10th Cir. Judges Forum

[Anonymous User]

Matheson clerks tend to be rather tight-lipped about their experiences, but the rumors do not paint a pretty picture. It's not just that he makes his clerks spend long hours in chambers 7 days a week (completely unnecessary in the Tenth Circuit, which has the lightest caseload per judge of any of the numbered circuits), but also that he does things like telling clerks that they can take "real" holidays off, then refusing to tell them which holidays count as real, so they have to guess about his feelings on Labor Day, Memorial Day, Martin Luther King Day, the Fourth of July, and so forth. He's the type to drive past an employee's house when they take a sick day to see whether their car is in the driveway. And I've heard some specific horror stories about worse behavior, but I wouldn't want to get anyone in trouble by telling them.

[Anonymous User]

Any further insight on Holmes is greatly appreciated as well - seems that the forum is "split" between posters saying the clerkship is a hard-working one in terms of hours but the judge is professional, although aloof vs. posters who characterize the experience as a nightmare (demeaning boss etc.).

[Anonymous User]

In general, if the question is "is this judge just a bad boss, or is he abusive and demeaning even by the standards of bad bosses," and a significant number of former clerks think the latter, I would not play Russian roulette with a year of my life for a best case scenario of a boss who's just quite bad.

[Anonymous User]

TCR in the forum has been that CoA clerkships are usually worth their weight in gold in terms of credentials etc. so I would understand if some people would be fine with a boss who is "just" marginally "bad" since they'll get the credential. Hell, even I'm part of that boat, it's so hard to be choosy as people know. So yeah, in this case, there's a big difference between "just" bad or a "nightmare." Unfortunately, I didn't have high enough grades to steer clear of the meh judges.

[LBJ's Hair]

TCR in the forum has been that CoA clerkships are usually worth their weight in gold in terms of credentials etc. so I would understand if some people would be fine with a boss who is "just" marginally "bad" since they'll get the credential. Hell, even I'm part of that boat, it's so hard to be choosy as people know. So yeah, in this case, there's a big difference between "just" bad or a "nightmare." Unfortunately, I didn't have high enough grades to steer clear of the meh judges.

If your stats are good enough to pull an interview with Judge Holmes, you can get interviews with other 10th Cir judges who aren't jerks.(I don't know anything about him, but based on what I've read here, absolutely no way I would do this clerkship.) Or the 8th, or the 7th, or the 6th, or wherever. There are also the district courts.

If the option is Judge Holmes or unemployment, ok, you do the clerkship. But I assume it's not. Worst case, you go to your law firm for a year, get some experience, and reapply. COA is valuable, but it's not worth risking a year of abuse. You deserve better.

[lavarman84]

My advice is to not clerk for a COA judge who is a bad boss. If you don't have the credentials for a COA clerkship and only can get an interview with one of the judges who have a bad reputation because of a connection, that might be a different story. In that case, you can weigh the value of a COA clerkship against the horribleness of that year. Otherwise, go after a COA clerkship that won't be a terrible experience.

I will say a couple things, though. If you aren't looking to do appellate work, I'd just go take a D. Ct. clerkship with a judge who is a good boss and will go to bat for you. If your judge is an asshole boss, he or she might also screw you when it comes to being a reference. And in that scenario, the value of that clerkship loses a lot of its luster.

[Anonymous User]

TCR in the forum has been that CoA clerkships are usually worth their weight in gold in terms of credentials etc. so I would understand if some people would be fine with a boss who is "just" marginally "bad" since they'll get the credential. Hell, even I'm part of that boat, it's so hard to be choosy as people know. So yeah, in this case, there's a big difference between "just" bad or a "nightmare." Unfortunately, I didn't have high enough grades to steer clear of the meh judges.

If your stats are good enough to pull an interview with Judge Holmes, you can get interviews with other 10th Cir judges who aren't jerks.(I don't know anything about him, but based on what I've read here, absolutely no way I would do this clerkship.) Or the 8th, or the 7th, or the 6th, or wherever. There are also the district courts.

If the option is Judge Holmes or unemployment, ok, you do the clerkship. But I assume it's not. Worst case, you go to your law firm for a year, get some experience, and reapply. COA is valuable, but it's not worth risking a year of abuse. You deserve better.

Folks, this times 10. You may be surprised how many strong, accomplished clerkship candidates go into the process completely blind to judges' reputations and don't ask around to former clerks, faculty connections, and even places like this board to sniff out the relatively small number of truly bad clerkships on the federal judiciary. (I clerked on the 9th and was amazed when I got there how accurate TLS's assessment of each judge had been.)

This means that (ignoring big SCOTUS feeders, and controlling a bit for ideology) "good" judges and "bad" judges are usually looking at the exact same piles of resumes. Obviously a clerkship on the 2nd in NYC is going to be harder to get that a clerkship in a flyover city, but a great boss and terrible boss in each of those cities will likely be looking at the same candidates and using similar hiring criteria. So if you're competitive for a "bad" judge, it means there are good judges out there you're competitive for too.

If you've read through this thread you already have more information about good and bad judges than many applicants, but always call ex-clerks: people who clerked for the judge you're thinking about, AND people who clerked elsewhere on the circuit. Don't forget about the latter group; most clerks are reluctant to say anything negative about their own judge, but will be able to tell you immediately which other clerks on their circuit were happy and which were going through hell. (I backed out of an interview for a job I likely would have gotten after hearing the words "miserable old man" come up on back-to-back calls with other people who had clerked in the courthouse.) When talking to ex-clerks of the judge you're targeting, go by their enthusiasm more than by their words. If the clerk sounds "meh," that can be a red flag. If the clerk won't shut up about how the clerkship was the greatest year of their life, that's a judge to prioritize and have your recommenders call.

TL;DR if you have the resume to work for Holmes (who I have no firsthand knowledge of, and who I'm not taking a position on), you certainly have the resume to work for judges with well-earned good reputations. But not everyone realizes that until it's too late.

[Anonymous User]

Are there any judges on the 9th you would warn people to steer clear from?

TCR in the forum has been that CoA clerkships are usually worth their weight in gold in terms of credentials etc. so I would understand if some people would be fine with a boss who is "just" marginally "bad" since they'll get the credential. Hell, even I'm part of that boat, it's so hard to be choosy as people know. So yeah, in this case, there's a big difference between "just" bad or a "nightmare." Unfortunately, I didn't have high enough grades to steer clear of the meh judges.

If your stats are good enough to pull an interview with Judge Holmes, you can get interviews with other 10th Cir judges who aren't jerks.(I don't know anything about him, but based on what I've read here, absolutely no way I would do this clerkship.) Or the 8th, or the 7th, or the 6th, or wherever. There are also the district courts.

If the option is Judge Holmes or unemployment, ok, you do the clerkship. But I assume it's not. Worst case, you go to your law firm for a year, get some experience, and reapply. COA is valuable, but it's not worth risking a year of abuse. You deserve better.

Folks, this times 10. You may be surprised how many strong, accomplished clerkship candidates go into the process completely blind to judges' reputations and don't ask around to former clerks, faculty connections, and even places like this board to sniff out the relatively small number of truly bad clerkships on the federal judiciary. (I clerked on the 9th and was amazed when I got there how accurate TLS's assessment of each judge had been.)

This means that (ignoring big SCOTUS feeders, and controlling a bit for ideology) "good" judges and "bad" judges are usually looking at the exact same piles of resumes. Obviously a clerkship on the 2nd in NYC is going to be harder to get that a clerkship in a flyover city, but a great boss and terrible boss in each of those cities will likely be looking at the same candidates and using similar hiring criteria. So if you're competitive for a "bad" judge, it means there are good judges out there you're competitive for too.

If you've read through this thread you already have more information about good and bad judges than many applicants, but always call ex-clerks: people who clerked for the judge you're thinking about, AND people who clerked elsewhere on the circuit. Don't forget about the latter group; most clerks are reluctant to say anything negative about their own judge, but will be able to tell you immediately which other clerks on their circuit were happy and which were going through hell. (I backed out of an interview for a job I likely would have gotten after hearing the words "miserable old man" come up on back-to-back calls with other people who had clerked in the courthouse.) When talking to ex-clerks of the judge you're targeting, go by their enthusiasm more than by their words. If the clerk sounds "meh," that can be a red flag. If the clerk won't shut up about how the clerkship was the greatest year of their life, that's a judge to prioritize and have your recommenders call.

TL;DR if you have the resume to work for Holmes (who I have no firsthand knowledge of, and who I'm not taking a position on), you certainly have the resume to work for judges with well-earned good reputations. But not everyone realizes that until it's too late.

[Anonymous User]

Not really! I’d put it this way: I would describe no one on the 9th the wait that people have described Judge Holmes in this thread. Berzon and Wardlaw can both be difficult people to work for/with but I wouldn’t say that their clerks are unhappy. Bea is a strict/formal guy but if you’re his type of FedSoc person, you love him. Murguia is a good person but disorganized. Kleinfeld has a reputation as kind of an odd bird, but again, he attracts people who want to live in Fairbanks, and by the end of his very long interview process you’ll know whether you’re a match.

And there are a LOT of people on the 9th I’d run through hot fire to clerk for: Thomas, Fletcher, McKeown, Watford, Tallman, NR Smith, Bybee, Christen, Owens, Paez, more I’m probably forgetting.

[Anonymous User]

Are there any judges on the 9th you would warn people to steer clear from?

Also former 9th -- I agree with above anon that now that Kozinski is off the bench, there's no one on the 9th I'd warn against in the way people have warned against Holmes ITT. That said, I never heard that kind of reputation about Reinhardt, and it turned out he deserved one -- though I am male, so perhaps that is why those warnings never made it to me.

That said, I'd be less interested in clerking for Fernandez, Callahan, and Rawlinson -- all for somewhat different reasons. Maybe also Ikuta for workload reasons, but I think people who clerk for her know what they're getting into.

And there are a LOT of people on the 9th I’d run through hot fire to clerk for: Thomas, Fletcher, McKeown, Watford, Tallman, NR Smith, Bybee, Christen, Owens, Paez, more I’m probably forgetting.

This is a good list, though I've heard rumblings that Tallman can be a jerk (though other former clerks I've talked to love him). Owens has one of the most conservative stances on criminal justice in the circuit despite being a D appointee, so if you are a public defender type that would be a reason to steer clear. But Thomas, Watford, and Christen in particular seem like maybe the best clerkships in the Ninth from a non-SCOTUS-gunner perspective.

I'd also add that (a) I've heard good things about clerking for Hurwitz, though I personally think he can be kind of a jerk on the bench to litigants, (b) similar positives about Gould -- just incredibly nice and smart -- Friedland -- another hardworking chambers -- and Nguyen -- who from an outside perspective seems to run maybe the most organized chambers in the circuit, but may be more clerk-reliant than most on substance?, and (c) of the new judges, rumblings I have heard are that Miller and Bennett are good bosses and reasonable on the law, while Collins might be neither (look up that LA times article, in which MDS and KMW go full gossip girl about Collins's late-night memos -- it's wild). Haven't heard much about the other new judges and am curious which of them have developed a reputation either good or bad among current clerks.

e: mods, maybe move this to the 9th Circuit thread? Just realized what thread this is.

[Anonymous User]

Any insight on the other senior judges? Schroeder, Wallace, Nelson, Tashima?

Are there any judges on the 9th you would warn people to steer clear from?

Also former 9th -- I agree with above anon that now that Kozinski is off the bench, there's no one on the 9th I'd warn against in the way people have warned against Holmes ITT. That said, I never heard that kind of reputation about Reinhardt, and it turned out he deserved one -- though I am male, so perhaps that is why those warnings never made it to me.

That said, I'd be less interested in clerking for Fernandez, Callahan, and Rawlinson -- all for somewhat different reasons. Maybe also Ikuta for workload reasons, but I think people who clerk for her know what they're getting into.

And there are a LOT of people on the 9th I’d run through hot fire to clerk for: Thomas, Fletcher, McKeown, Watford, Tallman, NR Smith, Bybee, Christen, Owens, Paez, more I’m probably forgetting.

This is a good list, though I've heard rumblings that Tallman can be a jerk (though other former clerks I've talked to love him). Owens has one of the most conservative stances on criminal justice in the circuit despite being a D appointee, so if you are a public defender type that would be a reason to steer clear. But Thomas, Watford, and Christen in particular seem like maybe the best clerkships in the Ninth from a non-SCOTUS-gunner perspective.

I'd also add that (a) I've heard good things about clerking for Hurwitz, though I personally think he can be kind of a jerk on the bench to litigants, (b) similar positives about Gould -- just incredibly nice and smart -- Friedland -- another hardworking chambers -- and Nguyen -- who from an outside perspective seems to run maybe the most organized chambers in the circuit, but may be more clerk-reliant than most on substance?, and (c) of the new judges, rumblings I have heard are that Miller and Bennett are good bosses and reasonable on the law, while Collins might be neither (look up that LA times article, in which MDS and KMW go full gossip girl about Collins's late-night memos -- it's wild). Haven't heard much about the other new judges and am curious which of them have developed a reputation either good or bad among current clerks.

e: mods, maybe move this to the 9th Circuit thread? Just realized what thread this is.

[Anonymous User]

FWIW, from my interactions with Tallman and speaking to a number of former clerks, it seemed like a really good clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

Are there any judges on the 9th you would warn people to steer clear from?

Also former 9th -- I agree with above anon that now that Kozinski is off the bench, there's no one on the 9th I'd warn against in the way people have warned against Holmes ITT. That said, I never heard that kind of reputation about Reinhardt, and it turned out he deserved one -- though I am male, so perhaps that is why those warnings never made it to me.

That said, I'd be less interested in clerking for Fernandez, Callahan, and Rawlinson -- all for somewhat different reasons. Maybe also Ikuta for workload reasons, but I think people who clerk for her know what they're getting into.

And there are a LOT of people on the 9th I’d run through hot fire to clerk for: Thomas, Fletcher, McKeown, Watford, Tallman, NR Smith, Bybee, Christen, Owens, Paez, more I’m probably forgetting.

This is a good list, though I've heard rumblings that Tallman can be a jerk (though other former clerks I've talked to love him). Owens has one of the most conservative stances on criminal justice in the circuit despite being a D appointee, so if you are a public defender type that would be a reason to steer clear. But Thomas, Watford, and Christen in particular seem like maybe the best clerkships in the Ninth from a non-SCOTUS-gunner perspective.

I'd also add that (a) I've heard good things about clerking for Hurwitz, though I personally think he can be kind of a jerk on the bench to litigants, (b) similar positives about Gould -- just incredibly nice and smart -- Friedland -- another hardworking chambers -- and Nguyen -- who from an outside perspective seems to run maybe the most organized chambers in the circuit, but may be more clerk-reliant than most on substance?, and (c) of the new judges, rumblings I have heard are that Miller and Bennett are good bosses and reasonable on the law, while Collins might be neither (look up that LA times article, in which MDS and KMW go full gossip girl about Collins's late-night memos -- it's wild). Haven't heard much about the other new judges and am curious which of them have developed a reputation either good or bad among current clerks.

e: mods, maybe move this to the 9th Circuit thread? Just realized what thread this is.

Wardlaw's Almanac of the Federal Judiciary article is among the most negative I've seen, though I haven't heard anything negative personally (not that I know any Wardlaw clerks).

[Anonymous User]

Not really! I’d put it this way: I would describe no one on the 9th the wait that people have described Judge Holmes in this thread. Berzon and Wardlaw can both be difficult people to work for/with but I wouldn’t say that their clerks are unhappy. Bea is a strict/formal guy but if you’re his type of FedSoc person, you love him. Murguia is a good person but disorganized. Kleinfeld has a reputation as kind of an odd bird, but again, he attracts people who want to live in Fairbanks, and by the end of his very long interview process you’ll know whether you’re a match.

And there are a LOT of people on the 9th I’d run through hot fire to clerk for: Thomas, Fletcher, McKeown, Watford, Tallman, NR Smith, Bybee, Christen, Owens, Paez, more I’m probably forgetting.

Bea's on one T14 blacklist with Holmes, etc. I don't know why and haven't heard any Homes-y stories, so this is definitely not personal knowledge and it sounds like you have better information.

[Anonymous User]

With the full knowledge that this is the CA10 thread and not the CA9 thread: I have a friend who clerked for Bea, and will not talk about the experience, but does turn ashen white each time it comes up.