all bets are are off. But courts will typically find room in other chamber for clerks who've already started work when their judge leaves the bench.
Hyperbole aside (ire of the world?), why is this shocking to you?newlawgrad wrote:Kind of shocking to me that the consensus seems your clerkship gets cancelled, and such is life. But when someone talks about reneging on a clerkship, it draws the ire of the world.
xael wrote:They are federal judges they do whatever the fuck they want