DC Cir v. Regional Cir Forum

[Anonymous User]

I know people the breakdown of 2/9/DC is subject to (well deserved) critique, however, I am wondering whether clerkship on the DC Circuit—compared to a regional circuit—will make it easier to break into a DC appellate practice?

[Anonymous User]

You have such limited control over where you get hired that it’s not worth worrying about. I worked DC appellate for a bit and didn’t notice an usual concentration of DC Cir clerks but maybe? Personally unless you’re clerking for a feeder the downside of the country’s most boring docket (unless you want to be an admin specialist) might outweigh the benefits, especially vs. well-regarded judges on other circuits, your geographic preference, 2/7/9, or however you want to cut that loaf.

[Letmein7]

You have such limited control over where you get hired that it’s not worth worrying about. I worked DC appellate for a bit and didn’t notice an usual concentration of DC Cir clerks but maybe? Personally unless you’re clerking for a feeder the downside of the country’s most boring docket (unless you want to be an admin specialist) might outweigh the benefits, especially vs. well-regarded judges on other circuits, your geographic preference, 2/7/9, or however you want to cut that loaf.

Is the DC Circuit the “country’s most boring docket”?

I’m genuinely interested in this take because I thought the common wisdom was that the DC Circuit has a more interesting docket than other circuits, but perhaps a former clerk or practitioner has a different view.

[Anonymous User]

Depends on what you think is interesting. They do tons of administrative law, which includes a lot of very technical direct appeals from administrative agencies (think FERC regulations or Medicare reimbursement rates). They also handle most of the FOIA litigation, which imho is incredibly dry, and they have an extremely small criminal docket. On the upside, there's also not much immigration litigation (especially compared to courts like CA9), and in general it's one of the lighter work-loads for a COA.

[Anonymous User]

You have such limited control over where you get hired that it’s not worth worrying about. I worked DC appellate for a bit and didn’t notice an usual concentration of DC Cir clerks but maybe? Personally unless you’re clerking for a feeder the downside of the country’s most boring docket (unless you want to be an admin specialist) might outweigh the benefits, especially vs. well-regarded judges on other circuits, your geographic preference, 2/7/9, or however you want to cut that loaf.

Is the DC Circuit the “country’s most boring docket”?

I’m genuinely interested in this take because I thought the common wisdom was that the DC Circuit has a more interesting docket than other circuits, but perhaps a former clerk or practitioner has a different view.

It's hit-or-miss. You'll get some dull regulatory cases for sure, but, depending on the term, you may end up with some high profile separation-of-powers cases that you wouldn't possibly get elsewhere. I definitely wouldn't call it the country's most boring docket. I'll also second that it's one of the lightest caseloads among the circuits.

And to answer the main question to the topic, yes, a D.C. circuit clerkship is probably better for D.C. appellate law than other circuits, unless you're with a feeder in the other circuit and you'd be with a non-feeder on the D.C. Circuit (though pretty much every active judge currently on the D.C. Circuit except the one appointed last year would be considered at least a semi-feeder). It's a marginal difference, but just being in D.C. is an assist--D.C. firms invite clerks to dinners and presentations and it's easier to network.

Anon because previously worked on the D.C. Circuit.

[Anonymous User]

I know people the breakdown of 2/9/DC is subject to (well deserved) critique, however, I am wondering whether clerkship on the DC Circuit—compared to a regional circuit—will make it easier to break into a DC appellate practice?

Not really. DC, more than any other legal market, has a discerning eye for prestige. I've met DC appellate partners who can recite the bios of close to every active circuit judge nationwide. DC Circuit clerks do well in DC appellate practice because 1. their judges usually have impressive resumes and sterling reputations, 2. the clerks have impressive credentials and sterling reputations, and 3. (not nearly as significant) the clerks networked during the year. Mostly correlation, with a little causation sprinkled on top. If you want to break into DC appellate practice, I recommend prioritizing, in this order: 1. feeders; 2. semifeeders; 3. nationally-renowned nonfeeders; 4. nonfeeders with otherwise impressive credentials. On this last point, go to some law firm websites and look up what judges their DC appellate associates clerked for. Then, read those judges' Wikipedias. You'll quickly spot a pattern.

[Anonymous User]

pretty much every active judge currently on the D.C. Circuit except the one appointed last year would be considered at least a semi-feeder

Nitpicky disagreement--Rogers, Wilkins, and all of the seniors only feed once in a blue moon. Getting to someone else's point I doubt it's coincidence that Rogers, Wilkins, and Walker (and Henderson, who's a Thomas feeder now but formerly in that bucket) are the judges who weren't elite-DC-lit insiders.

[Anonymous User]

pretty much every active judge currently on the D.C. Circuit except the one appointed last year would be considered at least a semi-feeder

Nitpicky disagreement--Rogers, Wilkins, and all of the seniors only feed once in a blue moon. Getting to someone else's point I doubt it's coincidence that Rogers, Wilkins, and Walker (and Henderson, who's a Thomas feeder now but formerly in that bucket) are the judges who weren't elite-DC-lit insiders.

Henderson has fed 3 clerks to Thomas over a 19-year span, and one of those also clerked for Pryor. She definitely fits in with Rogers and Wilkins as the non-feeders on the circuit (too soon to put Walker there as well). And accordingly she's an "easier" clerkship to get (in that she interviewed me whereas someone like Griffith probably laughed my application out of chambers).

[Anonymous User]

Would DC Feeder be any better than Regional Feeder? Or is it so attenuated at this point that it is just too hard to tell?

[Anonymous User]

Would DC Feeder be any better than Regional Feeder? Or is it so attenuated at this point that it is just too hard to tell?

Look, feeders are clearly ranked by their rolling average feeds over the last 5-10 years. Nobody is going to be more impressed by Pillard than Katzman, Sutton, etc.

[Anonymous User]

Depends on what you think is interesting. They do tons of administrative law, which includes a lot of very technical direct appeals from administrative agencies (think FERC regulations or Medicare reimbursement rates). They also handle most of the FOIA litigation, which imho is incredibly dry, and they have an extremely small criminal docket. On the upside, there's also not much immigration litigation (especially compared to courts like CA9), and in general it's one of the lighter work-loads for a COA.

Yeah, there's a circle of people for whom the DC Cir will have by far the most interesting docket, but most students who want to be litigators don't want to be pure admin specialists.

My rough impression is that CA2 might have the best docket for the average student, with a lot of complex business and criminal stuff, especially securities. CA7 is fairly similar but may be preferred by some because it publishes far more opinions and has more oral arguments. CA5 and CA11 have lots of death penalty stuff. CA9 has a broad docket and a uniquely high-profile/often-used en banc process but also a ton of immigration and habeas. CA8 and CA10 are probably the sleepiest but have some unique stuff because of Indian Country. CA3 is basically a less-prominent version of CA2 and is the leading circuit for bankruptcy. I don't know anything unique about CA6.

[Anonymous User]

Would DC Feeder be any better than Regional Feeder? Or is it so attenuated at this point that it is just too hard to tell?

Look, feeders are clearly ranked by their rolling average feeds over the last 5-10 years. Nobody is going to be more impressed by Pillard than Katzman, Sutton, etc.

Correct. When talking feeders, you should consider: rolling average feeds, and the justices fed to. Location is a nonfactor. You would be wise to favor Friedland over Millett and Kethledge over Rao if your goal is DC appellate practice.

[Anonymous User]

Would DC Feeder be any better than Regional Feeder? Or is it so attenuated at this point that it is just too hard to tell?

Look, feeders are clearly ranked by their rolling average feeds over the last 5-10 years. Nobody is going to be more impressed by Pillard than Katzman, Sutton, etc.

Correct. When talking feeders, you should consider: rolling average feeds, and the justices fed to. Location is a nonfactor. You would be wise to favor Friedland over Millett and Kethledge over Rao if your goal is DC appellate practice.

Ehh I don't think I would agree this even if your only goal was SCOTUS. Kethledge was a major (though not exclusive) Kennedy feeder and I wouldn't be surprised if Rao passes him. Friedland and Millett are only one clerk fed apart. Those aren't obvious choices and if you have a preference for the DC Cir choosing the DC Cir judge would make sense.

[Anonymous User]

Would DC Feeder be any better than Regional Feeder? Or is it so attenuated at this point that it is just too hard to tell?

Look, feeders are clearly ranked by their rolling average feeds over the last 5-10 years. Nobody is going to be more impressed by Pillard than Katzman, Sutton, etc.

Correct. When talking feeders, you should consider: rolling average feeds, and the justices fed to. Location is a nonfactor. You would be wise to favor Friedland over Millett and Kethledge over Rao if your goal is DC appellate practice.

Is this more of a function of DC Appellate groups looking for feeder judges or people with better credentials going to the judges who feed over DC Circuit judges who feed less? Essentially are the groups looking more at School/GPA or at the name of the judge?

[polareagle]

Would DC Feeder be any better than Regional Feeder? Or is it so attenuated at this point that it is just too hard to tell?

Look, feeders are clearly ranked by their rolling average feeds over the last 5-10 years. Nobody is going to be more impressed by Pillard than Katzman, Sutton, etc.

Honestly can't tell if this is the height of appellate gunner navel gazing or really good satire. Can someone get me a a rank order of 5-year RAF (defined above) by COB Sunday? Thx.

[Anonymous User]

From what I’ve seen, the answer to OP’s question is an unqualified “yes.”

[Anonymous User]

Would DC Feeder be any better than Regional Feeder? Or is it so attenuated at this point that it is just too hard to tell?

Look, feeders are clearly ranked by their rolling average feeds over the last 5-10 years. Nobody is going to be more impressed by Pillard than Katzman, Sutton, etc.

Honestly can't tell if this is the height of appellate gunner navel gazing or really good satire. Can someone get me a a rank order of 5-year RAF (defined above) by COB Sunday? Thx.

Interestingly, you've answered this question before:

Fed. Cir. clerks are very highly coveted by law firms with patent lit practices and those clerkships do kind of box you into patent lit/international trade. It would still be valuable for a general/commercial lit practice since patent issues do come up in commercial cases, too. I don't think it'll be enough to get into an appellate practice at a top firm, though. Those practices are usually dominated by former SCOTUS/2/7/9/DC clerks.

Generally agree with the above but not the bolded, which is just TLS-think (though including the 7th is somewhat novel). SCOTUS/DC Circuit yes, the others not more than any other numbered circuit, and the Fed. circuit seems just as valuable as the others.

For evidence, look at the appellate associates in the DC offices of the top 5 appellate firms per Vault (I'm sure you could look at chambers as well but this was easy to pull). If more than one associate, number in parens:

Gibson: 1st; 2d (2); 3d (3); 4th; 5th (7); 6th (5); 7th (4); 9th (4); 10th; Fed (3); DC (5); SCOTUS (4)
Williams & Connolly: (does not break associates out by practice group but all the SCOTUS clerks clerked on the D.C. Circuit)
Jones Day: 3d; 5th; 6th; 9th (3); 11th (2); DC (5); SCOTUS (12)
Kirkland: 3d; 4th (2); 7th; 10th (2); 11th; DC; Fed (2); SCOTUS
Wilmer: 1st; 3d; 4th; 9th; DC; Fed; SCOTUS (2)

Based on this review, the D.C. Circuit (and SCOTUS) have an advantage across the board. The 5th Circuit is especially popular at Gibson. Looking at this limited sample, you might say that the second and eighth circuits underperform the average. From having actually looked through, it's clearer than ever that judge matters more than circuit. I believe *all* the 7th circuit clerks at Gibson were from Sykes. The 10th circuit clerks are nearly all Tymkovitch. Etc, etc.

In practice, judges matter, circuits do not (except for the D.C. Circuit).

[polareagle]

Look, feeders are clearly ranked by their rolling average feeds over the last 5-10 years. Nobody is going to be more impressed by Pillard than Katzman, Sutton, etc.

Honestly can't tell if this is the height of appellate gunner navel gazing or really good satire. Can someone get me a a rank order of 5-year RAF (defined above) by COB Sunday? Thx.

Interestingly, you've answered this question before:

(lengthy post)

In practice, judges matter, circuits do not (except for the D.C. Circuit).

Ha! I forgot about that post. I agree with the point that the DC Circuit overall is more valuable than regional circuits overall, that ranking among those circuits otherwise is stupid, and that judges matter more than circuits in any event.

But the satire / navel gazing I'm referring to is not OP's general question but rather the reference to 5 to 10 year "rolling average feeds," which for some reason strikes me as one of the more absurd things I've read on this site in a while. (Which is saying something.)

That being said, given my little survey from this past summer, maybe I shouldn't be criticizing people for being absurd.

[Anonymous User]

Would DC Feeder be any better than Regional Feeder? Or is it so attenuated at this point that it is just too hard to tell?

Look, feeders are clearly ranked by their rolling average feeds over the last 5-10 years. Nobody is going to be more impressed by Pillard than Katzman, Sutton, etc.

Correct. When talking feeders, you should consider: rolling average feeds, and the justices fed to. Location is a nonfactor. You would be wise to favor Friedland over Millett and Kethledge over Rao if your goal is DC appellate practice.

Is this more of a function of DC Appellate groups looking for feeder judges or people with better credentials going to the judges who feed over DC Circuit judges who feed less? Essentially are the groups looking more at School/GPA or at the name of the judge?

A top school/GPA is a basic requirement for DC appellate law. Beyond that, groups need to break ties, hence using the judge's name as a proxy. The logic goes that (a) anyone serious about DC appellate practice wants to clerk for SCOTUS if remotely possible and (b) anyone serious about (a) knows all the feeder judges meaning (c) everyone is clerking for the feedery-est judge in their political lane (and sometimes outside it) they could get. If you clerked for Judge Wilkins, appellate groups would probably assume you applied to and were rejected from the liberal feeders and semi-feeders absent unusual circumstances. And that would concern them. What do all those judges know that they don't? If this all sounds horribly arrogant and self-absorbed, welcome to DC appellate law!

[Anonymous User]

Would DC Feeder be any better than Regional Feeder? Or is it so attenuated at this point that it is just too hard to tell?

Look, feeders are clearly ranked by their rolling average feeds over the last 5-10 years. Nobody is going to be more impressed by Pillard than Katzman, Sutton, etc.

Correct. When talking feeders, you should consider: rolling average feeds, and the justices fed to. Location is a nonfactor. You would be wise to favor Friedland over Millett and Kethledge over Rao if your goal is DC appellate practice.

Is this more of a function of DC Appellate groups looking for feeder judges or people with better credentials going to the judges who feed over DC Circuit judges who feed less? Essentially are the groups looking more at School/GPA or at the name of the judge?

A top school/GPA is a basic requirement for DC appellate law. Beyond that, groups need to break ties, hence using the judge's name as a proxy. The logic goes that (a) anyone serious about DC appellate practice wants to clerk for SCOTUS if remotely possible and (b) anyone serious about (a) knows all the feeder judges meaning (c) everyone is clerking for the feedery-est judge in their political lane (and sometimes outside it) they could get. If you clerked for Judge Wilkins, appellate groups would probably assume you applied to and were rejected from the liberal feeders and semi-feeders absent unusual circumstances. And that would concern them. What do all those judges know that they don't? If this all sounds horribly arrogant and self-absorbed, welcome to DC appellate law!

Just curious for the voyuerism, not personal interest: in this world, do they discount conservative judges who select heavily for ideology because they're less grade-selective? Like even O'Scannlain and Pryor have a good number of clerks who would not be competitive for feeders had they been liberal

[Anonymous User]

Would DC Feeder be any better than Regional Feeder? Or is it so attenuated at this point that it is just too hard to tell?

Look, feeders are clearly ranked by their rolling average feeds over the last 5-10 years. Nobody is going to be more impressed by Pillard than Katzman, Sutton, etc.

Correct. When talking feeders, you should consider: rolling average feeds, and the justices fed to. Location is a nonfactor. You would be wise to favor Friedland over Millett and Kethledge over Rao if your goal is DC appellate practice.

Is this more of a function of DC Appellate groups looking for feeder judges or people with better credentials going to the judges who feed over DC Circuit judges who feed less? Essentially are the groups looking more at School/GPA or at the name of the judge?

A top school/GPA is a basic requirement for DC appellate law. Beyond that, groups need to break ties, hence using the judge's name as a proxy. The logic goes that (a) anyone serious about DC appellate practice wants to clerk for SCOTUS if remotely possible and (b) anyone serious about (a) knows all the feeder judges meaning (c) everyone is clerking for the feedery-est judge in their political lane (and sometimes outside it) they could get. If you clerked for Judge Wilkins, appellate groups would probably assume you applied to and were rejected from the liberal feeders and semi-feeders absent unusual circumstances. And that would concern them. What do all those judges know that they don't? If this all sounds horribly arrogant and self-absorbed, welcome to DC appellate law!

Just curious for the voyuerism, not personal interest: in this world, do they discount conservative judges who select heavily for ideology because they're less grade-selective? Like even O'Scannlain and Pryor have a good number of clerks who would not be competitive for feeders had they been liberal

I have no inside info here, but I would doubt it. You can still tell the clients that your associate worked for a super well known judge, even if they graduated in the top 10% of their class instead of the top 5%. I also feel as if the DC Appellate bar is more conservative than the legal field in general, which may prevent discounting. If I am wrong, please correct me!

[Anonymous User]

Would DC Feeder be any better than Regional Feeder? Or is it so attenuated at this point that it is just too hard to tell?

Look, feeders are clearly ranked by their rolling average feeds over the last 5-10 years. Nobody is going to be more impressed by Pillard than Katzman, Sutton, etc.

Correct. When talking feeders, you should consider: rolling average feeds, and the justices fed to. Location is a nonfactor. You would be wise to favor Friedland over Millett and Kethledge over Rao if your goal is DC appellate practice.

Is this more of a function of DC Appellate groups looking for feeder judges or people with better credentials going to the judges who feed over DC Circuit judges who feed less? Essentially are the groups looking more at School/GPA or at the name of the judge?

A top school/GPA is a basic requirement for DC appellate law. Beyond that, groups need to break ties, hence using the judge's name as a proxy. The logic goes that (a) anyone serious about DC appellate practice wants to clerk for SCOTUS if remotely possible and (b) anyone serious about (a) knows all the feeder judges meaning (c) everyone is clerking for the feedery-est judge in their political lane (and sometimes outside it) they could get. If you clerked for Judge Wilkins, appellate groups would probably assume you applied to and were rejected from the liberal feeders and semi-feeders absent unusual circumstances. And that would concern them. What do all those judges know that they don't? If this all sounds horribly arrogant and self-absorbed, welcome to DC appellate law!

Just curious for the voyuerism, not personal interest: in this world, do they discount conservative judges who select heavily for ideology because they're less grade-selective? Like even O'Scannlain and Pryor have a good number of clerks who would not be competitive for feeders had they been liberal

I wouldn't lightly assume Pryor or O'Scannlain clerks have worse credentials than their liberal counterparts. Liberals outnumber conservatives in American law schools, but that disparity shrinks considerably when looking only at the top of the school. I say with confidence that in any one year, several T-14 schools will have conservative valedictorians. The rest will have multiple standout conservative students (top 5% or higher). Sprinkle in conservative Rhodes scholars, war heroes, and ivy league Classics PhDs to taste, and you have the pool of applicants that Pryor and O'Scannlain recruit from. Do they give a boost for true believers? Sure - but some liberal feeders do the same. In any event, I have not seen DC appellate firms apply any sort of discounting based on the politics of the feeder.

[Anonymous User]

Would DC Feeder be any better than Regional Feeder? Or is it so attenuated at this point that it is just too hard to tell?

Look, feeders are clearly ranked by their rolling average feeds over the last 5-10 years. Nobody is going to be more impressed by Pillard than Katzman, Sutton, etc.

Correct. When talking feeders, you should consider: rolling average feeds, and the justices fed to. Location is a nonfactor. You would be wise to favor Friedland over Millett and Kethledge over Rao if your goal is DC appellate practice.

Is this more of a function of DC Appellate groups looking for feeder judges or people with better credentials going to the judges who feed over DC Circuit judges who feed less? Essentially are the groups looking more at School/GPA or at the name of the judge?

A top school/GPA is a basic requirement for DC appellate law. Beyond that, groups need to break ties, hence using the judge's name as a proxy. The logic goes that (a) anyone serious about DC appellate practice wants to clerk for SCOTUS if remotely possible and (b) anyone serious about (a) knows all the feeder judges meaning (c) everyone is clerking for the feedery-est judge in their political lane (and sometimes outside it) they could get. If you clerked for Judge Wilkins, appellate groups would probably assume you applied to and were rejected from the liberal feeders and semi-feeders absent unusual circumstances. And that would concern them. What do all those judges know that they don't? If this all sounds horribly arrogant and self-absorbed, welcome to DC appellate law!

Just curious for the voyuerism, not personal interest: in this world, do they discount conservative judges who select heavily for ideology because they're less grade-selective? Like even O'Scannlain and Pryor have a good number of clerks who would not be competitive for feeders had they been liberal

I wouldn't lightly assume Pryor or O'Scannlain clerks have worse credentials than their liberal counterparts. Liberals outnumber conservatives in American law schools, but that disparity shrinks considerably when looking only at the top of the school. I say with confidence that in any one year, several T-14 schools will have conservative valedictorians. The rest will have multiple standout conservative students (top 5% or higher). Sprinkle in conservative Rhodes scholars, war heroes, and ivy league Classics PhDs to taste, and you have the pool of applicants that Pryor and O'Scannlain recruit from. Do they give a boost for true believers? Sure - but some liberal feeders do the same. In any event, I have not seen DC appellate firms apply any sort of discounting based on the politics of the feeder.

My anecdotal evidence points to FedSoc students being overrepresented towards the top of the class. However, (1) that doesn't rule out that they still get a bump from certain feeder judges (2) it is hard to tell whether FedSoc is actually overrepresented in reality as there is pretty strong self-selection when it comes to who is willing to share their grades. Also, I am guessing a lot of FedSoc members with great grades run for board positions because it looks good on their resume for feeder judges. This could lead to a (potentially) false impression that they are overrepresented at the top of the class. Again, a lot of extrapolation going on here. I would love to see actual numbers on this if they exist.

[Anonymous User]

Would DC Feeder be any better than Regional Feeder? Or is it so attenuated at this point that it is just too hard to tell?

Look, feeders are clearly ranked by their rolling average feeds over the last 5-10 years. Nobody is going to be more impressed by Pillard than Katzman, Sutton, etc.

Correct. When talking feeders, you should consider: rolling average feeds, and the justices fed to. Location is a nonfactor. You would be wise to favor Friedland over Millett and Kethledge over Rao if your goal is DC appellate practice.

Is this more of a function of DC Appellate groups looking for feeder judges or people with better credentials going to the judges who feed over DC Circuit judges who feed less? Essentially are the groups looking more at School/GPA or at the name of the judge?

A top school/GPA is a basic requirement for DC appellate law. Beyond that, groups need to break ties, hence using the judge's name as a proxy. The logic goes that (a) anyone serious about DC appellate practice wants to clerk for SCOTUS if remotely possible and (b) anyone serious about (a) knows all the feeder judges meaning (c) everyone is clerking for the feedery-est judge in their political lane (and sometimes outside it) they could get. If you clerked for Judge Wilkins, appellate groups would probably assume you applied to and were rejected from the liberal feeders and semi-feeders absent unusual circumstances. And that would concern them. What do all those judges know that they don't? If this all sounds horribly arrogant and self-absorbed, welcome to DC appellate law!

Just curious for the voyuerism, not personal interest: in this world, do they discount conservative judges who select heavily for ideology because they're less grade-selective? Like even O'Scannlain and Pryor have a good number of clerks who would not be competitive for feeders had they been liberal

I wouldn't lightly assume Pryor or O'Scannlain clerks have worse credentials than their liberal counterparts. Liberals outnumber conservatives in American law schools, but that disparity shrinks considerably when looking only at the top of the school. I say with confidence that in any one year, several T-14 schools will have conservative valedictorians. The rest will have multiple standout conservative students (top 5% or higher). Sprinkle in conservative Rhodes scholars, war heroes, and ivy league Classics PhDs to taste, and you have the pool of applicants that Pryor and O'Scannlain recruit from. Do they give a boost for true believers? Sure - but some liberal feeders do the same. In any event, I have not seen DC appellate firms apply any sort of discounting based on the politics of the feeder.

This is detached from (at least the present, post-Trump) reality. Every Fed Soc student on my LR got at least a semi-feeder and an absolute majority got mega-feeders. Some of those students who got mega-feeders weren't in the top 10%. Pretty much every Fed Soc student in my class above median, and certainly every one who got cum laude, got got some sort of COA clerkship (obviously this is at a top school, ymmv, etc.). The standards for liberal feeders are, uh, just a tad bit higher.

[Anonymous User]

Look, feeders are clearly ranked by their rolling average feeds over the last 5-10 years. Nobody is going to be more impressed by Pillard than Katzman, Sutton, etc.

Correct. When talking feeders, you should consider: rolling average feeds, and the justices fed to. Location is a nonfactor. You would be wise to favor Friedland over Millett and Kethledge over Rao if your goal is DC appellate practice.

Is this more of a function of DC Appellate groups looking for feeder judges or people with better credentials going to the judges who feed over DC Circuit judges who feed less? Essentially are the groups looking more at School/GPA or at the name of the judge?

A top school/GPA is a basic requirement for DC appellate law. Beyond that, groups need to break ties, hence using the judge's name as a proxy. The logic goes that (a) anyone serious about DC appellate practice wants to clerk for SCOTUS if remotely possible and (b) anyone serious about (a) knows all the feeder judges meaning (c) everyone is clerking for the feedery-est judge in their political lane (and sometimes outside it) they could get. If you clerked for Judge Wilkins, appellate groups would probably assume you applied to and were rejected from the liberal feeders and semi-feeders absent unusual circumstances. And that would concern them. What do all those judges know that they don't? If this all sounds horribly arrogant and self-absorbed, welcome to DC appellate law!

Just curious for the voyuerism, not personal interest: in this world, do they discount conservative judges who select heavily for ideology because they're less grade-selective? Like even O'Scannlain and Pryor have a good number of clerks who would not be competitive for feeders had they been liberal

I wouldn't lightly assume Pryor or O'Scannlain clerks have worse credentials than their liberal counterparts. Liberals outnumber conservatives in American law schools, but that disparity shrinks considerably when looking only at the top of the school. I say with confidence that in any one year, several T-14 schools will have conservative valedictorians. The rest will have multiple standout conservative students (top 5% or higher). Sprinkle in conservative Rhodes scholars, war heroes, and ivy league Classics PhDs to taste, and you have the pool of applicants that Pryor and O'Scannlain recruit from. Do they give a boost for true believers? Sure - but some liberal feeders do the same. In any event, I have not seen DC appellate firms apply any sort of discounting based on the politics of the feeder.

This is detached from (at least the present, post-Trump) reality. Every Fed Soc student on my LR got at least a semi-feeder and an absolute majority got mega-feeders. Some of those students who got mega-feeders weren't in the top 10%. Pretty much every Fed Soc student in my class above median, and certainly every one who got cum laude, got got some sort of COA clerkship (obviously this is at a top school, ymmv, etc.). The standards for liberal feeders are, uh, just a tad bit higher.

My argument is that if you reviewed the top 5% of the T-14 schools by gpa, you would uncover an approximately-equal blend of liberals and conservatives. (Needless to say, some schools have more liberals (Berkeley, Stanford) and some have more conservatives (Virginia, Chicago)). By the same token, if you were to fill 2 judges' chambers, one with the 4 best liberals and one with the 4 best conservatives, you would not notice a difference in grades or qualifications. Disparities become apparent only when looking at the entire population of FedSoc students. Fewer conservatives in American law schools, and Trump's many appointments, make it easier for conservatives to find clerkships. That does not mean, however, that Millett and Pillard have "higher" "standards" than Wilkinson or Pryor. And indeed, they do not.