Keep striking out—defeated Forum

[Anonymous User]

0-6 for circuit clerkships and deciding to call it quits with the whole process. Shot my shot and it didn't work out. People say that even just getting an interview is a great privilege and accomplishment, but you can't list that on a resume.

[Anonymous User]

Keep your head up. There is certainly nothing to be discouraged about. I'm guessing what hurts is not that you didn't get what you were looking for, but that you were so close so many times. You worked really hard, and you never know what might happen if you keep plugging.

[lavarman84]

0-6 for circuit clerkships and deciding to call it quits with the whole process. Shot my shot and it didn't work out. People say that even just getting an interview is a great privilege and accomplishment, but you can't list that on a resume.

All it takes is a single yes. It's a difficult process, but if it's something you really want, giving up is the wrong decision. It takes perseverance. If you've received six interviews, you have the credentials. Just keep at it. What have you done to improve your interview skills?

[Anonymous User]

Don't give up, everyone! I got rejected by ten..that's right, TEN...judges this summer, and I was just about to throw in the towel when I finally got a COA offer earlier this week. Like others have said, it's all about finding the right fit. If you're getting interviews, you're definitely qualified to clerk.

[Anonymous User]

Don't give up, everyone! I got rejected by ten..that's right, TEN...judges this summer, and I was just about to throw in the towel when I finally got a COA offer earlier this week. Like others have said, it's all about finding the right fit. If you're getting interviews, you're definitely qualified to clerk.

I am throwing in the towel after 7 total COA rejections over two cycles. Currently doing an SSC and all the 2021s are pretty much full. Not interested in doing 2022 since the prospect of moving every year for 4 straight years sounds miserable. Like has been said all you can do is shoot your shot and eventually move on.

[Anonymous User]

I was median at a middling school (strong regional that is respected in the area). I applied non-stop to clerkships everywhere and for every court I could. I didn't keep count, but I must have applied to at least 200 over the course of 2 years (3L and during first year of practice).

I ended up landed a DJ clerkship. I attribute a lot of it to having been their first applicant. I signed up for daily OSCAR postings and would wake up early (I think I would get the emails around 5AM PST) and apply immediately. It worked. They called me within hours of applying and I interviewed by phone later that day. (I understand this is not how most chambers work.)

Of course, not having stellar stats is going to make getting any clerkship next to impossible. But it happens. I encourage everyone who wants to clerk to apply to every posting. There are plenty of judges out there who will take a chance on those of us with crappy credentials. Almost every judge where I clerked really values personality fit (and ties to the community, which I did not have) more than graduating from a T14.

[Anonymous User]

I was median at a middling school (strong regional that is respected in the area). I applied non-stop to clerkships everywhere and for every court I could. I didn't keep count, but I must have applied to at least 200 over the course of 2 years (3L and during first year of practice).

I ended up landed a DJ clerkship. I attribute a lot of it to having been their first applicant. I signed up for daily OSCAR postings and would wake up early (I think I would get the emails around 5AM PST) and apply immediately. It worked. They called me within hours of applying and I interviewed by phone later that day. (I understand this is not how most chambers work.)

Of course, not having stellar stats is going to make getting any clerkship next to impossible. But it happens. I encourage everyone who wants to clerk to apply to every posting. There are plenty of judges out there who will take a chance on those of us with crappy credentials. Almost every judge where I clerked really values personality fit (and ties to the community, which I did not have) more than graduating from a T14.

Adding what worked for me: after I got a district-court clerkship, I applied to pretty much every CoA judge, except for recent appointees. I also asked my recommenders to call my top choices.

Didn't get any bites from the vast, vast majority of them. Eventually got two interviews and offers--but only because I applied super broadly. So 1. apply to as many judges as makes sense for you and 2. don't let a slew of rejections deter you.

It's a very stressful process, so just try to do what's in your control and stay positive.

[purplegoldtornado]

I was median at a middling school (strong regional that is respected in the area). I applied non-stop to clerkships everywhere and for every court I could. I didn't keep count, but I must have applied to at least 200 over the course of 2 years (3L and during first year of practice).

I ended up landed a DJ clerkship. I attribute a lot of it to having been their first applicant. I signed up for daily OSCAR postings and would wake up early (I think I would get the emails around 5AM PST) and apply immediately. It worked. They called me within hours of applying and I interviewed by phone later that day. (I understand this is not how most chambers work.)

Of course, not having stellar stats is going to make getting any clerkship next to impossible. But it happens. I encourage everyone who wants to clerk to apply to every posting. There are plenty of judges out there who will take a chance on those of us with crappy credentials. Almost every judge where I clerked really values personality fit (and ties to the community, which I did not have) more than graduating from a T14.

Adding what worked for me: after I got a district-court clerkship, I applied to pretty much every CoA judge, except for recent appointees. I also asked my recommenders to call my top choices.

Didn't get any bites from the vast, vast majority of them. Eventually got two interviews and offers--but only because I applied super broadly. So 1. apply to as many judges as makes sense for you and 2. don't let a slew of rejections deter you.

It's a very stressful process, so just try to do what's in your control and stay positive.

This might be a really dumb question... but did your recommenders know all of the judges they called?

[Anonymous User]

I was median at a middling school (strong regional that is respected in the area). I applied non-stop to clerkships everywhere and for every court I could. I didn't keep count, but I must have applied to at least 200 over the course of 2 years (3L and during first year of practice).

I ended up landed a DJ clerkship. I attribute a lot of it to having been their first applicant. I signed up for daily OSCAR postings and would wake up early (I think I would get the emails around 5AM PST) and apply immediately. It worked. They called me within hours of applying and I interviewed by phone later that day. (I understand this is not how most chambers work.)

Of course, not having stellar stats is going to make getting any clerkship next to impossible. But it happens. I encourage everyone who wants to clerk to apply to every posting. There are plenty of judges out there who will take a chance on those of us with crappy credentials. Almost every judge where I clerked really values personality fit (and ties to the community, which I did not have) more than graduating from a T14.

Adding what worked for me: after I got a district-court clerkship, I applied to pretty much every CoA judge, except for recent appointees. I also asked my recommenders to call my top choices.

Didn't get any bites from the vast, vast majority of them. Eventually got two interviews and offers--but only because I applied super broadly. So 1. apply to as many judges as makes sense for you and 2. don't let a slew of rejections deter you.

It's a very stressful process, so just try to do what's in your control and stay positive.

This might be a really dumb question... but did your recommenders know all of the judges they called?

Not a dumb question at all. And no, my recommenders did not know any of the judges they called (or emailed).

You should definitely feel comfortable asking your recommenders something like, "Would you be able to contact a few of my top choice judges?" and provide them with, say, your top-ten judges and contact info. Some of my recommenders only contacted a few judges, while another would contact as many as I asked them to.

[purplegoldtornado]

I was median at a middling school (strong regional that is respected in the area). I applied non-stop to clerkships everywhere and for every court I could. I didn't keep count, but I must have applied to at least 200 over the course of 2 years (3L and during first year of practice).

I ended up landed a DJ clerkship. I attribute a lot of it to having been their first applicant. I signed up for daily OSCAR postings and would wake up early (I think I would get the emails around 5AM PST) and apply immediately. It worked. They called me within hours of applying and I interviewed by phone later that day. (I understand this is not how most chambers work.)

Of course, not having stellar stats is going to make getting any clerkship next to impossible. But it happens. I encourage everyone who wants to clerk to apply to every posting. There are plenty of judges out there who will take a chance on those of us with crappy credentials. Almost every judge where I clerked really values personality fit (and ties to the community, which I did not have) more than graduating from a T14.

Adding what worked for me: after I got a district-court clerkship, I applied to pretty much every CoA judge, except for recent appointees. I also asked my recommenders to call my top choices.

Didn't get any bites from the vast, vast majority of them. Eventually got two interviews and offers--but only because I applied super broadly. So 1. apply to as many judges as makes sense for you and 2. don't let a slew of rejections deter you.

It's a very stressful process, so just try to do what's in your control and stay positive.

This might be a really dumb question... but did your recommenders know all of the judges they called?

Not a dumb question at all. And no, my recommenders did not know any of the judges they called (or emailed).

You should definitely feel comfortable asking your recommenders something like, "Would you be able to contact a few of my top choice judges?" and provide them with, say, your top-ten judges and contact info. Some of my recommenders only contacted a few judges, while another would contact as many as I asked them to.

OK thanks! I figured that might be the case from how you worded it, but it seemed different from what I would expect. Thank you!

[Anonymous User]

Just wanted to add that not all profs are willing to make calls/emails to judges (or will only make calls to judges they know). So it's important to be strategic with who you ask to write a LOR for you and have at least one recommender who is willing to take that step for you. Especially if you're not top of the class at your school, these calls/emails might be the only way to get your app pulled from the stack because you might get filtered out on OSCAR based on school/grades/class rank.

I graduated from a T25, top 25%, EIC of LR, but otherwise very mediocre application, and I'm going to a COA. The only reason my app got noticed by my judge was because one of my professors knew this judge and was willing to make a call. My grades were definitely not good enough to land any clerkship, let alone a COA, so the call made a huge difference.

[Anonymous User]

This was just the thread that I needed to see.

I think I went 1/9 in the district court clerkship hunt. By the 8th rejection I was more or less ready to quit, but finally landed the one and I hit the jackpot with an amazing judge. Same thing happened with OCI and ended up with a great firm.

Now I'm on the COA hunt and I'm 0/2. It feels like deja vu. Don't get me wrong, I'm humbled that I even had interviews but each rejection stings, especially when the interviews seemed like they went well.

I graduated from a T30, just shy of top 5%, e-board on LR, RA'd for two professors, TA'd, moot, multiple publications in top journals, all on top of my current clerkship. I also worked a bit before law school as well and I have never had a problem interviewing. I really think it's down to connections and calls at this point. But getting discouraged again. But this thread is inspiring, so the hunt continues. Best of luck to everyone still applying.

[Anonymous User]

This was just the thread that I needed to see.

I think I went 1/9 in the district court clerkship hunt. By the 8th rejection I was more or less ready to quit, but finally landed the one and I hit the jackpot with an amazing judge. Same thing happened with OCI and ended up with a great firm.

Now I'm on the COA hunt and I'm 0/2. It feels like deja vu. Don't get me wrong, I'm humbled that I even had interviews but each rejection stings, especially when the interviews seemed like they went well.

I graduated from a T30, just shy of top 5%, e-board on LR, RA'd for two professors, TA'd, moot, multiple publications in top journals, all on top of my current clerkship. I also worked a bit before law school as well and I have never had a problem interviewing. I really think it's down to connections and calls at this point. But getting discouraged again. But this thread is inspiring, so the hunt continues. Best of luck to everyone still applying.

Good luck to you! I'm in the same boat with similar stats, but 0/4 for COA interviews (again, super happy that I got interviews, and most interviews seemed like they went well, but still each rejection stings). Hopefully we'll get something.

[drwatson2573]

I don't think this has been mentioned yet, but if you're centrist/conservative/ideologically flexible, hunt down recent and unpopular Trump appointees if you can grit your teeth about their ABA ratings. They are much more likely to be impressed by a strong desire to work for them in particular.

Fed Soc mafia is real. I know someone who is clerking for a prominent conservative judge on an SSC; Fed Soc got them all the way in the door and a decent way towards the job offer before they even interviewed.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think this has been mentioned yet, but if you're centrist/conservative/ideologically flexible, hunt down recent and unpopular Trump appointees if you can grit your teeth about their ABA ratings. They are much more likely to be impressed by a strong desire to work for them in particular.

Fed Soc mafia is real. I know someone who is clerking for a prominent conservative judge on an SSC; Fed Soc got them all the way in the door and a decent way towards the job offer before they even interviewed.

Was this the national organization hooking the student up or a FedSoc connected professor?

[Joachim2017]

lol @ anyone caring about a judge's "ABA ratings"

[nixy]

lol @ anyone caring about a judge's "ABA ratings"

I mean the evaluations that the ABA produces for nominees are pretty reasonable. They didn't object to Trump nominees across the board, just some egregiously underqualified ones.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think this has been mentioned yet, but if you're centrist/conservative/ideologically flexible, hunt down recent and unpopular Trump appointees if you can grit your teeth about their ABA ratings. They are much more likely to be impressed by a strong desire to work for them in particular.

Fed Soc mafia is real. I know someone who is clerking for a prominent conservative judge on an SSC; Fed Soc got them all the way in the door and a decent way towards the job offer before they even interviewed.

You know you actually have to have some certifiable belief in the methodology for this to work. Judges don't just hire random people with 3.0s because they paid $5 dues and their clerks are more than capable of sussing out pretenders.

[Anonymous User]

lol @ anyone caring about a judge's "ABA ratings"

I mean the evaluations that the ABA produces for nominees are pretty reasonable. They didn't object to Trump nominees across the board, just some egregiously underqualified ones.

The ABA listed 4 nominees as not qualified who got confirmed. Could have missed someone. I'll concede at the beginning I am not impartial and clerked for a "controversial" judge; hasn't affected my career in anything other than positive ways.

Pitlyk (EDMO): lack of trial experience

Mizelle (MDFL): lack of trial experience

Grasz (8th Circuit): "temperament issues, particularly bias and lack of open-mindedness, were problematic." I do not believe anyone has had any real issues since, but then again, I doubt anyone who would care has ever been within 300 miles of Nebraska anyway. I seriously doubt the ABA would have ever written something like this about a Democratic nominee.

VanDyke (9th Circuit): Probably the most controversial one that people bring up on this forum - "nominee lacks humility, has an 'entitlement' temperament, does not have an open mind, and does not always have a commitment to being candid and truthful."

Most of the furor was because the evaluation was very over the top and was written by someone that worked for his opponent, in an egregious conflict of interest that the ABA decided just didn't matter.

Various posters alternate getting mad at him because his opinions about his fellow judges are mean and because of a mysterious orientation video that no one will explain. Apparently, Justice Kavanaugh doesn't care because he hired VanDyke's brother to clerk for him. A lot of it reminds me of when posters insisted that Dan Collins on the 9th was also intemperate and hated by his fellow Judges, and then he went something like 6-0 at SCOTUS with unanimous reversals and people stopped complaining about him.

All of that was a lot of words to say no one in FedSoc, and in most of the important parts of practice, particularly cares what the ABA thinks. Feel free to follow up if you're interested in learning more about how FedSoc inclined judges typically hire, and what most of them care about.

[Joachim2017]

lol @ anyone caring about a judge's "ABA ratings"

I mean the evaluations that the ABA produces for nominees are pretty reasonable. They didn't object to Trump nominees across the board, just some egregiously underqualified ones.

The ABA listed 4 nominees as not qualified who got confirmed. Could have missed someone. I'll concede at the beginning I am not impartial and clerked for a "controversial" judge; hasn't affected my career in anything other than positive ways.

Pitlyk (EDMO): lack of trial experience

Mizelle (MDFL): lack of trial experience

Grasz (8th Circuit): "temperament issues, particularly bias and lack of open-mindedness, were problematic." I do not believe anyone has had any real issues since, but then again, I doubt anyone who would care has ever been within 300 miles of Nebraska anyway. I seriously doubt the ABA would have ever written something like this about a Democratic nominee.

VanDyke (9th Circuit): Probably the most controversial one that people bring up on this forum - "nominee lacks humility, has an 'entitlement' temperament, does not have an open mind, and does not always have a commitment to being candid and truthful."

Most of the furor was because the evaluation was very over the top and was written by someone that worked for his opponent, in an egregious conflict of interest that the ABA decided just didn't matter.

Various posters alternate getting mad at him because his opinions about his fellow judges are mean and because of a mysterious orientation video that no one will explain. Apparently, Justice Kavanaugh doesn't care because he hired VanDyke's brother to clerk for him. A lot of it reminds me of when posters insisted that Dan Collins on the 9th was also intemperate and hated by his fellow Judges, and then he went something like 6-0 at SCOTUS with unanimous reversals and people stopped complaining about him.

All of that was a lot of words to say no one in FedSoc, and in most of the important parts of practice, particularly cares what the ABA thinks. Feel free to follow up if you're interested in learning more about how FedSoc inclined judges typically hire, and what most of them care about.

Not to get too off track so this will be my last 2 cents on this: it's not a partisan thing. NO ONE cares about ABA ratings anymore. If tomorrow a bunch of left-leaning liberals got nominated but received low ABA ratings, liberals in the media/top law schools (not to mention senators on voting committees) would not care one iota about the ratings; they'd just make up excuses for them, just as conservatives did/do for right-leaning nominees. This is just one manifestation of a deeper shift in what were once thought to be neutral systems and institutions of expertise. You can complain about "both-siderism" all you want (I'm not directing that "you" at anyone in particular), but it's the way it works now.

ETA: as an applicant for clerkships, this means you ought to pick whatever judge works best for your personal situation/goals; do not worry about things like ABA ratings.

[nixy]

(This is to anon 2 posts up:) Lol, I never said anyone in FedSoc cares what the ABA thinks. The comment I responded to said “anyone.” Of course FedSoc doesn’t care and I have no interest in how FedSoc leaning judges hire.

(Also, Van Dyke’s opinions are crazy over the top. Doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of people who’d still benefit from the clerkship overall. Not sure that Kavanaugh hiring his brother is relevant because in theory people get hired on their own merits regardless of their outspoken relatives, but even so, Kavanaugh being good with him probably isn’t an endorsement for anyone already put off by his opinions/politics.)

FWIW, I agree that ABA evaluations are of limited use for clerk applicants. Evals like the one for Van Dyke tell you something about how he’s perceived, but you already know which side of that you’re going to come down on. I personally wouldn’t want to clerk for a brand new judge who had little to no trial experience because I think it would be a shitshow, but I realize not everyone will feel that way.

I don’t think we disagree that much - I think people care about them as a political weapon and that they can be used to shape public opinion.

[Anonymous User]

Fwiw as someone w/ CA8 knowledge Grasz isn’t VanDyke by any means—he just had an opinion denying qualified immunity in a racial profiling case for example, and he’s not nearly as bombastic—but he was probably marginally qualified at best. He does not have a good local rep and was up to his eyeballs in GOP politics, lobbying, etc.

I believe Kobes also got an NQ and he’s basically fine though as far as I know.

Also nobody ever said Collins was anything like VanDyke except that he likes a good dissental and supposedly puts off his colleagues a bit (I’ve heard good things though). Collins is clearly much more “respectable” to most people if you care about that.

[drwatson2573]

I don't think this has been mentioned yet, but if you're centrist/conservative/ideologically flexible, hunt down recent and unpopular Trump appointees if you can grit your teeth about their ABA ratings. They are much more likely to be impressed by a strong desire to work for them in particular.

Fed Soc mafia is real. I know someone who is clerking for a prominent conservative judge on an SSC; Fed Soc got them all the way in the door and a decent way towards the job offer before they even interviewed.

You know you actually have to have some certifiable belief in the methodology for this to work. Judges don't just hire random people with 3.0s because they paid $5 dues and their clerks are more than capable of sussing out pretenders.

The person I mentioned is a real Fed Soc member and agrees with Fed Soc's tenets. They also did a bit better than a 3.0 in law school.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think this has been mentioned yet, but if you're centrist/conservative/ideologically flexible, hunt down recent and unpopular Trump appointees if you can grit your teeth about their ABA ratings. They are much more likely to be impressed by a strong desire to work for them in particular.

Fed Soc mafia is real. I know someone who is clerking for a prominent conservative judge on an SSC; Fed Soc got them all the way in the door and a decent way towards the job offer before they even interviewed.

You know you actually have to have some certifiable belief in the methodology for this to work. Judges don't just hire random people with 3.0s because they paid $5 dues and their clerks are more than capable of sussing out pretenders.

I know a fairly shocking number of people who paid $5 dues and spontaneously decided to be constitutional conservatives for the sake of getting a clerkship, and it worked. I had a professor who explicitly told me it was insane NOT to invest $5 in exchange for a clerkship. Something to consider, 1Ls!