Hypo: Magistrate or District Clerkship Forum

[Anonymous User]

If given the choice between the most well-respected magistrate judge in your desired market or a district judge in a different (but roughly the same region) market, which would you choose and why?

[bretby]

If given the choice between the most well-respected magistrate judge in your desired market or a district judge in a different (but roughly the same region) market, which would you choose and why?

Difficult to answer with such limited information. It depends on how much work magistrates get in that district (some get a lot and a good amount of substantive work, some get much less, and it varies widely across districts). It depends on what your goals are for after clerking - you will likely learn a lot about managing discovery and settlement negotiations with a magistrate but barely touch a dispositive motion or do any real sustained writing beyond memos to your judge and whatever scraps were referred, whereas with a DJ you will see a lot more briefing and do more substantive and sustained writing, as well as see a lot more criminal matters and have the possibility of a trial and all the experience addressing trial motions that comes with that. Another consideration is that a lot of firms only give bonuses for Article III clerkships, so you'd potentially be passing up $50-$70k by going with a magistrate over a DJ.

[Wild Card]

If you're talking about SDNY MJ v. D.Conn./D.Nj. DJ, full speed choose the latter.

If I were in your very fortunate position, I would try to do both by getting the latter to make me an offer for the immediately following term.

[stoopkid13]

Agreed that this is very court dependent. Not sure I agree with some of the characterizations of mag court. In some courts (like SDNY), MJs will basically do everything the DJs do except felonies. You will get sustained writing experience. In fact, often the R&Rs (on dispositive motions) are more thorough than an actual opinion would be. In some courts, DJs will never handle initial appearances, arraignments, or pre-trial detention hearings--those are all MJs.

[nixy]

In some courts, DJs will never handle initial appearances, arraignments, or pre-trial detention hearings--those are all MJs.

I’m pretty sure this is all courts - those proceedings have always been handled by MJs everywhere I’ve ever heard of. But I can’t see how that’s relevant for clerking because I can’t imagine what a law clerk would do wrt initial appearances, arraignments, or detention hearings (maybe written orders for some detention hearings, but 99% of the time they’d simply be writing up after the fact the judge’s oral findings and ruling at the hearing).

[stoopkid13]

In some courts, DJs will never handle initial appearances, arraignments, or pre-trial detention hearings--those are all MJs.

I’m pretty sure this is all courts - those proceedings have always been handled by MJs everywhere I’ve ever heard of. But I can’t see how that’s relevant for clerking because I can’t imagine what a law clerk would do wrt initial appearances, arraignments, or detention hearings (maybe written orders for some detention hearings, but 99% of the time they’d simply be writing up after the fact the judge’s oral findings and ruling at the hearing).

Not sure either, but I'd still push back against the idea that MJs do less criminal work, or that if you're interested in criminal work you should avoid MJ clerkships. I think it just requires more research on the applicants end.

[nixy]

In some courts, DJs will never handle initial appearances, arraignments, or pre-trial detention hearings--those are all MJs.

I’m pretty sure this is all courts - those proceedings have always been handled by MJs everywhere I’ve ever heard of. But I can’t see how that’s relevant for clerking because I can’t imagine what a law clerk would do wrt initial appearances, arraignments, or detention hearings (maybe written orders for some detention hearings, but 99% of the time they’d simply be writing up after the fact the judge’s oral findings and ruling at the hearing).

Not sure either, but I'd still push back against the idea that MJs do less criminal work, or that if you're interested in criminal work you should avoid MJ clerkships. I think it just requires more research on the applicants end.

I agree that you can get criminal experience doing an MJ clerkship, more or less depending on the district. (In some districts MJs handle all the motions to suppress, and some districts will have a decent number of criminal misdemeanors that MJs will address and may go to trial.) Clerking for a MJ in a border district with a heavy criminal caseload, for instance, would offer criminal experience (but probably less of the experience that would be valuable for civil/biglaw work). I just don't think initial appearances/arraignments/detention hearings are at all substantive criminal work that would provide much relevant experience for a clerk. Detention hearings are closest, but the vast majority are incredibly routine.