Movement Forum

[Anonymous User]

Any movement from DNJ?

[Anonymous User]

Any movement from CLS?

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know if Woods in SDNY has extended offers?

[Anonymous User]

do NOT clerk for Woods if you can find any other judge for whom to clerk.

[Anonymous User]

do NOT clerk for Woods if you can find any other judge for whom to clerk.

Can you elaborate?

[Anonymous User]

do NOT clerk for Woods if you can find any other judge for whom to clerk.

Can you elaborate?

I heard the same. verbally abusive has been thrown around

[Anonymous User]

do NOT clerk for Woods if you can find any other judge for whom to clerk.

Can you elaborate?

I heard the same. verbally abusive has been thrown around

I can provide a third confirmation. I’ve heard horror stories from those who’ve clerked for him. It’s funny; judges have such an incentive to not be jerks because they’ll have trouble attracting good clerks, but they do it anyways.

[nixy]

I can provide a third confirmation. I’ve heard horror stories from those who’ve clerked for him. It’s funny; judges have such an incentive to not be jerks because they’ll have trouble attracting good clerks, but they do it anyways.

I'm absolutely not justifying judges abusing their clerks because that should never happen, but I don't think there's any incentive for them not to. There are so many qualified applicants, and so many people who'd put up with a whole lot of shit to clerk on SDNY, I kinda doubt even shitty judges are hurting for options.

[Anonymous User]

I'm not sure that's true. There is a social cost - other judges know how you treat your clerks. (Though the person who treats their clerks like that might not care.) Similarly, while it's definitely true in the abstract that there are far more qualified applicants than seats, many judges are enormously picky and it will bug them if they have to take "unremarkable" clerks, especially if they feel that other judges they regularly interact with have "better" ones.

There's also a social cost to your time in chambers - do you want your clerks to dislike you, etc? (But, again, a person who treats their clerks like that might not care.)

[nixy]

I'm not sure that's true. There is a social cost - other judges know how you treat your clerks. (Though the person who treats their clerks like that might not care.) Similarly, while it's definitely true in the abstract that there are far more qualified applicants than seats, many judges are enormously picky and it will bug them if they have to take "unremarkable" clerks, especially if they feel that other judges they regularly interact with have "better" ones.

There's also a social cost to your time in chambers - do you want your clerks to dislike you, etc? (But, again, a person who treats their clerks like that might not care.)

I mean, it would be great if you’re right, but I doubt anyone sets out to abuse their clerks; they think they’re behaving appropriately. They’re upholding high standards. Or their clerks all just turn out to be so stupid, they have to be treated this way. Or this is just what the job requires. Or they went through this in their clerkship so that must be what a clerkship is like. There are a million justifications so there’s no reason to think they care what other judges or the clerks think. (I’m also not certain other judges actually know everything about what goes on in other chambers. Hours, sure; nature of the interactions, maybe not.)

And I haven’t seen any widespread phenomenon of candidates avoiding judges with bad reputations. Maybe there are enough candidates with access to accurate information about bad judges, and who feel confident they can get a different clerkship so are willing to give a bad judge a pass, that bad judges are suffering for the top candidates, but is there any evidence that this is the case? And that bad judges have any idea of the cause and effect going on? It seems like wishful thinking to me.

Like I said, it would be great if that were true, but I really don’t think judges who abuse their clerks perceive any social costs to it. Even if applicants are avoiding them and they recognize that phenomenon is happening, if they consider their treatment of clerks justified (which they do or they wouldn’t engage in it), they’ll blame the applicants for being bad/not wanting to apply, not their own behavior.

I just think federal judges are an employment phenomenon unto themselves and that it’s important that applicants realize that. It’s not weird at all that some judges are abusive in a system where they operate with almost complete autonomy in a lifetime appointment job, the situation in chambers is largely invisible to outsiders, and clerks have a lot of incentives not to complain about it. (I recognize there have been attempts to put more oversight in place post-Kozinski, but I’m not sure they really address the roots of the problem. Hell, Kozinski’s behavior was widely known but I don’t think he had any problems finding good clerks.)

Also I’ll stop arguing about this now since it’s not really about movement, sorry to hijack.

[Anonymous User]

I'm not sure that's true. There is a social cost - other judges know how you treat your clerks. (Though the person who treats their clerks like that might not care.) Similarly, while it's definitely true in the abstract that there are far more qualified applicants than seats, many judges are enormously picky and it will bug them if they have to take "unremarkable" clerks, especially if they feel that other judges they regularly interact with have "better" ones.

There's also a social cost to your time in chambers - do you want your clerks to dislike you, etc? (But, again, a person who treats their clerks like that might not care.)

I mean, it would be great if you’re right, but I doubt anyone sets out to abuse their clerks; they think they’re behaving appropriately. They’re upholding high standards. Or their clerks all just turn out to be so stupid, they have to be treated this way. Or this is just what the job requires. Or they went through this in their clerkship so that must be what a clerkship is like. There are a million justifications so there’s no reason to think they care what other judges or the clerks think. (I’m also not certain other judges actually know everything about what goes on in other chambers. Hours, sure; nature of the interactions, maybe not.)

And I haven’t seen any widespread phenomenon of candidates avoiding judges with bad reputations. Maybe there are enough candidates with access to accurate information about bad judges, and who feel confident they can get a different clerkship so are willing to give a bad judge a pass, that bad judges are suffering for the top candidates, but is there any evidence that this is the case? And that bad judges have any idea of the cause and effect going on? It seems like wishful thinking to me.

Like I said, it would be great if that were true, but I really don’t think judges who abuse their clerks perceive any social costs to it. Even if applicants are avoiding them and they recognize that phenomenon is happening, if they consider their treatment of clerks justified (which they do or they wouldn’t engage in it), they’ll blame the applicants for being bad/not wanting to apply, not their own behavior.

I just think federal judges are an employment phenomenon unto themselves and that it’s important that applicants realize that. It’s not weird at all that some judges are abusive in a system where they operate with almost complete autonomy in a lifetime appointment job, the situation in chambers is largely invisible to outsiders, and clerks have a lot of incentives not to complain about it. (I recognize there have been attempts to put more oversight in place post-Kozinski, but I’m not sure they really address the roots of the problem. Hell, Kozinski’s behavior was widely known but I don’t think he had any problems finding good clerks.)

Also I’ll stop arguing about this now since it’s not really about movement, sorry to hijack.

Anon you quoted. Will say this and then leave it be!
Two different questions: how widely information is shared and how people react to it.

1.) When I was applying, I asked friends who had clerked on for stories from their district/circuit and had no trouble hearing about who to avoid. (Not many, but >0.) It definitely isn't really posted anywhere, and people really don't like talking poorly about their judge. If you don't have friends who clerked in the area, though, you'll have no idea.

2.) Anecdata, but yes. The judges who care about getting the "best" clerks really care about it and are quite picky. (This means HYS, mostly Y, and maybe CCN top candidates.) There are not many candidates who seem "acceptable" to those judges, and those candidates 1.) are going to be well-advised and 2.) have a lot of options. I wouldn't say that the bad judges who I am aware of have trouble getting extremely-qualified candidates, but they do have trouble getting the candidates they want. (If you're a feeder, they may come anyways -- e.g. Kozinski -- but if you aren't, good luck.)

[Anonymous User]

Will there be movement this week, given that a few schools have OCI?

[Anonymous User]

Did anyone who applied to Judge Kimba Wood in June get that email this week about updating your application?

[Anonymous User]

Did anyone who applied to Judge Kimba Wood in June get that email this week about updating your application?

I applied back in June and did not get that email.

[Anonymous User]

Did anyone who applied to Judge Kimba Wood in June get that email this week about updating your application?

I applied back in June and did not get that email.

I'm really surprised she's not finished hiring; I thought she moved earlier.

[Anonymous User]

Any movement from Judge Wetherell? Saw his posting on OSCAR.

[Anonymous User]

Did anyone who applied to Judge Kimba Wood in June get that email this week about updating your application?

I applied back in June and did not get that email.

I'm really surprised she's not finished hiring; I thought she moved earlier.

Offer(s) went out today.

[Anonymous User]

Did anyone who applied to Judge Kimba Wood in June get that email this week about updating your application?

I applied back in June and did not get that email.

I'm really surprised she's not finished hiring; I thought she moved earlier.

Offer(s) went out today.

I can say with confidence that this is not true.
(edited)

[Anonymous User]

Did anyone who applied to Judge Kimba Wood in June get that email this week about updating your application?

I applied back in June and did not get that email.

I'm really surprised she's not finished hiring; I thought she moved earlier.

Offer(s) went out today.

I can say with confidence that this is not true.
(edited)

Any chance you have a sense of when offers might go out?

[Anonymous User]

Bumping this thread as we are 1 hour away from the floodgates opening

[Anonymous User]

Have heard that there is definitely movement from some of the more feeder Circuit judges already. Most on-plan judges seem to have held until noon today though.

[Anonymous User]

(Posting here because not sure 23/24/25):

Judges from Second Circuit and its districts who have at least offered interviews:

Calabresi
Kearse
Lohier

Abrams
Furman
Torres

Amon
DeArcy Hall
Kovner

Meyer

[Anonymous User]

Adding Park

[Anonymous User]

Adding Oetken

[Anonymous User]

Adding Cronan