HYS Transfer w/ no LR

[Anonymous User]

So, I’m a transfer at HYS wondering if no LR precludes me from fed appellate clerkships. Tried to search previous topics but didn’t find anything so thought I’d ask.

Any thoughts? Would secondary journals be good? Should I try to do more than one?

[Anonymous User]

I transferred to HLS, did not do Law Review (but did do two secondary journals), and am now completing my second COA clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

So, I’m a transfer at HYS wondering if no LR precludes me from fed appellate clerkships. Tried to search previous topics but didn’t find anything so thought I’d ask.

Any thoughts? Would secondary journals be good? Should I try to do more than one?

There have been numerous supreme court clerks (including famous ones like cass sunstein and orin kerr) that were not on law review. As far as secondary journals, if you are right leaning then harvard journal of law and public policy would be a good place to go; if you are left leaning then maybe harvard civil rights-civil liberties. If you want apolitical stuff then either environmental or journal of law and technology or one of hte other ones.

[Anonymous User]

My experiences interviewing with multiple judges on the 2nd/9th/D.C. Circuits suggests that law review is something very few judges nowadays care about. That you see many clerks for prestigious circuits were members of their school’s law review reflects, more than anything, that those with excellent credentials also tend to be those who don’t know how to get off the treadmill and choose to do law review because it’s another gold star they feel pressured to obtain.

[Anonymous User]

Having both clerked and assisted my judge in hiring clerks + known others who did the same, I think it's false that "very few" judges nowadays care about law review. And whether "numerous" students obtained top (e.g., 2/9/DC appellate) clerkships without LR isn't to say a majority or most did.

What's true is that being on LR is less important now than it was, say, 10 or 20 years ago. This is largely because law review at the top schools is now often a matter of diversity-based selection rather than grades or merit (however defined). So the credential has decreased its signalling effect, for all employers.

That said, it's still important for many judges, especially old-fashioned ones (largely because reputations are sticky). There's a few judges on CA2, for example, who pretty much only hire people who are on law review. And LR has a powerful network, which plays into your resume getting looked at in the first place.

Finally, pointing to Cass Sunstein and Orin Kerr is amusing. Those are BY FAR exceptions rather than the norm for anything, as they are all-star caliber professors at top schools. (Larry Tribe also notoriously didn't make it onto HLR; I wouldn't ever say that goes to show you can skip LR and be the next Larry Tribe.)

To OP: it's not preclusive, but it'll make you a little less competitive for certain slots in certain places. You should apply widely anyway, and yes, doing a secondary is a good idea to indicate writing/research skill development.

[Anonymous User]

At least at Y, I know classmates not on Yale Law Journal who obtained feeder clerkships. In fact, it seemed that many people on YLJ had a harder time obtaining a feeder clerkship than those on Journal. To answer your question, you (at least at Y) do not need YLJ for a feeder, let alone a generic appellate judge. What you do need to do (particularly as a transfer) is work hard to become close with professors who will go to bat for you a year from now. That may be hard given classes going online, but I'd really recommend you focus on making those connections from the start of the semester.

[Anonymous User]

I think your grades are more important than LR, although—all else equal—LR will probably move the needle when there are otherwise comparable candidates (which is probably something like +\- 1 H at my HYS)

[Anonymous User]

My semi-feeder judge told me they value LR even less than they did only eight years ago. I don't think it'll hold you back in any meaningful way. While a few judges may hold out, if you have the grades for a clerkship at Harvard, you should be able to land one.

[Anonymous User]

Having both clerked and assisted my judge in hiring clerks + known others who did the same, I think it's false that "very few" judges nowadays care about law review. And whether "numerous" students obtained top (e.g., 2/9/DC appellate) clerkships without LR isn't to say a majority or most did.

What's true is that being on LR is less important now than it was, say, 10 or 20 years ago. This is largely because law review at the top schools is now often a matter of diversity-based selection rather than grades or merit (however defined). So the credential has decreased its signalling effect, for all employers.

That said, it's still important for many judges, especially old-fashioned ones (largely because reputations are sticky). There's a few judges on CA2, for example, who pretty much only hire people who are on law review. And LR has a powerful network, which plays into your resume getting looked at in the first place.

Finally, pointing to Cass Sunstein and Orin Kerr is amusing. Those are BY FAR exceptions rather than the norm for anything, as they are all-star caliber professors at top schools. (Larry Tribe also notoriously didn't make it onto HLR; I wouldn't ever say that goes to show you can skip LR and be the next Larry Tribe.)

To OP: it's not preclusive, but it'll make you a little less competitive for certain slots in certain places. You should apply widely anyway, and yes, doing a secondary is a good idea to indicate writing/research skill development.

Nice potshot at diversity.

The point is this: It is the rare circuit judge who will not interview (or hire) someone with amazing grades because *gasp* they didn’t do law review. And just because a circuit judge hires people on law review doesn’t mean it’s *because* of law review that they hired them or that it even factored much into their hiring or that the “law review network” mattered.

For every circuit judge I’ve been told cares about law review (or for whom I have heard the myth that they hire only law review people), I know current or former clerks who didn’t do law review. You make the point yourself that law review matters in certain slots, certain places, for certain old fashioned judges. Which is to say, it matters for very few among the 170+ circuit judges. Indeed, this is something a very famous professor at my HYS has told me directly when they said I didn’t need to do law review if I didn’t want to do it.

Now, is law review completely irrelevant? No. Of course not. No gold star will be spared in the legal profession. But does law review matter all that much for the vast majority of circuit judges? No. Your grades and recommenders are what matter . . . by a long shot. To the extent it serves as a proxy for leadership or writing/editing or drive, it is merely that: a proxy. There are other (and better) ways to show these qualities besides law review.

In short, do law review or don’t do it. Those who mind are very few and won’t matter, and are quickly decreasing as time goes on.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AaronTangLaw ... 1373152258

[Anonymous User]

I can think of at least 4 of my classmates at HLS who got a Supreme Court clerkship without LR. I can think of many, many more who got a COA clerkship without LR. You'll be fine.

[Anonymous User]

Having both clerked and assisted my judge in hiring clerks + known others who did the same, I think it's false that "very few" judges nowadays care about law review. And whether "numerous" students obtained top (e.g., 2/9/DC appellate) clerkships without LR isn't to say a majority or most did.

What's true is that being on LR is less important now than it was, say, 10 or 20 years ago. This is largely because law review at the top schools is now often a matter of diversity-based selection rather than grades or merit (however defined). So the credential has decreased its signalling effect, for all employers.

That said, it's still important for many judges, especially old-fashioned ones (largely because reputations are sticky). There's a few judges on CA2, for example, who pretty much only hire people who are on law review. And LR has a powerful network, which plays into your resume getting looked at in the first place.

Finally, pointing to Cass Sunstein and Orin Kerr is amusing. Those are BY FAR exceptions rather than the norm for anything, as they are all-star caliber professors at top schools. (Larry Tribe also notoriously didn't make it onto HLR; I wouldn't ever say that goes to show you can skip LR and be the next Larry Tribe.)

To OP: it's not preclusive, but it'll make you a little less competitive for certain slots in certain places. You should apply widely anyway, and yes, doing a secondary is a good idea to indicate writing/research skill development.

Nice potshot at diversity.

The point is this: It is the rare circuit judge who will not interview (or hire) someone with amazing grades because *gasp* they didn’t do law review. And just because a circuit judge hires people on law review doesn’t mean it’s *because* of law review that they hired them or that it even factored much into their hiring or that the “law review network” mattered.

For every circuit judge I’ve been told cares about law review (or for whom I have heard the myth that they hire only law review people), I know current or former clerks who didn’t do law review. You make the point yourself that law review matters in certain slots, certain places, for certain old fashioned judges. Which is to say, it matters for very few among the 170+ circuit judges. Indeed, this is something a very famous professor at my HYS has told me directly when they said I didn’t need to do law review if I didn’t want to do it.

Now, is law review completely irrelevant? No. Of course not. No gold star will be spared in the legal profession. But does law review matter all that much for the vast majority of circuit judges? No. Your grades and recommenders are what matter . . . by a long shot. To the extent it serves as a proxy for leadership or writing/editing or drive, it is merely that: a proxy. There are other (and better) ways to show these qualities besides law review.

In short, do law review or don’t do it. Those who mind are very few and won’t matter, and are quickly decreasing as time goes on.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AaronTangLaw ... 1373152258

I agree with every word of the above post - I just wouldn't use Aaron Tang, who booked 15 classes at Stanford, as an example of your average law school CoA applicant.

For what it's worth, my judge hires students prior to most Law Review decisions coming out, he/she doesn't think it's a particularly useful measure of anything that can't be taught at the clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

Thank you so much for the advice and reassurance everyone! I really appreciate it and definitely feel more confident in the route I’m taking.

[Sarkhan]

I transferred to HLS, did not do Law Review (but did do two secondary journals), and am now completing my second COA clerkship.

Would you be willing to chat about that experience? I'm in a very similar boat and currently looking for a second COA.

[Anonymous User]

So, I’m a transfer at HYS wondering if no LR precludes me from fed appellate clerkships. Tried to search previous topics but didn’t find anything so thought I’d ask.

Any thoughts? Would secondary journals be good? Should I try to do more than one?

I did not transfer, but graduated from Y/S. My classmates who transferred and wanted clerkships were able to secure them regardless of law review status.