2024-2025 Clerkship Application Thread Forum

[Anonymous User]

I’m not an HLS student, but a similar dynamic has happened at Chicago, where the EIC applicant pool is now fairly small to the degree that it’s no longer a “best in show,” if it ever was. Once the luster has gone a bit, you’re left with a really difficult job that you may not even get a tangible career benefit from. For better or for worse there also don’t seem to be white men who get chosen as EICs anymore.

I'm not sure EIC was ever "best in show." At at least my HYS, the most selective positions were lead articles editor and lead notes editor.

[Anonymous User]

well she just hired the EIC of the HLR so there is that

Though they’re from LA, and may not have landed Watford, making Thomas their best hometown option, and the HLR EIC does not necessarily need a conventional feeder.

Without making this a contentious topic or speaking to the EIC currently, is the Harvard EIC usually considered "best in show" position on the review, or is it a bit more of a political/electoral process? Might make a difference/I sincerely don't know how it works.

No. In recent years, EICs have not done extraordinarily well (in comparison to other people competitive for top-level COA clerkships). MEs and others on E-board have done better, although HLR's overall performance has declined markedly as more people near the top are self-selecting out of Law Review and it appears to offer less of a benefit in hiring processes. In recent years, the EIC has generally been someone who is (1) incredibly progressive, (2) well-liked by their peers, with (3) okay, but not fantastic grades, because those with better grades want to prioritize maintaining those and don't want the time-suck (sort of true about HLR generally these days).

This.

I’m sorry, but this is completely wrong. The President of HLR doesn’t need to go to a conventional feeders because they’re pretty much guaranteed a SCOTUS clerkship anyways. They can instead choose purely on fit, geography, etc. Look at Lat’s clerkship hiring reports — every HLR President for like the past 15 years has gone on to become a SCOTUS clerk.

And that they don’t necessarily have stellar grades? Anon because I just graduated from HLS and was on HLR, but the outgoing President was the Sears Prize winner our 1L year.

Getting elected HLR President is definitely a political process, but then again at this level so is being selected as a SCOTUS clerk.

[Anonymous User]

I’m not an HLS student, but a similar dynamic has happened at Chicago, where the EIC applicant pool is now fairly small to the degree that it’s no longer a “best in show,” if it ever was. Once the luster has gone a bit, you’re left with a really difficult job that you may not even get a tangible career benefit from. For better or for worse there also don’t seem to be white men who get chosen as EICs anymore.

No idea who this OP is—I'm actually a UChicago person—but the last two EICs of the University of Chicago Law Review are clerking for Barron/Moss and Cabranes, respectively. And this year's EIC did pretty well for herself in the clerkship search, too...

[Anonymous User]

well she just hired the EIC of the HLR so there is that

Though they’re from LA, and may not have landed Watford, making Thomas their best hometown option, and the HLR EIC does not necessarily need a conventional feeder.

Without making this a contentious topic or speaking to the EIC currently, is the Harvard EIC usually considered "best in show" position on the review, or is it a bit more of a political/electoral process? Might make a difference/I sincerely don't know how it works.

No. In recent years, EICs have not done extraordinarily well (in comparison to other people competitive for top-level COA clerkships). MEs and others on E-board have done better, although HLR's overall performance has declined markedly as more people near the top are self-selecting out of Law Review and it appears to offer less of a benefit in hiring processes. In recent years, the EIC has generally been someone who is (1) incredibly progressive, (2) well-liked by their peers, with (3) okay, but not fantastic grades, because those with better grades want to prioritize maintaining those and don't want the time-suck (sort of true about HLR generally these days).

This.

I’m sorry, but this is completely wrong. The President of HLR doesn’t need to go to a conventional feeders because they’re pretty much guaranteed a SCOTUS clerkship anyways. They can instead choose purely on fit, geography, etc. Look at Lat’s clerkship hiring reports — every HLR President for like the past 15 years has gone on to become a SCOTUS clerk.

And that they don’t necessarily have stellar grades? Anon because I just graduated from HLS and was on HLR, but the outgoing President was the Sears Prize winner our 1L year.

Getting elected HLR President is definitely a political process, but then again at this level so is being selected as a SCOTUS clerk.

Have any of the last 4 Presidents gone to SCOTUS?

[Anonymous User]

well she just hired the EIC of the HLR so there is that

Though they’re from LA, and may not have landed Watford, making Thomas their best hometown option, and the HLR EIC does not necessarily need a conventional feeder.

Without making this a contentious topic or speaking to the EIC currently, is the Harvard EIC usually considered "best in show" position on the review, or is it a bit more of a political/electoral process? Might make a difference/I sincerely don't know how it works.

No. In recent years, EICs have not done extraordinarily well (in comparison to other people competitive for top-level COA clerkships). MEs and others on E-board have done better, although HLR's overall performance has declined markedly as more people near the top are self-selecting out of Law Review and it appears to offer less of a benefit in hiring processes. In recent years, the EIC has generally been someone who is (1) incredibly progressive, (2) well-liked by their peers, with (3) okay, but not fantastic grades, because those with better grades want to prioritize maintaining those and don't want the time-suck (sort of true about HLR generally these days).

This.

I’m sorry, but this is completely wrong. The President of HLR doesn’t need to go to a conventional feeders because they’re pretty much guaranteed a SCOTUS clerkship anyways. They can instead choose purely on fit, geography, etc. Look at Lat’s clerkship hiring reports — every HLR President for like the past 15 years has gone on to become a SCOTUS clerk.

And that they don’t necessarily have stellar grades? Anon because I just graduated from HLS and was on HLR, but the outgoing President was the Sears Prize winner our 1L year.

Getting elected HLR President is definitely a political process, but then again at this level so is being selected as a SCOTUS clerk.

Have any of the last 4 Presidents gone to SCOTUS?

I think one has? Either way, the suggestion that the President of HLR is "pretty much guaranteed a SCOTUS clerkship" is completely false, as anyone familiar with SCOTUS hiring can tell you. Grades, feeder judges, and professor recommendations are all significantly more important.

[Anonymous User]

Though they’re from LA, and may not have landed Watford, making Thomas their best hometown option, and the HLR EIC does not necessarily need a conventional feeder.

Without making this a contentious topic or speaking to the EIC currently, is the Harvard EIC usually considered "best in show" position on the review, or is it a bit more of a political/electoral process? Might make a difference/I sincerely don't know how it works.

No. In recent years, EICs have not done extraordinarily well (in comparison to other people competitive for top-level COA clerkships). MEs and others on E-board have done better, although HLR's overall performance has declined markedly as more people near the top are self-selecting out of Law Review and it appears to offer less of a benefit in hiring processes. In recent years, the EIC has generally been someone who is (1) incredibly progressive, (2) well-liked by their peers, with (3) okay, but not fantastic grades, because those with better grades want to prioritize maintaining those and don't want the time-suck (sort of true about HLR generally these days).

This.

I’m sorry, but this is completely wrong. The President of HLR doesn’t need to go to a conventional feeders because they’re pretty much guaranteed a SCOTUS clerkship anyways. They can instead choose purely on fit, geography, etc. Look at Lat’s clerkship hiring reports — every HLR President for like the past 15 years has gone on to become a SCOTUS clerk.

And that they don’t necessarily have stellar grades? Anon because I just graduated from HLS and was on HLR, but the outgoing President was the Sears Prize winner our 1L year.

Getting elected HLR President is definitely a political process, but then again at this level so is being selected as a SCOTUS clerk.

Have any of the last 4 Presidents gone to SCOTUS?

I think one has? Either way, the suggestion that the President of HLR is "pretty much guaranteed a SCOTUS clerkship" is completely false, as anyone familiar with SCOTUS hiring can tell you. Grades, feeder judges, and professor recommendations are all significantly more important.

Yep. This is a laughable statement and the poster claiming that HLR Prez is "guaranteed a SCOTUS clerkship" is either a fake or engaging in some serious cope about the self-importance of HLR. In recent years, well less than half of the presidents have gotten to SCOTUS. In the past five or so years--the period in which HLR has really fallen off a cliff--I can only recall one as well (I might be wrong, but I know at least three who applied and did not get traction). Law Review as an independent credential plummets in value more in value each year.

[Anonymous User]

LR has declined a lot in importance for Fed Soc types, who think (somewhat correctly IME) that the top of the board is all political and (wrongly IME) that membership is heavily based on affirmative action, but I don’t get the sense that it has with others. Caveat that I’m not a SCOTUS clerk and I have no idea what Kagan or Sotomayor think about HLR.

[yellow duck]

Okay, so.... Judge Holly Thomas is competitive, but not necessarily very grade sensitive?

There is no evidence to suggest that Judge Thomas is not grade sensitive.

HLR membership is a gold star many judges love for their clerks to have. HLR President all the more so.

[Anonymous User]

Okay, so.... Judge Holly Thomas is competitive, but not necessarily very grade sensitive?

There is no evidence to suggest that Judge Thomas is not grade sensitive.

HLR membership is a gold star many judges love for their clerks to have. HLR President all the more so.

Yeah, that’s why I was asking. I assumed she was, but then we got into the weeds about whether HLR president indicates amazing grades or not. Obviously, her clerks will be credentialed, but I’m just curious as to what sort of grades they have.

[mishpt1]

Many judges still care about LR. Considering the way that membership on LR is now selected in virtually all top law schools, it's a mystery why. My bet is that older judges that care think that membership on LR is determined in the same way it was when they went to school. It would do a lot of good if they were educated about the sea change. Also consider how much harder it is to make LR at Harvard than at smaller schools. The smaller schools generally have the same size membership as Harvard, but the pool of candidates is much larger at Harvard. At some schools, close to 20% of the total class makes LR; at Harvard it's less than 10%.

[Anonymous User]

Okay, so.... Judge Holly Thomas is competitive, but not necessarily very grade sensitive?

There is no evidence to suggest that Judge Thomas is not grade sensitive.

HLR membership is a gold star many judges love for their clerks to have. HLR President all the more so.

Yeah, that’s why I was asking. I assumed she was, but then we got into the weeds about whether HLR president indicates amazing grades or not. Obviously, her clerks will be credentialed, but I’m just curious as to what sort of grades they have.

One data point at Y—friend with 4 Ps (not amazing) got an offer from her on the first day. He had heavyweight recommenders, though.

[Anonymous User]

Moving things a little back on topic, does anyone have thoughts on which appellate judges might be hiring off-cycle next year for 2024-25? Picked up a DCt for 2025-26 during the plan and I’m hoping to backfill with a second clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

Moving things a little back on topic, does anyone have thoughts on which appellate judges might be hiring off-cycle next year for 2024-25? Picked up a DCt for 2025-26 during the plan and I’m hoping to backfill with a second clerkship.

Out of curiosity what d court is hiring that far out? Ddc?

[Anonymous User]

Moving things a little back on topic, does anyone have thoughts on which appellate judges might be hiring off-cycle next year for 2024-25? Picked up a DCt for 2025-26 during the plan and I’m hoping to backfill with a second clerkship.

Out of curiosity what d court is hiring that far out? Ddc?

[Anonymous User]

SDNY/EDNY are

[Anonymous User]

Interview with judge last friday morning and felt really good about it --> at what point am i probably out of running if no timeline given? Should I keep hopes up even if week goes by?

[Anonymous User]

Interview with judge last friday morning and felt really good about it --> at what point am i probably out of running if no timeline given? Should I keep hopes up even if week goes by?

I wouldn’t think you’re out of the running until you get a rejection email. Now that the craziness of the plan week is done, judges have a little bit more time to make decisions because things aren’t moving as fast. Worst case, they’re holding your application as an alternate because they’ve given an offer to someone else.

[Anonymous User]

I'm in a similar position except I did not feel good about it, so you're not alone. On a similar note, any anecdotes of people thinking they did poorly in their clerkship interview but still got the job? Could use some false confidence.

[Anonymous User]

I'm in a similar position except I did not feel good about it, so you're not alone. On a similar note, any anecdotes of people thinking they did poorly in their clerkship interview but still got the job? Could use some false confidence.

Applied off plan, flew out, got called out by a clerk for an arguable error in my writing sample, said at least two stupid things to the judge, felt basically depressed the whole trip home, and got the call the next morning. You just never know!

[Anonymous User]

Look, if you got an interview with a competitive judge, then future opportunities will arise for you even if you don't get the gig with this judge. You got the interview because the judge knows you're capable of clerking for him—the interview itself is to gauge whether you are a good fit with chambers and are more capable than the other candidates.

And as for the interview itself, you are competing with other incredible, well-credentialed candidates. Unless your judge does a lot of vetting before even giving the interview or is a liberal who cares more about fit than anything, the interview itself HAS to be difficult to properly eliminate the weaker candidates. So if you struggled, you should find comfort in the fact that others probably struggled too.

[demonlord340]

Any news on Judge Collins from the Ninth Circuit?

[Anonymous User]

Any news on Judge Collins from the Ninth Circuit?

Hired one so far that I know of for 24-25. Hastings student

[Anonymous User]

Any news on Judge Collins from the Ninth Circuit?

Hired one so far that I know of for 24-25. Hastings student

[Anonymous User]

Any news on Marcus 11th Circuit?

[Anonymous User]

Any news on Judge Collins from the Ninth Circuit?

Hired one so far that I know of for 24-25. Hastings student

Also hired a C/C/N student for 24

Do you know what day he sent out either of these offers?