Feeder firms?

(Seek and share information about clerkship applications, clerkship hiring timelines, and post-clerkship employment opportunities)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about clerkship applications and clerkship hiring. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
barstudyer2019

New
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:09 pm

Feeder firms?

Post by barstudyer2019 » Mon May 11, 2020 10:12 pm

Just a random question

Is the feeder firm phenomenon a thing? Like, does working at certain firms actually increase one’s odds of clerking at SCOTUS holding everything else constant? I would imagine, e.g., if you could get Paul Clement to call for you, that would actually make a difference. Are there other ways that it might make a difference? And how realistic is it, really, that a first year is going to work with Paul Clement or another SCOTUS unicorn lawyer, even if the first year has done fancy clerkships?

Secondarily, I’m interested if there’s a liberal/conservative split on this. This article on ATL: https://abovethelaw.com/2015/04/supreme ... eder-firm/ (though quite dated) notes GDC as a big feeder firm, but I imagine (to the extent the phenomenon is real), it is more of a feeder to conservatives because 1) as I understand it, it is known as being more conservative than the average firm (though not too much--and feel free to push back on this) and 2) Ted Olson is conservative. In any event, the point is: are there “liberal” feeder firms vs. “conservative” feeder firms?

According to this Empirical Scotus post: https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/09/empi ... 2013-2017/, WilmerHale had a bunch of SC arguments so perhaps it is a liberal feeder firm. But my sense of big firms like WH, GDC, etc. is that it’s quite difficult to impossible to do meaningful SCOTUS work (or do any work with one of the fancy SCOTUS lawyers who might have pull with the justices) even if you’ve done fancy other clerkships.

Lots of questions and I’m sure answers will be hard to come by. But I’m just curious if anyone out there has thoughts (including informed speculation!) on any of this.

LBJ's Hair

Silver
Posts: 541
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:17 pm

Re: Feeder firms?

Post by LBJ's Hair » Mon May 11, 2020 11:06 pm

The "feeder firm" isn't a law firm. It's the Office of the Solicitor General. google "Bristow Fellowship"

What you're describing probably happens on occasion, but it's hard for someone coming off even a prestigious clerkship to guarantee that he/she will work closely with a Paul Clement or whoever, which s/he'd need to get the recommendation. Like sure, maybe you clerked for Tatel, but you're still a third year associate, and Paul Clement has plenty of associates who have *already clerked on the Supreme Court* to handle his matters.

Different than a clerkship, where it's just you, the co-clerks, and your judge for an entire year.

Anonymous User
Posts: 351056
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Feeder firms?

Post by Anonymous User » Tue May 12, 2020 3:25 am

Cooper & Kirk. Also I see Consovoy Mccarthy on some peoples’ resumes with feeders. These are only for conservatives; and it’s most likely that they take people with feeder credentials only, and not that they make otherwise non-competitive people get interviews. Accidental anon

Anonymous User
Posts: 351056
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Feeder firms?

Post by Anonymous User » Tue May 12, 2020 12:35 pm

I was at GDC and saw several people depart for the Katsas/Thomas double-header and other conservative justices. I also saw many OCI interviewees who already had conservative feeder clerkships lined up before 2L. I was never on the SCOTUS clerkship track, so I don't know how much of it is people coming in with the credentials vs. partners helping out, but I'd bet it's a combination based on seeing partners go to bat for people for other clerkships.

I do want to rebut the idea that it's difficult to do SCOTUS work at GDC, "meaningful" or otherwise. I did plenty with 0 clerkships, let alone fancy ones, and the same was true for colleagues. All it took was reaching out for work. Of course, others may have had different experiences, and I don't mean to discount that if so.

Anonymous User
Posts: 351056
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Feeder firms?

Post by Anonymous User » Tue May 12, 2020 1:54 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Tue May 12, 2020 3:25 am
Cooper & Kirk. Also I see Consovoy Mccarthy on some peoples’ resumes with feeders. These are only for conservatives; and it’s most likely that they take people with feeder credentials only, and not that they make otherwise non-competitive people get interviews. Accidental anon
Cooper & Kirk is definitely the best example of a true feeder firm in that working there probably meaningfully increases your chance at SCOTUS. Before Bancroft was bought by Kirkland I believe that it was similar. Consovoy McCarthy is very Trumpy but I don't think it's as well-connected and it hires a lot of summer associates (generally splitting their summers) for such a small firm. As far as biglaw firms go, Gibson Dunn, Jones Day, and Kirkland are the big conservative-leaning DC appellate practices.

As far as I know "feeder firms" aren't really a thing for the liberals. Some of the justices (Kagan, Kavanaugh, Roberts from my understanding) are especially big old-school East Coast resume elitists and want something like HYP-Oxbridge-Yale Law-SDNY-DC Circuit-[Williams & Connolly, Kellogg Hansen, etc.] in their hires though so just going to the most elite firm possible should help. Whereas Thomas, Gorsuch, and Sotomayor are willing to go for less East Coast establishment-elite candidates so conventional firm prestige probably matters a bit less (e.g. the former two take lots of clerks with resumes like BYU-Chicago-7th Cir-11th Cir-Kirkland).

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 351056
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Feeder firms?

Post by Anonymous User » Tue May 12, 2020 2:24 pm

Susman Godfrey's NYC office has had a number of associates go to clerk for SCOTUS, and also has a sizable contingent of SCOTUS clerks.

barstudyer2019

New
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:09 pm

Re: Feeder firms?

Post by barstudyer2019 » Tue May 12, 2020 9:11 pm

Thanks for all the responses thus far. Interesting stuff.

Let's say I'm liberal and would only be interested in clerking for the libs (not that any of the conservatives would be interested in having me as a clerk in any event) and have a clerkship with a semi-feeder lined up, but it's for one year after law school. I take from the above that the consensus is that any top tier firm (Wilmer, Covington, Susman, Latham, Quinn, Boies, etc. etc.) is equally good for SCOTUS purposes with the only exception that maybe you get an extra nudge with Kagan from W&C and KH. And again, I imagine that if you worked with one of the top flight advocates and that person was willing to call Chambers, that could be significant but it's also vanishingly unlikely.

That would mean that even if the feeder firm phenomenon existed, it would just be about correlation--i.e., the top flight candidates go to, e.g., W&C, possibly because it has sent candidates in the past or just because it's fancy but the same candidate would be in just as strong a position working for another top firm as he or she would be working for W&C. Anyone disagree with that?

Also in response to the above, I didn't mean to say or imply that one couldn't do appellate work but more that one couldn't do SCOTUS work without a SCOTUS clerkship. My understanding (and I know only what I have read on these forums!) is that the only thing that really can move the needle for SCOTUS is a recommendation from someone the justice actually trusts which I'm guessing, of the people who work at law firms, is exclusively or almost exclusively SCOTUS litigators. But I'd be happy to know if I'm wrong about that.

And while I'm asking questions, my guess is that the justices don't care what you actually do at a firm so long as you're litigating. Anyone have info (or informed speculation) on that? Thanks again for the responses!

Libya

New
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:01 pm

Re: Feeder firms?

Post by Libya » Tue May 12, 2020 9:35 pm

barstudyer2019 wrote:
Tue May 12, 2020 9:11 pm
Thanks for all the responses thus far. Interesting stuff.

Let's say I'm liberal and would only be interested in clerking for the libs (not that any of the conservatives would be interested in having me as a clerk in any event) and have a clerkship with a semi-feeder lined up, but it's for one year after law school. I take from the above that the consensus is that any top tier firm (Wilmer, Covington, Susman, Latham, Quinn, Boies, etc. etc.) is equally good for SCOTUS purposes with the only exception that maybe you get an extra nudge with Kagan from W&C and KH. And again, I imagine that if you worked with one of the top flight advocates and that person was willing to call Chambers, that could be significant but it's also vanishingly unlikely.

That would mean that even if the feeder firm phenomenon existed, it would just be about correlation--i.e., the top flight candidates go to, e.g., W&C, possibly because it has sent candidates in the past or just because it's fancy but the same candidate would be in just as strong a position working for another top firm as he or she would be working for W&C. Anyone disagree with that?

Also in response to the above, I didn't mean to say or imply that one couldn't do appellate work but more that one couldn't do SCOTUS work without a SCOTUS clerkship. My understanding (and I know only what I have read on these forums!) is that the only thing that really can move the needle for SCOTUS is a recommendation from someone the justice actually trusts which I'm guessing, of the people who work at law firms, is exclusively or almost exclusively SCOTUS litigators. But I'd be happy to know if I'm wrong about that.

And while I'm asking questions, my guess is that the justices don't care what you actually do at a firm so long as you're litigating. Anyone have info (or informed speculation) on that? Thanks again for the responses!
In LS so take this with a grain of salt: isn't this all kind of besides the point since you probably cannot switch firms this late (assuming you are a 3L and starting in the fall), especially in this economy? Also, Susman (and KH too I think?) does not look at candidates without clerkships under their belt from what I've heard; and it seems unlikely that W&C would hire someone who didn't summer there AND is starting right out of law school (as opposed to summering elsewhere and then clerking before starting at W&C). Why not just apply to full-fledged feeders for 2022 (or whatever year is following your semi-feeder clerkship)? Or maybe try and land a judge who often sends people to clerk for feeders (Feinerman, Boasberg, etc.) and then try to clerk for a feeder after? Not to be negative, but if you can't land any of those I'd imagine your chances at SCOTUS are probably pretty poor to nonexistent (no offense; I'd definitely feel elated if in your position).

Anonymous User
Posts: 351056
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Feeder firms?

Post by Anonymous User » Tue May 12, 2020 9:54 pm

.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Tue May 12, 2020 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Anonymous User
Posts: 351056
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Feeder firms?

Post by Anonymous User » Tue May 12, 2020 9:54 pm

barstudyer2019 wrote:
Tue May 12, 2020 9:11 pm
I take from the above that the consensus is that any top tier firm (Wilmer, Covington, Susman, Latham, Quinn, Boies, etc. etc.) is equally good for SCOTUS purposes with the only exception that maybe you get an extra nudge with Kagan from W&C and KH.
There are a couple of other firms that are probably on the W&C/KH tier in that they might give a leg up over standard DC biglaw (MTO, Wilkinson Walsh). Not sure about firms like Bartlit Beck, Susman Godfrey, and WLRK that are at least as selective but don't have big appellate practices or DC offices but at that point you're really splitting hairs.
barstudyer2019 wrote:
Tue May 12, 2020 9:11 pm

My understanding (and I know only what I have read on these forums!) is that the only thing that really can move the needle for SCOTUS is a recommendation from someone the justice actually trusts which I'm guessing, of the people who work at law firms, is exclusively or almost exclusively SCOTUS litigators. But I'd be happy to know if I'm wrong about that.
There are a lot of former SCOTUS clerks who don't do appellate that can probably move the needle with their justices. Adam Mortara is patent trial attorney and one of Justice Thomas's primary screeners. Bartlit and Susman have a whole bunch of SCOTUS clerks but don't do appellate beyond defending their trial verdicts.

Anonymous User
Posts: 351056
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Feeder firms?

Post by Anonymous User » Tue May 12, 2020 10:48 pm

barstudyer2019 wrote:
Tue May 12, 2020 9:11 pm
Thanks for all the responses thus far. Interesting stuff.

Let's say I'm liberal and would only be interested in clerking for the libs (not that any of the conservatives would be interested in having me as a clerk in any event) and have a clerkship with a semi-feeder lined up, but it's for one year after law school. I take from the above that the consensus is that any top tier firm (Wilmer, Covington, Susman, Latham, Quinn, Boies, etc. etc.) is equally good for SCOTUS purposes with the only exception that maybe you get an extra nudge with Kagan from W&C and KH. And again, I imagine that if you worked with one of the top flight advocates and that person was willing to call Chambers, that could be significant but it's also vanishingly unlikely.

That would mean that even if the feeder firm phenomenon existed, it would just be about correlation--i.e., the top flight candidates go to, e.g., W&C, possibly because it has sent candidates in the past or just because it's fancy but the same candidate would be in just as strong a position working for another top firm as he or she would be working for W&C. Anyone disagree with that?

Also in response to the above, I didn't mean to say or imply that one couldn't do appellate work but more that one couldn't do SCOTUS work without a SCOTUS clerkship. My understanding (and I know only what I have read on these forums!) is that the only thing that really can move the needle for SCOTUS is a recommendation from someone the justice actually trusts which I'm guessing, of the people who work at law firms, is exclusively or almost exclusively SCOTUS litigators. But I'd be happy to know if I'm wrong about that.

And while I'm asking questions, my guess is that the justices don't care what you actually do at a firm so long as you're litigating. Anyone have info (or informed speculation) on that? Thanks again for the responses!
Based on experience with one or more of these firms (hence anonymous mode) I would challenge you on a few points:

-These firms are not much alike. Susman does trials, mostly. Covington has good regulatory work. Boies is a New York biglaw firm with weird compensation. They all get quality associates but not the same quality. Susman is better regarded in SCOTUS world than Quinn (for example). They are all very different. What work you want? Don't pick a firm just to appease justices.

-SCOTUS work doesn't require a SCOTUS clerkship. Most firms have associates working on SCOTUS cases who have done no clerkship at all. Having a semi-feeder will give you enough of an advantage.

-Don't assume "justices don't care what you actually do at a firm so long as you're litigating." They want clerks who can carry their weight. Quality appellate experience helps more than generic litigation. What sets you apart from the competition?

Where you go probably won't change anything. As LBJ said the only "firm" that really matters is the Office of the Solicitor General and getting a job there is already tougher than clerking for some less competitive justices. Just go where you will get the best experience and try to impress the right people. Depending on how extroverted you are that have an easier time of that at a smaller firm. Have you considered specialty boutiques like Bredhoff & Kaiser?

Anonymous User
Posts: 351056
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Feeder firms?

Post by Anonymous User » Tue May 12, 2020 11:47 pm

MTO's DC office might have the highest concentration of SCOTUS clerks, but I'm pretty sure the causation on that one runs the other way on this one...

Anonymous User
Posts: 351056
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Feeder firms?

Post by Anonymous User » Wed May 13, 2020 3:42 am

Also likely worth mentioning Sidley and O'Melveney which both have strong SCOTUS practices and a number of partners who are very connected in the appellate world.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 351056
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Feeder firms?

Post by Anonymous User » Wed May 13, 2020 1:07 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:42 am
Also likely worth mentioning Sidley and O'Melveney which both have strong SCOTUS practices and a number of partners who are very connected in the appellate world.
I mean, so do Latham, Jenner, Arnold & Porter, Hogan Loevells, Paul Weiss, etc. Lots of DC biglaw firms have significant SCOTUS/appellate practices but not as big as GDC or Wilmer.

barstudyer2019

New
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:09 pm

Re: Feeder firms?

Post by barstudyer2019 » Wed May 13, 2020 7:38 pm

Well, this thread has looped around a bit. I think everyone can see why I'm asking the question, but just to be clear: Assume that you have a gap year between school and a clerkship, a gap year between clerkships, or are even just choosing a firm for after a clerkship. Does working for W&C, WW, or KH actually increase your chances, or are you just as well off at any of the big DC firms, assuming you're doing some (though not exclusively) appellate work? Imagine that you summered at one of the big firms not in that trio and really liked it but you'd be willing to switch if it would make a reasonable (albeit small) difference.

I found the answer above that maybe it's a nudge with Kagan but not the other liberals to be pretty nuanced/interesting and not the kind of thing I would've thought intuitively. Of course, I know one post is not gospel, that person may be wrong, this is a forum, etc.

And, perhaps even more interesting to me personally, is there a liberal/conservative split on this? Like, maybe it would improve your chances with the conservative wing to work with GDC or K&E but not with the liberal wing. Or maybe that's totally wrong and the libs love GDC just as much because most cases really aren't that political blah blah blah. That's something I'm really quite curious about because we do have some data suggesting that GDC was sending a bunch of clerks up as of like 5 years ago.

The answer may be that no one on this forum knows because it is too inside baseball and no one has clerked for SCOTUS. If so, then that's life. But I'm just curious. Thanks for the responses thus far!

ETA: Part of the problem is that there are a lot of things that sound reasonable on their face but are in tension with each other. So just for example, it makes sense that the justices would want to see appellate work. But WW and Susman basically don't any appellate work and people still seem to think these firms are good for SCOTUS. So, I'm hoping to try to reconcile these things so that there is actually something actionable for someone who has to choose a firm.

The Lsat Airbender

Silver
Posts: 1074
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: Feeder firms?

Post by The Lsat Airbender » Wed May 13, 2020 9:08 pm

barstudyer2019 wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 7:38 pm
So, I'm hoping to try to reconcile these things so that there is actually something actionable for someone who has to choose a firm.
It's going to be tough. Insofar as one's choice the different "elite" (SCOTUS-clerk-laden biglaw) firms increases one's SCOTUS chances, which I personally doubt is measurable in the first place, it's going to be dominated by all the other stuff that goes into getting a Supreme-Court clerkship (for example, what you actually accomplish at whatever firm you go to) and it's also going to be dominated by all the other factors that should be going into firm selection (pay, culture, location, what kind of work you'll get to do, etc.).

Anonymous User
Posts: 351056
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Feeder firms?

Post by Anonymous User » Wed May 13, 2020 9:32 pm

NVM
Last edited by Anonymous User on Thu May 14, 2020 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


Joachim2017

New
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:17 pm

Re: Feeder firms?

Post by Joachim2017 » Wed May 13, 2020 9:45 pm

barstudyer2019 wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 7:38 pm


ETA: Part of the problem is that there are a lot of things that sound reasonable on their face but are in tension with each other. So just for example, it makes sense that the justices would want to see appellate work. But WW and Susman basically don't any appellate work and people still seem to think these firms are good for SCOTUS. So, I'm hoping to try to reconcile these things so that there is actually something actionable for someone who has to choose a firm.

An earlier post (might actually have been your own) already explained why this will be a problem: people on these boards sometimes mistake correlation for causation. And it's hard to know when that's occurring if you only have secondhand info based on website profiles, impressions, and anecdotes. Most of the info on TLS for a question as specific as yours has too much noise around it to be any more useful than what you already know. If you can't get more reliable info from resources like your school or friends (or friends' friends who are older), you're better off picking a firm based on other considerations, like your interests and long-term goals.

Anonymous User
Posts: 351056
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Feeder firms?

Post by Anonymous User » Sat May 16, 2020 8:29 pm

.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Mon May 18, 2020 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The Lsat Airbender

Silver
Posts: 1074
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: Feeder firms?

Post by The Lsat Airbender » Mon May 18, 2020 6:53 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 8:29 pm
No WLRK here?
Why would they be, aside from the above-discussed correlation between having feeder credentials and getting hired in the first place? Why did you need to go anon for such a contentless post?

Anonymous User
Posts: 351056
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Feeder firms?

Post by Anonymous User » Tue May 19, 2020 11:29 am

barstudyer2019 wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 7:38 pm
Well, this thread has looped around a bit. I think everyone can see why I'm asking the question, but just to be clear: Assume that you have a gap year between school and a clerkship, a gap year between clerkships, or are even just choosing a firm for after a clerkship. Does working for W&C, WW, or KH actually increase your chances, or are you just as well off at any of the big DC firms, assuming you're doing some (though not exclusively) appellate work? Imagine that you summered at one of the big firms not in that trio and really liked it but you'd be willing to switch if it would make a reasonable (albeit small) difference.

I found the answer above that maybe it's a nudge with Kagan but not the other liberals to be pretty nuanced/interesting and not the kind of thing I would've thought intuitively. Of course, I know one post is not gospel, that person may be wrong, this is a forum, etc.

And, perhaps even more interesting to me personally, is there a liberal/conservative split on this? Like, maybe it would improve your chances with the conservative wing to work with GDC or K&E but not with the liberal wing. Or maybe that's totally wrong and the libs love GDC just as much because most cases really aren't that political blah blah blah. That's something I'm really quite curious about because we do have some data suggesting that GDC was sending a bunch of clerks up as of like 5 years ago.

The answer may be that no one on this forum knows because it is too inside baseball and no one has clerked for SCOTUS. If so, then that's life. But I'm just curious. Thanks for the responses thus far!

ETA: Part of the problem is that there are a lot of things that sound reasonable on their face but are in tension with each other. So just for example, it makes sense that the justices would want to see appellate work. But WW and Susman basically don't any appellate work and people still seem to think these firms are good for SCOTUS. So, I'm hoping to try to reconcile these things so that there is actually something actionable for someone who has to choose a firm.
As you might have seen in some of the other threads, there are some former SCOTUS clerks lurking around here. Perhaps it's the quarantining that brought us back here...

Having gone through both sides of the hiring at SCOTUS, I can pretty confidently say that, with two exceptions, there are no "feeder firms." This is not to say that, if you go to a firm with a top-flight litigator who happens to be connected with various Justices (think your Paul Clement, Neal Katyal, Lisa Blatt, Michael Dreeben who just left OSG for private practice, Jeff Fisher, Don Verrilli, etc.) and you happen to chance into work for them and do a good job, that it won't make a difference. Of course it will. By that same token, if you go to a firm and do consistent great work for a more junior attorney who clerked for a particular justice, that may also help. Just based on the calls we received, I think this latter set is less likely to put their own reputations on the line than the more senior folks who are used to making these recs but it happens. The point is these sorts of litigators exist at a dozen or more firms and truly no one knows (not even the Chief, Kavanaugh, Kagan, etc.) nor can anyone distinguish between what counts as an "elite firm" and what some in this thread seem to think of as a tier even more elite than that.

The two exceptions--as some above have noted--are Consovoy McCarthy and Cooper & Kirk. Consovoy is known to be well connected to Thomas and Cooper to Alito (and a lesser degree Thomas). In truth, I think they are just reflecting the broader point about litigators connected with Justices, but it's a lot more concentrated. Both of these are very small operations where people are almost certain to get the attention of the connected partners who in turn try to do right by their associates by pushing them to the Justices know. Any of the people I named above would do the same, but not every associate at Kirkland or O'Melveny runs into Paul or Jeff (or pick your firm and lawyer combo of choice).

This is all to say that unless you are determined to be a Thomas or Alito clerk, you should pick your firm on any number of criteria before this one. And if you are determined to get every marginal edge for this one goal, then any number of firms will give you a chance to work with someone who might help. But, as your pursue this, be careful about how you treat your fellow associates. A call from Paul + a negative offhand comment from an associate you elbowed out of the way to her friend clerking on the Court is certainly worse than nothing from either.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Judicial Clerkships”