What am I competitive for? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I have heard that the NYU clerkship office is slightly more optimistic than reality so I am wondering if this sub can provide me with some ruthless honesty. I have a 3.794 gpa after 2L (pretty sure this is somewhere between the 5th and 10th percentile) and am on Law Review. Decent reccomenders but no heavy hitters. Nothing else notable like URM/fed soc/Rhodes/etc... According to the materials the clerkship office provides I am in a good position for every court except D.C. Circuit but that doesn't feel right. I'm thinking close to zero chance for feeders and semi-feeders and my target courts are like Third Circuit whereas my reach would be Second Circuit and my mega reach would be D.C. Circuit. Is this correct or should I be more conservative and also throw in apps elsewhere?

[Anonymous User]

The clerkship office folks aren’t lying to you. You *are* competitive for all clerkships except the super duper competitive ones. That’s said, there is a grade floor but beyond that high grades/Law Review and clerkship outcomes are just correlated; no specific stat is necessary or sufficient. There are NYU people with worse stats than you who get the fancy clerkships and people with 3.9s and LR who don’t even get a court of appeals interview anywhere, not even in flyover places. So much has to do with luck, timing, your personality, how compelling your recommendation letters are, whether your professional experience and background piques the interest of the judge/clerks scanning applications, how prestigious your undergrad institution was (my court of appeals judge actually cared about this and I don’t think that’s super unusual), and any local ties you might have for any clerkships not in a highly sought after metro area like DC/NYC/SF.

When all is said and done though, you just apply broadly and take what you get.

You’re at NYU, so I’ll assume you’re liberal. If I were you, I would start with applications to the super competitive judges (Oetken, Lohier, Furman, Pillard, Watford, Fletcher, etc). Then after a month or so if there are no bites I would throw in the next tier (Chen and Garaufis on EDNY, Woods, Broderick, and Gardephe on SDNY, Third Circuit judges, etc.) and then after a month or so if there are no bites I would apply everywhere where you would accept the clerkship. Then, after you get a district court clerkship add back in the competitive CoA judges and keep applying. (And if you get a CoA clerkship first, do the reverse.)

Also this is just one data point but I know someone who got a DC Circuit clerkship with Judge Edwards who wasn’t even top 10% (she was top 25% and on Law Review), but she did very well in Crim with Rachel Barkow during 1L and then was Barkow’s RA, and Barkow called the judge personally to rave about her. People have had similar luck with Professor Sharkey. So these things can be a bit unpredictable.

[Anonymous User]

The clerkship office folks aren’t lying to you. You *are* competitive for all clerkships except the super duper competitive ones. That’s said, there is a grade floor but beyond that high grades/Law Review and clerkship outcomes are just correlated; no specific stat is necessary or sufficient. There are NYU people with worse stats than you who get the fancy clerkships and people with 3.9s and LR who don’t even get a court of appeals interview anywhere, not even in flyover places. So much has to do with luck, timing, your personality, how compelling your recommendation letters are, whether your professional experience and background piques the interest of the judge/clerks scanning applications, how prestigious your undergrad institution was (my court of appeals judge actually cared about this and I don’t think that’s super unusual), and any local ties you might have for any clerkships not in a highly sought after metro area like DC/NYC/SF.

When all is said and done though, you just apply broadly and take what you get.

You’re at NYU, so I’ll assume you’re liberal. If I were you, I would start with applications to the super competitive judges (Oetken, Lohier, Furman, Pillard, Watford, Fletcher, etc). Then after a month or so if there are no bites I would throw in the next tier (Chen and Garaufis on EDNY, Woods, Broderick, and Gardephe on SDNY, Third Circuit judges, etc.) and then after a month or so if there are no bites I would apply everywhere where you would accept the clerkship. Then, after you get a district court clerkship add back in the competitive CoA judges and keep applying. (And if you get a CoA clerkship first, do the reverse.)

Also this is just one data point but I know someone who got a DC Circuit clerkship with Judge Edwards who wasn’t even top 10% (she was top 25% and on Law Review), but she did very well in Crim with Rachel Barkow during 1L and then was Barkow’s RA, and Barkow called the judge personally to rave about her. People have had similar luck with Professor Sharkey. So these things can be a bit unpredictable.

Thanks. I've heard that too re unpredictability especially with some of the heavy hitter Professors that go to bat for you (Friedman, McKenzie, Barkow, Isacharoff, Sharkey, Hershkoff, etc...). My Professor recs I'm sure are great and I personally really enjoyed the relationship I've had with those professors but they aren't like super connected folks.

Re undergrad, mine was a T10 outside of HYPS—didn't know that was important. I did pretty well there too (high latin honors, etc...). Do you think it would be worthwhile to add in my undergrad transcript for paper/email apps and apps where judges don't ask for undergrad transcripts to highlight this or is that a needless distraction?

[Anonymous User]

The clerkship office folks aren’t lying to you. You *are* competitive for all clerkships except the super duper competitive ones. That’s said, there is a grade floor but beyond that high grades/Law Review and clerkship outcomes are just correlated; no specific stat is necessary or sufficient. There are NYU people with worse stats than you who get the fancy clerkships and people with 3.9s and LR who don’t even get a court of appeals interview anywhere, not even in flyover places. So much has to do with luck, timing, your personality, how compelling your recommendation letters are, whether your professional experience and background piques the interest of the judge/clerks scanning applications, how prestigious your undergrad institution was (my court of appeals judge actually cared about this and I don’t think that’s super unusual), and any local ties you might have for any clerkships not in a highly sought after metro area like DC/NYC/SF.

When all is said and done though, you just apply broadly and take what you get.

You’re at NYU, so I’ll assume you’re liberal. If I were you, I would start with applications to the super competitive judges (Oetken, Lohier, Furman, Pillard, Watford, Fletcher, etc). Then after a month or so if there are no bites I would throw in the next tier (Chen and Garaufis on EDNY, Woods, Broderick, and Gardephe on SDNY, Third Circuit judges, etc.) and then after a month or so if there are no bites I would apply everywhere where you would accept the clerkship. Then, after you get a district court clerkship add back in the competitive CoA judges and keep applying. (And if you get a CoA clerkship first, do the reverse.)

Also this is just one data point but I know someone who got a DC Circuit clerkship with Judge Edwards who wasn’t even top 10% (she was top 25% and on Law Review), but she did very well in Crim with Rachel Barkow during 1L and then was Barkow’s RA, and Barkow called the judge personally to rave about her. People have had similar luck with Professor Sharkey. So these things can be a bit unpredictable.

Two things. I would strongly advise against staggering applications. You should apply to everyone at once for whom you would like to clerk. Second, don't apply to Woods (I have heard nightmares).

[Anonymous User]

The clerkship office folks aren’t lying to you. You *are* competitive for all clerkships except the super duper competitive ones. That’s said, there is a grade floor but beyond that high grades/Law Review and clerkship outcomes are just correlated; no specific stat is necessary or sufficient. There are NYU people with worse stats than you who get the fancy clerkships and people with 3.9s and LR who don’t even get a court of appeals interview anywhere, not even in flyover places. So much has to do with luck, timing, your personality, how compelling your recommendation letters are, whether your professional experience and background piques the interest of the judge/clerks scanning applications, how prestigious your undergrad institution was (my court of appeals judge actually cared about this and I don’t think that’s super unusual), and any local ties you might have for any clerkships not in a highly sought after metro area like DC/NYC/SF.

When all is said and done though, you just apply broadly and take what you get.

You’re at NYU, so I’ll assume you’re liberal. If I were you, I would start with applications to the super competitive judges (Oetken, Lohier, Furman, Pillard, Watford, Fletcher, etc). Then after a month or so if there are no bites I would throw in the next tier (Chen and Garaufis on EDNY, Woods, Broderick, and Gardephe on SDNY, Third Circuit judges, etc.) and then after a month or so if there are no bites I would apply everywhere where you would accept the clerkship. Then, after you get a district court clerkship add back in the competitive CoA judges and keep applying. (And if you get a CoA clerkship first, do the reverse.)

Also this is just one data point but I know someone who got a DC Circuit clerkship with Judge Edwards who wasn’t even top 10% (she was top 25% and on Law Review), but she did very well in Crim with Rachel Barkow during 1L and then was Barkow’s RA, and Barkow called the judge personally to rave about her. People have had similar luck with Professor Sharkey. So these things can be a bit unpredictable.

Two things. I would strongly advise against staggering applications. You should apply to everyone at once for whom you would like to clerk. Second, don't apply to Woods (I have heard nightmares).

Why not stagger applications? Is it because the OP is applying on plan, and you are worried those other judges will have hired already?

[Anonymous User]

I have heard that the NYU clerkship office is slightly more optimistic than reality so I am wondering if this sub can provide me with some ruthless honesty. I have a 3.794 gpa after 2L (pretty sure this is somewhere between the 5th and 10th percentile) and am on Law Review. Decent reccomenders but no heavy hitters. Nothing else notable like URM/fed soc/Rhodes/etc... According to the materials the clerkship office provides I am in a good position for every court except D.C. Circuit but that doesn't feel right. I'm thinking close to zero chance for feeders and semi-feeders and my target courts are like Third Circuit whereas my reach would be Second Circuit and my mega reach would be D.C. Circuit. Is this correct or should I be more conservative and also throw in apps elsewhere?

Your assessment is closer. You can still apply to feeders, but don't waste recommender calls on them. I would blanket the Second Circuit and D.C. Circuit, and I would send targeted apps to judges on the Third and Fourth Circuits. If you're open to California, add in Ninth Circuit judges too. If you send out enough apps, you'll likely get a great clerkship (i.e. one of the ones I mentioned). I wouldn't stagger your apps the way one of the other posters mentioned. You're not in a position to be that choosy, and the non-feeder Second Circuit and D.C. Circuit judges fill up quickly.

[Anonymous User]

You’re at NYU, so I’ll assume you’re liberal. If I were you, I would start with applications to the super competitive judges (Oetken, Lohier, Furman, Pillard, Watford, Fletcher, etc). Then after a month or so if there are no bites I would throw in the next tier (Chen and Garaufis on EDNY, Woods, Broderick, and Gardephe on SDNY, Third Circuit judges, etc.) and then after a month or so if there are no bites I would apply everywhere where you would accept the clerkship. Then, after you get a district court clerkship add back in the competitive CoA judges and keep applying. (And if you get a CoA clerkship first, do the reverse.)

This is maybe the worst clerkship advice I have ever seen on TLS. OP is not even close to competitive for the liberal feeders, and if you wait a month, a huge proportion of less-competitive judges will be full. OP has a fine but not outstanding application and should blanket the entire country assuming they have no geographic constraints. Yes, lightning strikes for some fine but not outstanding applicants, but you shouldn't assume you'll be one of them.

(CA2/SDNY clerk)

[Anonymous User]

This is OP. I want to sum up the collective advice to make sure I am understanding it correctly. This is my current position: I am a competitive applicant for Circuit clerkships everywhere with the exception of feeders/semi-feeders and have a plausible but by no means likely shot at the Second and D.C. Circuit. Thus, it would be advisable to essentially send an application to every judge on any Circuit I would be interested in. But, I can afford to be slightly picky insofar as I can cross out individual judges or cities that I would not be interested in (within reason—as in I'll still apply to like ~50–60 circuit judges).

[Anonymous User]

This is OP. I want to sum up the collective advice to make sure I am understanding it correctly. This is my current position: I am a competitive applicant for Circuit clerkships everywhere with the exception of feeders/semi-feeders and have a plausible but by no means likely shot at the Second and D.C. Circuit. Thus, it would be advisable to essentially send an application to every judge on any Circuit I would be interested in. But, I can afford to be slightly picky insofar as I can cross out individual judges or cities that I would not be interested in (within reason—as in I'll still apply to like ~50–60 circuit judges).

I think the assessment of your competitiveness is broadly correct, though I think it makes less sense to generalize about circuits than to think in terms of individual judges (e.g., there are non-CADC judges who will be more competitive than, say, Judith Rogers, and there are individual judges on CA4, CA7, etc. who would look very attractive to me in your shoes). Ignore the bad advice to stagger your applications if you're applying on plan and apply to every single *judge* you'd be willing to clerk for. Even many of the less competitive judges move right at noon on plan day, or at least by the end of the first week. You'll have 48 hours to make an informed decision on any offers: good luck!

[Anonymous User]

This isn't specific to OP, but more general advice to coastal applicants leery of clerking in "flyover" country. Even if you have a strong preference to clerk in a fairly cosmopolitan city, you should look into individual cities are like, not go circuit by circuit or state by state. There are many cosmopolitan cities in the Midwest, Rocky Mountains, and South that are not named Chicago, Denver, and Austin. Some of them might surprise you--e.g. Des Moines and Madison are fairly yuppie even though they're also fairly small. Of course there are also places that are, shall we say, acquired tastes. Ask a friend from the area for tips, or just use Google (MSA population growth is probably a decent proxy).

[Anonymous User]

You’re at NYU, so I’ll assume you’re liberal. If I were you, I would start with applications to the super competitive judges (Oetken, Lohier, Furman, Pillard, Watford, Fletcher, etc). Then after a month or so if there are no bites I would throw in the next tier (Chen and Garaufis on EDNY, Woods, Broderick, and Gardephe on SDNY, Third Circuit judges, etc.) and then after a month or so if there are no bites I would apply everywhere where you would accept the clerkship. Then, after you get a district court clerkship add back in the competitive CoA judges and keep applying. (And if you get a CoA clerkship first, do the reverse.)

this is horrendous advice.

a generic 3.8 NYU applicant with no great recommenders should not be sitting around waiting to get picked out of the pile by Oetken during the first month of the plan as everyone else interviews for generic SDNY/COA/etc.

you're waiting for a phone call that is not gonna come

[Anonymous User]

You’re at NYU, so I’ll assume you’re liberal. If I were you, I would start with applications to the super competitive judges (Oetken, Lohier, Furman, Pillard, Watford, Fletcher, etc). Then after a month or so if there are no bites I would throw in the next tier (Chen and Garaufis on EDNY, Woods, Broderick, and Gardephe on SDNY, Third Circuit judges, etc.) and then after a month or so if there are no bites I would apply everywhere where you would accept the clerkship. Then, after you get a district court clerkship add back in the competitive CoA judges and keep applying. (And if you get a CoA clerkship first, do the reverse.)

this is horrendous advice.

a generic 3.8 NYU applicant with no great recommenders should not be sitting around waiting to get picked out of the pile by Oetken during the first month of the plan as everyone else interviews for generic SDNY/COA/etc.

you're waiting for a phone call that is not gonna come

I'm guessing that whoever posted the staggered application advice applied for clerkships back when there was no plan. Staggering applications made some sense when every judge did applications on a rolling basis. Most applicants have biglaw jobs lined up and so there's no real difference between clerking right after graduation or the next year or the next year, so if you missed the boat one year then you could just wait a couple months until the judges you skipped in the first round start interviewing for the next year's slots.

[Anonymous User]

What kind of person would be well served by staggering apps? Like, at what combination of HYS, grades, heavy hitter recommenders and calls, etc. would it make sense for an applicant to stagger applications in the way suggested?

[Anonymous User]

Deleted

[Anonymous User]

What kind of person would be well served by staggering apps? Like, at what combination of HYS, grades, heavy hitter recommenders and calls, etc. would it make sense for an applicant to stagger applications in the way suggested?

Maybe if like you thought you were competitive for feeders so only applied to them, but then struck out so you send more apps? Although I guess that would be more inadvertent staggering.

[Anonymous User]

What kind of person would be well served by staggering apps? Like, at what combination of HYS, grades, heavy hitter recommenders and calls, etc. would it make sense for an applicant to stagger applications in the way suggested?

It can make sense off-plan, but doesn't really make sense for almost anyone on-plan, though the YLJ EIC or w/e could probably get away with it. Remember that on the Plan (1) the most competitive judges are the fastest, (2) you have 48 hours to accept, and (3) you can usually control the order of your interviews in some form, so you can get a similar effect to staggering even without staggering.

[Anonymous User]

What kind of person would be well served by staggering apps? Like, at what combination of HYS, grades, heavy hitter recommenders and calls, etc. would it make sense for an applicant to stagger applications in the way suggested?

I know someone at NYU who was Pomeroy/Butler (top 10 people in the class), Furman Academic Scholar, Law Review, and with heavy hitter recommenders (one of whom was Sharkey) who applied very selectively only to the most competitive judges and eventually clerked for two feeders and then on SCOTUS. So that kind of person.

[Anonymous User]

What kind of person would be well served by staggering apps? Like, at what combination of HYS, grades, heavy hitter recommenders and calls, etc. would it make sense for an applicant to stagger applications in the way suggested?

I know someone at NYU who was Pomeroy/Butler (top 10 people in the class), Furman Academic Scholar, Law Review, and with heavy hitter recommenders (one of whom was Sharkey) who applied very selectively only to the most competitive judges and eventually clerked for two feeders and then on SCOTUS. So that kind of person.

OP here. I know who you're talking about and that person was so extraordinary that years later Professors still talk about them.

[Anonymous User]

This is OP. I want to sum up the collective advice to make sure I am understanding it correctly. This is my current position: I am a competitive applicant for Circuit clerkships everywhere with the exception of feeders/semi-feeders and have a plausible but by no means likely shot at the Second and D.C. Circuit. Thus, it would be advisable to essentially send an application to every judge on any Circuit I would be interested in. But, I can afford to be slightly picky insofar as I can cross out individual judges or cities that I would not be interested in (within reason—as in I'll still apply to like ~50–60 circuit judges).

I just want to emphasize this last point a little. In terms of career outcomes, there are three types of clerkships:

1. Feeders and D.C. Circuit generally
2. Judges in the market/circuit you want to work in (and also judges especially well-connected in any specific field you want to work in)
3. All other judges

Category 3 is an enormous category, and I think TLS sometimes parses it into "prestige" tiers beyond what is helpful. If you want to work in NYC litigation, a non-feeder on the 9th circuit is basically as valuable as a non-feeder on the 3rd or 5th or whatever. Apply broadly, but put more emphasis on judges you think you'd like to work with and cities you'd like to live in than on whether (e.g.) the 3rd or 4th is a better circuit. With stats as good as yours, unless your objective is to lock something down as quickly as you can, don't feel a need to shoehorn yourself into a situation you wouldn't be enthused by. (My clerkship office pushed a Memphis-based judge on me, and I turned down an interview that likely would have let to an offer--and ended up spending a couple more months on the market--because I could not have seen myself being happy in Memphis. Have not regretted it once.)

This isn't to endorse staggering apps, which I agree is bad advice. And if the list of cities you'd be happy clerking in is "NY, DC, and SF only" you definitely need to expand your horizons.

[Anonymous User]

Eh. 3rd vs 4th is stupid, and I don’t think anyone actually thinks that, but it’s silly to say that geography being equal, there is little prestige difference between non-feeder judges. Some judges are much more well-known, well-regarded, and selective than others.

Also, certainly at the COA level, OP is not really in a position to be picky.

[Anonymous User]

This is OP. I want to sum up the collective advice to make sure I am understanding it correctly. This is my current position: I am a competitive applicant for Circuit clerkships everywhere with the exception of feeders/semi-feeders and have a plausible but by no means likely shot at the Second and D.C. Circuit. Thus, it would be advisable to essentially send an application to every judge on any Circuit I would be interested in. But, I can afford to be slightly picky insofar as I can cross out individual judges or cities that I would not be interested in (within reason—as in I'll still apply to like ~50–60 circuit judges).

I just want to emphasize this last point a little. In terms of career outcomes, there are three types of clerkships:

1. Feeders and D.C. Circuit generally
2. Judges in the market/circuit you want to work in (and also judges especially well-connected in any specific field you want to work in)
3. All other judges

Category 3 is an enormous category, and I think TLS sometimes parses it into "prestige" tiers beyond what is helpful. If you want to work in NYC litigation, a non-feeder on the 9th circuit is basically as valuable as a non-feeder on the 3rd or 5th or whatever. Apply broadly, but put more emphasis on judges you think you'd like to work with and cities you'd like to live in than on whether (e.g.) the 3rd or 4th is a better circuit. With stats as good as yours, unless your objective is to lock something down as quickly as you can, don't feel a need to shoehorn yourself into a situation you wouldn't be enthused by. (My clerkship office pushed a Memphis-based judge on me, and I turned down an interview that likely would have let to an offer--and ended up spending a couple more months on the market--because I could not have seen myself being happy in Memphis. Have not regretted it once.)

This isn't to endorse staggering apps, which I agree is bad advice. And if the list of cities you'd be happy clerking in is "NY, DC, and SF only" you definitely need to expand your horizons.

OP here. My list of cities I would be happy at is pretty broad. It basically includes every city with like 100k+ people minus like three. Also, while I'm liberal I'd be fine clerking for a conservative judge with, again, a few exceptions (VanDyke, etc...) who I am sure wouldn't hire me anyways.

[Anonymous User]

This is OP. I want to sum up the collective advice to make sure I am understanding it correctly. This is my current position: I am a competitive applicant for Circuit clerkships everywhere with the exception of feeders/semi-feeders and have a plausible but by no means likely shot at the Second and D.C. Circuit. Thus, it would be advisable to essentially send an application to every judge on any Circuit I would be interested in. But, I can afford to be slightly picky insofar as I can cross out individual judges or cities that I would not be interested in (within reason—as in I'll still apply to like ~50–60 circuit judges).

I just want to emphasize this last point a little. In terms of career outcomes, there are three types of clerkships:

1. Feeders and D.C. Circuit generally
2. Judges in the market/circuit you want to work in (and also judges especially well-connected in any specific field you want to work in)
3. All other judges

Category 3 is an enormous category, and I think TLS sometimes parses it into "prestige" tiers beyond what is helpful. If you want to work in NYC litigation, a non-feeder on the 9th circuit is basically as valuable as a non-feeder on the 3rd or 5th or whatever. Apply broadly, but put more emphasis on judges you think you'd like to work with and cities you'd like to live in than on whether (e.g.) the 3rd or 4th is a better circuit. With stats as good as yours, unless your objective is to lock something down as quickly as you can, don't feel a need to shoehorn yourself into a situation you wouldn't be enthused by. (My clerkship office pushed a Memphis-based judge on me, and I turned down an interview that likely would have let to an offer--and ended up spending a couple more months on the market--because I could not have seen myself being happy in Memphis. Have not regretted it once.)

This isn't to endorse staggering apps, which I agree is bad advice. And if the list of cities you'd be happy clerking in is "NY, DC, and SF only" you definitely need to expand your horizons.

I'd go even further and organize it:

1. Feeders and semi-feeders
2. Prominent non-feeders
3. Everyone else

D.C. Circuit isn't necessarily more prestigious, it just has more feeders and semi-feeders than other circuits. But Judge Rodgers (D.C. Circuit) and Judge Motz (4th Circuit) are basically interchangeable as far as careers go.