Top Law Schools

Title says it all. Just curious on what the odds are when you get an interview off plan. Thanks!

Interview/offer ratios obviously depend heavily on the judge. In general I'm fairly sure it's higher (more interviews per offer), and I'm certain offers are significantly slower, than for on-plan judges because of the lack of time pressure from a feeding frenzy.

I applied off plan within the last few cycles. 4 interviews, one offer. One thing I noticed was that some of the judges only had one spot left (which other than there being obviously fewer positions to get, hurt me I think because I didn’t have any particular connections to the judge. I got the impression that with one spot left off plan the judges leaned more on calls and connections but idk).

I applied over the past few cycles, and I went 3 for 3. Not sure what this is really worth, considering it is such a small sample size. I also consider myself a pretty good interviewer.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:14 pm

I applied over the past few cycles, and I went 3 for 3. Not sure what this is really worth, considering it is such a small sample size. I also consider myself a pretty good interviewer.

OP here. Kind of a broad question, but what do you think makes you a good interviewer?

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:28 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:14 pm

I applied over the past few cycles, and I went 3 for 3. Not sure what this is really worth, considering it is such a small sample size. I also consider myself a pretty good interviewer.

OP here. Kind of a broad question, but what do you think makes you a good interviewer?

Obviously, you want a great handle on constitutional and statutory interpretation. Aside from that, I think it is important to control your tempo. A lot of people talk too fast and end up sounding frantic or hurried. I also think it is a good idea to collect yourself for a few seconds before answering questions. If you can outline your answer really quickly in your head, it makes a world of difference when answering (I keep a drink next to me so I can take a sip when I need more time to think). No one will judge you for taking a second before answering, they are asking you hard questions.

One other piece of advice I have is to tell the truth. Judges and clerks are pretty damn good at spotting BS, so give the answer you think is right, not the answer you think they want to hear (I got burned on this one time). Similarily, if the clerks or judge ask you a question and then push you on it, don't fold. No one likes someone who can't stand up for their ideas. If you realize you straight up said the wrong thing, don't be afraid to retract, but if you still think you are right, hold you ground.

I realize that this doesn't exactly answer what makes me personally a good interviewer, but these are the things I think about preparing for an interview. I also recommend doing practice interviews. Since you are applying off-plan, I assume you are FedSoc. Talk to people in your chapter, and I am sure they will be willing to help you practice.

Adding on to the "it depends on the judge," it depends a lot on how the off-plan judge does their hiring. I interviewed with three off-plan judges (two offers), and two of them (which happened to be the ones that gave offers) made it seem as though they were going through a rather lengthy hiring process with no fixed schedule. This means that they invited to interview people over a few rounds--they would hire people they liked from the first round, then if they had spots left over they would hire people in the second round, etc. Because they don't have a set time and there's less competition to grab students from other judges, they can move at this pace. I think you're more likely to get an offer in these kinds of interviews because you are directly competing with fewer people--if anyone at all. The judge just has to like you enough to hire you, not like you so much that they refuse to hire someone else who they went through the process of interviewing.

Other judges will try to do all of their hiring within a short period of time. With these judges, you're in more direct competition with other applicants, and it's also harder to stand out because the judge is interviewing more people within a shorter period of time.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:30 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:28 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:14 pm

I applied over the past few cycles, and I went 3 for 3. Not sure what this is really worth, considering it is such a small sample size. I also consider myself a pretty good interviewer.

OP here. Kind of a broad question, but what do you think makes you a good interviewer?

Obviously, you want a great handle on constitutional and statutory interpretation. Aside from that, I think it is important to control your tempo. A lot of people talk too fast and end up sounding frantic or hurried. I also think it is a good idea to collect yourself for a few seconds before answering questions. If you can outline your answer really quickly in your head, it makes a world of difference when answering (I keep a drink next to me so I can take a sip when I need more time to think). No one will judge you for taking a second before answering, they are asking you hard questions.

One other piece of advice I have is to tell the truth. Judges and clerks are pretty damn good at spotting BS, so give the answer you think is right, not the answer you think they want to hear (I got burned on this one time). Similarily, if the clerks or judge ask you a question and then push you on it, don't fold. No one likes someone who can't stand up for their ideas. If you realize you straight up said the wrong thing, don't be afraid to retract, but if you still think you are right, hold you ground.

I realize that this doesn't exactly answer what makes me personally a good interviewer, but these are the things I think about preparing for an interview. I also recommend doing practice interviews. Since you are applying off-plan, I assume you are FedSoc. Talk to people in your chapter, and I am sure they will be willing to help you practice.

It's increasingly common for liberals to apply off-plan to conservatives as well. Interviewing as a liberal for a job with a conservative can be tricky and is more of an art than a science. I got four good offers interviewing as a counterclerk so I'm clearly not a completely shitty interviewer but I still had a couple of disasters.

Different judges have very different ideas on what they want from a counterclerk; some want someone jurisprudentially but not politically compatible (e.g. McConnell would always hire a liberal originalist), some don't care at all (e.g. I've heard that about Ikuta), some get pretty hostile to any sign of any sort of liberalism (you'd think you'd get screened out pre-interview, but I got one who didn't). If you can find out which your judge falls into in advance by talking to former clerks that will help a lot.

In general I'd recommend being up front and unapologetic about your beliefs, both political and jurisprudential. Usually when I got questions about personal politics I was blunt and simply said "I vote for Democrats." By the interview stage they should know that already. When you try to sugarcoat it you can be sent into a tailspin of issue-by-issue followups. Many Fed Soc judges will have clerks grill you on hypos or jurisprudential beliefs; know what you think, how to respond to common objections, how to distinguish what new hypo variations should or shouldn't change your answer based on your stated beliefs, etc. Don't back down or be wishy-washy, have a debate with back-and-forth between your position and the positions the clerks are trying to corner you into.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:23 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:30 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:28 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:14 pm

I applied over the past few cycles, and I went 3 for 3. Not sure what this is really worth, considering it is such a small sample size. I also consider myself a pretty good interviewer.

OP here. Kind of a broad question, but what do you think makes you a good interviewer?

Obviously, you want a great handle on constitutional and statutory interpretation. Aside from that, I think it is important to control your tempo. A lot of people talk too fast and end up sounding frantic or hurried. I also think it is a good idea to collect yourself for a few seconds before answering questions. If you can outline your answer really quickly in your head, it makes a world of difference when answering (I keep a drink next to me so I can take a sip when I need more time to think). No one will judge you for taking a second before answering, they are asking you hard questions.

One other piece of advice I have is to tell the truth. Judges and clerks are pretty damn good at spotting BS, so give the answer you think is right, not the answer you think they want to hear (I got burned on this one time). Similarily, if the clerks or judge ask you a question and then push you on it, don't fold. No one likes someone who can't stand up for their ideas. If you realize you straight up said the wrong thing, don't be afraid to retract, but if you still think you are right, hold you ground.

I realize that this doesn't exactly answer what makes me personally a good interviewer, but these are the things I think about preparing for an interview. I also recommend doing practice interviews. Since you are applying off-plan, I assume you are FedSoc. Talk to people in your chapter, and I am sure they will be willing to help you practice.

It's increasingly common for liberals to apply off-plan to conservatives as well. Interviewing as a liberal for a job with a conservative can be tricky and is more of an art than a science. I got four good offers interviewing as a counterclerk so I'm clearly not a completely shitty interviewer but I still had a couple of disasters.

Different judges have very different ideas on what they want from a counterclerk; some want someone jurisprudentially but not politically compatible (e.g. McConnell would always hire a liberal originalist), some don't care at all (e.g. I've heard that about Ikuta), some get pretty hostile to any sign of any sort of liberalism (you'd think you'd get screened out pre-interview, but I got one who didn't). If you can find out which your judge falls into in advance by talking to former clerks that will help a lot.

In general I'd recommend being up front and unapologetic about your beliefs, both political and jurisprudential. Usually when I got questions about personal politics I was blunt and simply said "I vote for Democrats." By the interview stage they should know that already. When you try to sugarcoat it you can be sent into a tailspin of issue-by-issue followups. Many Fed Soc judges will have clerks grill you on hypos or jurisprudential beliefs; know what you think, how to respond to common objections, how to distinguish what new hypo variations should or shouldn't change your answer based on your stated beliefs, etc. Don't back down or be wishy-washy, have a debate with back-and-forth between your position and the positions the clerks are trying to corner you into.

Thanks for your input. Yes, I'm conservative. Yes, this is a Fed Soc judge. But how often do these kinds of questions get asked? I feel like I have been seeing two different things (both elsewhere). 50% say it's just about getting a feel for someone, and 50% make it seem like there will be extremely substantive questions.

Depends on the judge. If you look around on here, or even better if your clerkship office keeps track, you can find descriptions of judges' interview styles. For some it's just a casual conversation. For some it can be pretty brutal, like 3-4+ hours of substantive questions, including e.g. giving statutory interpretation problem sets with poorly drafted statutes, asking unresolved questions in constitutional law, etc.

Judges will probably want to both get a feel for you and test your mettle. After 45 minutes of casual chatter, I once had a judge say "we better get going then." I thought they meant the interview was over. Instead, they meant it was time for constitutional hypos lol. I would ask the 3Ls in your chapter and your clerkship office about the interview style of this judge. Between the two, they should have an answer.

One of the things that most helped me for my interviews was speaking to people from my school who had clerked for the judge previously; they gave me some good advice on how substantive the interviews with the judge and the clerks would be.

Generally, most judges won't ask you pop quiz type questions ("Do you think that case x was wrongly decided?") but will instead ask more general questions (you'll likely be asked "What is a case that you think was wrongly decided" instead). If you're given a statutory interpretation hypo, you won't need background knowledge on the subject and the judge probably isn't looking for a "right" answer, they just want to see how your brain works.

However, if you bring up a subject, expect to be asked about it in-depth. I brought up Slaughter-House in an interview and walked myself into some thorny incorporation questions I wasn't ready for.

My strategy going into interviews was to have a recent case I disagreed with and could explain why, a recent case I agreed with and could explain why, and an older case I disagreed with. I'd also look at the judge's writings, see if there was something they were passionate about, and prepare a couple of questions about that field. (I.e. "I read your article about X. How do you approach cases involving X?").

The advice here is totally judge-dependent; you should honestly just say who the judge is so you can get tailored advice.

Park (2nd Circuit) hired a clerk after a 30-minute, casual behavioral interview. Smith (5th Circuit) has a 4-hour marathon of hypos and other substantive questions. The latter also casts a wider net with interviews than most judges, affecting offer ratio.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 01, 2021 2:03 pm

The advice here is totally judge-dependent; you should honestly just say who the judge is so you can get tailored advice.

Park (2nd Circuit) hired a clerk after a 30-minute, casual behavioral interview. Smith (5th Circuit) has a 4-hour marathon of hypos and other substantive questions. The latter also casts a wider net with interviews than most judges, affecting offer ratio.

Park used that process for his first class or two before he had clerks, but he now has a more typical (though still pretty casual, as he is in all things) process involving a fit talk with him and substantive interview with his clerks.