Appellate WFH Forum

[Anonymous User]

You seem to have a kind of warped perspective of how work and caretaking actually function. For a lot of people, taking care of kids/parents/pets doesn't take up all of the time they have at home. The thing being taken care of needs to have someone around in case they need something, but kids, elderly, and pets can be pretty chill throughout the day (not all of them, of course). A parent working from home can make sure their kids are fed and not doing anything crazy without having to take up too much time from their day.

At the same time, working from home does not take up all of the time that someone has at home. Sure, you're spending most of your day focused on work, but you're not locked in an airtight room the whole day. You are accessible to your family and can hear if there's a commotion. If there's a lot of distractions on a given day, you may be a little less productive. But plenty of people are willing to put in extra hours at other times of the day to catch up.

The sort of inescapable work meetings you are talking about are pretty rare for a lot of attorneys. They're also usually scheduled far in advance, making it easy for caretakers to find someone to watch their family while the meeting is going on.

Of course, working from home while caretaking is not ideal, but it's an option that works for a lot of people. And, believe it or not, a lot of people can't afford a full-time caretaker.

Yeah, I completely get that hiring a full time caretaker is prohibitive for many. And if people make it work, then good for them. Your point about people making up for distractions etc at other times of day makes sense (seems miserable, but I understand why people do it).

My concern is with the bolded bits above. Again, the pandemic showed that WFH and having kids at home don’t mix well for the huge numbers of people for whom child care requires actual care. And the second bolded passage very much depends, but there are plenty of legal jobs where those kinds of commitments are common and not necessarily scheduled far in advance.

(The above is also kind of backing away from the idea that WFH is compatible with needing to be present for some particularly kind of needy or vulnerable party, which is what I was responding to. Making sure your healthy independent kids are fed periodically is different from caring for a kid with a seizure disorder, for instance.)

Anyway, like I said, it doesn’t matter because I’m not hiring anyone. I think a lot of legal employers would be skeptical about/unhappy with someone WFH with kids at home without childcare - again, depending on the nature of the job - which is why I was struck by the statement that someone would only go into the office 2-3x/wk for family reasons. But of course it’s the poster’s prerogative to organize their work life in the way that works for them/their family and more power to them.

[namefromplace]

You seem to have a kind of warped perspective of how work and caretaking actually function. For a lot of people, taking care of kids/parents/pets doesn't take up all of the time they have at home. The thing being taken care of needs to have someone around in case they need something, but kids, elderly, and pets can be pretty chill throughout the day (not all of them, of course). A parent working from home can make sure their kids are fed and not doing anything crazy without having to take up too much time from their day.

At the same time, working from home does not take up all of the time that someone has at home. Sure, you're spending most of your day focused on work, but you're not locked in an airtight room the whole day. You are accessible to your family and can hear if there's a commotion. If there's a lot of distractions on a given day, you may be a little less productive. But plenty of people are willing to put in extra hours at other times of the day to catch up.

The sort of inescapable work meetings you are talking about are pretty rare for a lot of attorneys. They're also usually scheduled far in advance, making it easy for caretakers to find someone to watch their family while the meeting is going on.

Of course, working from home while caretaking is not ideal, but it's an option that works for a lot of people. And, believe it or not, a lot of people can't afford a full-time caretaker.

Yeah, I completely get that hiring a full time caretaker is prohibitive for many. And if people make it work, then good for them. Your point about people making up for distractions etc at other times of day makes sense (seems miserable, but I understand why people do it).

My concern is with the bolded bits above. Again, the pandemic showed that WFH and having kids at home don’t mix well for the huge numbers of people for whom child care requires actual care. And the second bolded passage very much depends, but there are plenty of legal jobs where those kinds of commitments are common and not necessarily scheduled far in advance.

(The above is also kind of backing away from the idea that WFH is compatible with needing to be present for some particularly kind of needy or vulnerable party, which is what I was responding to. Making sure your healthy independent kids are fed periodically is different from caring for a kid with a seizure disorder, for instance.)

Anyway, like I said, it doesn’t matter because I’m not hiring anyone. I think a lot of legal employers would be skeptical about/unhappy with someone WFH with kids at home without childcare - again, depending on the nature of the job - which is why I was struck by the statement that someone would only go into the office 2-3x/wk for family reasons. But of course it’s the poster’s prerogative to organize their work life in the way that works for them/their family and more power to them.

We're talking about two different things. I'm saying that loads of legal jobs are conducive to someone working from home while caretaking, and that loads of caretaking situations (including, yes, looking after someone who may have a seizure) do not require a full day of active attention. You're saying that that kind of setup doesn't work for all legal jobs and that some employers wouldn't be happy with it. Everyone knows this. The original poster is obviously looking for a job that is not in that group.

[Anonymous User]

What would be the best way to learn if chambers offer a remote option? Put in your cover letter that you are hoping for remote or hybrid (e.g., state you are hoping to be remote/ come in three days per week/ two weeks per month)? Reach out to chambers before applying?

[Anonymous User]

What would be the best way to learn if chambers offer a remote option? Put in your cover letter that you are hoping for remote or hybrid (e.g., state you are hoping to be remote/ come in three days per week/ two weeks per month)? Reach out to chambers before applying?

Speaking with former clerks is probably the best option.

[Anonymous User]

What would be the best way to learn if chambers offer a remote option? Put in your cover letter that you are hoping for remote or hybrid (e.g., state you are hoping to be remote/ come in three days per week/ two weeks per month)? Reach out to chambers before applying?

I wouldn’t front it this way unless it’s a dealbreaker for you and you wouldn’t /couldn’t take the clerkship without the WFH option. If that’s the case, then you could just put in your letter that you’re applying for the clerkship but for personal circumstances (or whatever you feel comfortable saying) you would need to work remote [whatever your requirements are - 3 days/wk, 2 wks/month, etc). It will likely rule out a lot of positions, but if you wouldn’t take them anyway, then no big difference.

Alternately (assuming you can’t find out anything from previous clerks), you could wait till an interview/offer to bring it up so you don’t just get cut for asking. Offer is safer in that you don’t rule yourself out at the interview stage, but if it really is a dealbreaker for you, it makes sense to bring it up at least somewhat earlier so that the judge isn’t annoyed by going through the interview for no reason, if they can’t/won’t accommodate WFH.

If it’s not a question of necessity and you’d just rather WFH, then I think you wait till you get the offer and then ask very politely if it’s an option and suck it up for the year if the judge says no (and you don’t have other options, of course).

But if it is out of necessity, I’d just front it from the start. Obviously the more desirable candidate you are, the better shot you have. There’s also probably an argument for waiting till the interview on the theory that if it goes really well and the judge really likes you, they may be more inclined to work with you than when you’re just a cover letter/resume in a stack, but that’s really going to depend on the judge’s openness to WFH - someone who’s open to it and generally fair/reasonable won’t hold it against you even if they decide it won’t work, but someone who’s anti-WFH/more of a chambers dictator may decide you’re just asking for too much or may be annoyed that you didn’t bring it up sooner.

[Anonymous User]

Bumping this in case anyone has heard of other judges who allow WFH and are willing to share.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know if Judge Bade would let you work from another state, but my impression is that she's basically fully remote. Clerks only go into chambers if they so desire.

Anyone know if this is still true?

[Anonymous User]

Bumping this in case anyone has heard of other judges who allow WFH and are willing to share.

Walker on CA2 spends about half the year fully remote at his Florida house, but you need to be in New Haven for the rest.

Though tbh I would hesitate to clerk fully remote, or even hybrid. So much of the benefit of the job is from informal interactions with your judge and your coclerks, and many fully remote clerks I know regretted doing it.

[Anonymous User]

Bumping this in case anyone has heard of other judges who allow WFH and are willing to share.

Walker on CA2 spends about half the year fully remote at his Florida house, but you need to be in New Haven for the rest.

Though tbh I would hesitate to clerk fully remote, or even hybrid. So much of the benefit of the job is from informal interactions with your judge and your coclerks, and many fully remote clerks I know regretted doing it.

You know many fully remote clerks? Odd.

[Anonymous User]

Roth from CA3 works remotely from DC outside of sittings. Her clerks generally work out of the courthouse in Philly, but I could imagine her being open to a WFH arrangement.

[Anonymous User]

Bumping this in case anyone has heard of other judges who allow WFH and are willing to share.

Walker on CA2 spends about half the year fully remote at his Florida house, but you need to be in New Haven for the rest.

Though tbh I would hesitate to clerk fully remote, or even hybrid. So much of the benefit of the job is from informal interactions with your judge and your coclerks, and many fully remote clerks I know regretted doing it.

You know many fully remote clerks? Odd.

Well yes, during Covid most clerks were fully remote, so plenty of data points are out there. Plus I know clerks from many of the judges mentioned in this thread. The elite litigation world is small.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know if Judge Bade would let you work from another state, but my impression is that she's basically fully remote. Clerks only go into chambers if they so desire.

Anyone know if this is still true?

Seemingly it's less true or not at all true now, afaik.

[Anonymous User]

Roth from CA3 works remotely from DC outside of sittings. Her clerks generally work out of the courthouse in Philly, but I could imagine her being open to a WFH arrangement.

I remember being surprised her clerks don't work in DC. She has official chambers space there, and it's not like it's hard to find clerks who want to live in DC.

[Anonymous User]

Roth from CA3 works remotely from DC outside of sittings. Her clerks generally work out of the courthouse in Philly, but I could imagine her being open to a WFH arrangement.

I remember being surprised her clerks don't work in DC. She has official chambers space there, and it's not like it's hard to find clerks who want to live in DC.

Interned in CA3 a few years back--One Roth clerk was in DC part time, the rest were in Philly full time.

[SamuelDanforth]

It was previously the case that Judge Tallman on the 9th Circuit lived and worked in Idaho post-senior status and his clerks worked in Seattle. I'm not sure how often he required them to come into chambers, if ever, given that he was not there.

I'm not sure his current status or working policies.

[Anonymous User]

It was previously the case that Judge Tallman on the 9th Circuit lived and worked in Idaho post-senior status and his clerks worked in Seattle. I'm not sure how often he required them to come into chambers, if ever, given that he was not there.

I'm not sure his current status or working policies.

I know a Tallman clerk from 2019-20 who lived and worked in Idaho, which is where Tallman's official chambers are now. Not sure what his current clerks do.