[delete] Forum

[Anonymous User]

[delete]

[Anonymous User]

If you think you want to do appellate work, I'd keep working your current applications, with the recognition that you might not get anything and might need to try again after working for a couple of years anyway. I'm not sure that work experience makes candidates that much more appealing for COA positions as compared to DCt ones (happy to be contradicted on this, though) and you may well still be looking at random locations in a couple of years, when it would likely be more annoying to move than it would be now, so I don't think it benefits you especially to pass on any options that might arise now.

Basically I think very very few people can afford to be picky about location. If you decide it's not worth it to you to clerk if it has to be in location X, that's fair enough - it's your life. But that makes more sense for people who aren't committed to appellate and who are on the fence about clerking at all. Since you know you do want to clerk, I do tend to think that if you want to maximize your chances, you kind of need to be willing to suck up the location for a year.

(Also I'm a little confused by your criteria - a random location in 2/9 confers no benefit that you wouldn't get from basically any other circuit. Though that's kind of a different issue.)

[Anonymous User]

When you say you have "traction," do you mean that you've had interviews with judges already? Getting an interview with a Court of Appeals judge is a big deal.

I think what would help me is if you could explain why the current judges you've got "traction" with aren't that appealing to you. You say you don't need a judge who's in a major city or who's a feeder—then what exactly are you looking for?

[Anonymous User]

If you think you want to do appellate work, I'd keep working your current applications, with the recognition that you might not get anything and might need to try again after working for a couple of years anyway. I'm not sure that work experience makes candidates that much more appealing for COA positions as compared to DCt ones (happy to be contradicted on this, though) and you may well still be looking at random locations in a couple of years, when it would likely be more annoying to move than it would be now, so I don't think it benefits you especially to pass on any options that might arise now.

Basically I think very very few people can afford to be picky about location. If you decide it's not worth it to you to clerk if it has to be in location X, that's fair enough - it's your life. But that makes more sense for people who aren't committed to appellate and who are on the fence about clerking at all. Since you know you do want to clerk, I do tend to think that if you want to maximize your chances, you kind of need to be willing to suck up the location for a year.

(Also I'm a little confused by your criteria - a random location in 2/9 confers no benefit that you wouldn't get from basically any other circuit. Though that's kind of a different issue.)

[delete]

[Anonymous User]

When you say you have "traction," do you mean that you've had interviews with judges already? Getting an interview with a Court of Appeals judge is a big deal.

I think what would help me is if you could explain why the current judges you've got "traction" with aren't that appealing to you. You say you don't need a judge who's in a major city or who's a feeder—then what exactly are you looking for?

[delete]

[Anonymous User]

gonna be blunt - you're being choosy (CA2/CA9, active judge, area where you want to practice after clerking) about shit that doesn't really matter. and you're not a strong enough applicant to nit-pick on that stuff if you're serious about clerking COA.

there are a lot of great senior judges with very active caseloads.

there are plenty of (depending on your politics) not-respected CA2/CA9 judges vis-a-vis respected CA1/CA3/CA whatever - inter-circuit distinctions don't really matter, reputation-wise. individual judges do.

practically, really, really doesn't matter if you didn't do your COA clerkship in the circuit where you ultimately practice - knowledge of local rules will not be much of an advantage in practice (they're not complicated), and you're not going to personally develop a reputation with the bench until you reach the like, idk, Kannon Shanmugam level or something. and his reputation has nothing to do with where he did his COA clerkship.

finally - by your own description, you're not a strong enough applicant to only focus the ultra-desirable-locale COA judges (NY/DC/SF/etc) that get truly outrageous #s of apps. the people who do that are like tippy-top of the top end of the T14 with help from profs with personal connections to the judges. unless you're one of those people, and/or you're fine not clerking at all (location is a dealbreaker), you shouldn't apply like them

[Anonymous User]

gonna be blunt - you're being picky (CA2/C9, active judge, area where you want to practice after clerking) about shit that doesn't really matter.

the people who might reasonably be in the position to nit-pick that stuff have significantly better credentials than it sounds like you do, and it's still pretty stupid for them to focus on it.

there are a lot of great senior judges.

there are plenty of (depending on your politics) not-respected CA2/CA9 judges vis-a-vis respected CA1/CA3/CA whatever.

really, really doesn't matter if you didn't do your COA clerkship in the circuit where you ultimately practice - knowledge of local rules will not give a meaningful advantage (they're not complicated at COA level) and you won't be regularly appearing in the same way someone might in SDNY or w/e.

you're not a strong enough applicant to only focus the ultra-desirable-locale COA judges (NY/DC/SF/etc)

[delete]

[Anonymous User]

gonna be blunt - you're being picky (CA2/C9, active judge, area where you want to practice after clerking) about shit that doesn't really matter.

the people who might reasonably be in the position to nit-pick that stuff have significantly better credentials than it sounds like you do, and it's still pretty stupid for them to focus on it.

there are a lot of great senior judges.

there are plenty of (depending on your politics) not-respected CA2/CA9 judges vis-a-vis respected CA1/CA3/CA whatever.

really, really doesn't matter if you didn't do your COA clerkship in the circuit where you ultimately practice - knowledge of local rules will not give a meaningful advantage (they're not complicated at COA level) and you won't be regularly appearing in the same way someone might in SDNY or w/e.

you're not a strong enough applicant to only focus the ultra-desirable-locale COA judges (NY/DC/SF/etc)

Tbh appreciate the bluntness. My preferences are more a result of ignorance than anything else. Like I said, we don't have a real clerkship office, so I am pretty much flying blind. I will keep on with the process as-is I think. But if the choice was between a judge with a super light caseload in basically the middle of nowhere, or only doing a solid FDC clerkship, do you think the COA would make a big difference given my goals? Or at that point does it not really matter? I ultimately want the COA experience for personal reasons, but I don't have a sense of if it is "necessary" from a career perspective given that I attend a lower-ranked school. I'd still probably lean towards doing it regardless of the answer, but I'd be interested to know your thoughts. And FWIW, I applied super broadly and not to notably competitive places.

For the love of God, you are overthinking this. If you happen to get a COA interview despite being non top-10%, non-t14-- then for the love of Christ take it. If you get one and feel that an in-jurisdiction clerkship is still necessary, start applying for district court clerkships in that location for the year after your COA job-- it'll be much easier with that credential.

If you have any questions, refer to the above paragraph.

[Anonymous User]

gonna be blunt - you're being picky (CA2/C9, active judge, area where you want to practice after clerking) about shit that doesn't really matter.

the people who might reasonably be in the position to nit-pick that stuff have significantly better credentials than it sounds like you do, and it's still pretty stupid for them to focus on it.

there are a lot of great senior judges.

there are plenty of (depending on your politics) not-respected CA2/CA9 judges vis-a-vis respected CA1/CA3/CA whatever.

really, really doesn't matter if you didn't do your COA clerkship in the circuit where you ultimately practice - knowledge of local rules will not give a meaningful advantage (they're not complicated at COA level) and you won't be regularly appearing in the same way someone might in SDNY or w/e.

you're not a strong enough applicant to only focus the ultra-desirable-locale COA judges (NY/DC/SF/etc)

Tbh appreciate the bluntness. My preferences are more a result of ignorance than anything else. Like I said, we don't have a real clerkship office, so I am pretty much flying blind. I will keep on with the process as-is I think. But if the choice was between a judge with a super light caseload in basically the middle of nowhere, or only doing a solid FDC clerkship, do you think the COA would make a big difference given my goals? Or at that point does it not really matter? I ultimately want the COA experience for personal reasons, but I don't have a sense of if it is "necessary" from a career perspective given that I attend a lower-ranked school. I'd still probably lean towards doing it regardless of the answer, but I'd be interested to know your thoughts. And FWIW, I applied super broadly and not to notably competitive places.

For the love of God, you are overthinking this. If you happen to get a COA interview despite being non top-10%, non-t14-- then for the love of Christ take it. If you get one and feel that an in-jurisdiction clerkship is still necessary, start applying for district court clerkships in that location for the year after your COA job-- it'll be much easier with that credential.

If you have any questions, refer to the above paragraph.

I'm asking random strangers on the internet for help *obviously* I am overthinking it lmao. Anyways, appreciate the perspective.

[Anonymous User]

gonna be blunt - you're being picky (CA2/C9, active judge, area where you want to practice after clerking) about shit that doesn't really matter.

the people who might reasonably be in the position to nit-pick that stuff have significantly better credentials than it sounds like you do, and it's still pretty stupid for them to focus on it.

there are a lot of great senior judges.

there are plenty of (depending on your politics) not-respected CA2/CA9 judges vis-a-vis respected CA1/CA3/CA whatever.

really, really doesn't matter if you didn't do your COA clerkship in the circuit where you ultimately practice - knowledge of local rules will not give a meaningful advantage (they're not complicated at COA level) and you won't be regularly appearing in the same way someone might in SDNY or w/e.

you're not a strong enough applicant to only focus the ultra-desirable-locale COA judges (NY/DC/SF/etc)

Tbh appreciate the bluntness. My preferences are more a result of ignorance than anything else. Like I said, we don't have a real clerkship office, so I am pretty much flying blind. I will keep on with the process as-is I think. But if the choice was between a judge with a super light caseload in basically the middle of nowhere, or only doing a solid FDC clerkship, do you think the COA would make a big difference given my goals? Or at that point does it not really matter? I ultimately want the COA experience for personal reasons, but I don't have a sense of if it is "necessary" from a career perspective given that I attend a lower-ranked school. I'd still probably lean towards doing it regardless of the answer, but I'd be interested to know your thoughts. And FWIW, I applied super broadly and not to notably competitive places.

For the love of God, you are overthinking this. If you happen to get a COA interview despite being non top-10%, non-t14-- then for the love of Christ take it. If you get one and feel that an in-jurisdiction clerkship is still necessary, start applying for district court clerkships in that location for the year after your COA job-- it'll be much easier with that credential.

If you have any questions, refer to the above paragraph.

I'm asking random strangers on the internet for help *obviously* I am overthinking it lmao. Anyways, appreciate the perspective.

Sorry, I'm lashing out because I think you need it put bluntly. And because I went through the same overthinking when doing my clerkships. My recommendation? Take a COA anywhere you can get it. Leverage that into a prestigious district clerkship in your jurisdiction. You're not getting SCOTUS, so there's no reason to gun for it.

[Anonymous User]

gonna be blunt - you're being picky (CA2/C9, active judge, area where you want to practice after clerking) about shit that doesn't really matter.

the people who might reasonably be in the position to nit-pick that stuff have significantly better credentials than it sounds like you do, and it's still pretty stupid for them to focus on it.

there are a lot of great senior judges.

there are plenty of (depending on your politics) not-respected CA2/CA9 judges vis-a-vis respected CA1/CA3/CA whatever.

really, really doesn't matter if you didn't do your COA clerkship in the circuit where you ultimately practice - knowledge of local rules will not give a meaningful advantage (they're not complicated at COA level) and you won't be regularly appearing in the same way someone might in SDNY or w/e.

you're not a strong enough applicant to only focus the ultra-desirable-locale COA judges (NY/DC/SF/etc)

Tbh appreciate the bluntness. My preferences are more a result of ignorance than anything else. Like I said, we don't have a real clerkship office, so I am pretty much flying blind. I will keep on with the process as-is I think. But if the choice was between a judge with a super light caseload in basically the middle of nowhere, or only doing a solid FDC clerkship, do you think the COA would make a big difference given my goals? Or at that point does it not really matter? I ultimately want the COA experience for personal reasons, but I don't have a sense of if it is "necessary" from a career perspective given that I attend a lower-ranked school. I'd still probably lean towards doing it regardless of the answer, but I'd be interested to know your thoughts. And FWIW, I applied super broadly and not to notably competitive places.

For the love of God, you are overthinking this. If you happen to get a COA interview despite being non top-10%, non-t14-- then for the love of Christ take it. If you get one and feel that an in-jurisdiction clerkship is still necessary, start applying for district court clerkships in that location for the year after your COA job-- it'll be much easier with that credential.

If you have any questions, refer to the above paragraph.

I'm asking random strangers on the internet for help *obviously* I am overthinking it lmao. Anyways, appreciate the perspective.

Sorry, I'm lashing out because I think you need it put bluntly. And because I went through the same overthinking when doing my clerkships. My recommendation? Take a COA anywhere you can get it. Leverage that into a prestigious district clerkship in your jurisdiction. You're not getting SCOTUS, so there's no reason to gun for it.

[delete]

[Anonymous User]

You don't have the credentials to be picky. And a couple years in big law won't make a significant difference. It may sound harsh, but it's that simple.

[lavarman84]

Tbh appreciate the bluntness. My preferences are more a result of ignorance than anything else. Like I said, we don't have a real clerkship office, so I am pretty much flying blind. I will keep on with the process as-is I think. But if the choice was between a judge with a super light caseload in basically the middle of nowhere, or only doing a solid FDC clerkship, do you think the COA would make a big difference given my goals? Or at that point does it not really matter? I ultimately want the COA experience for personal reasons, but I don't have a sense of if it is "necessary" from a career perspective given that I attend a lower-ranked school. I'd still probably lean towards doing it regardless of the answer, but I'd be interested to know your thoughts. And FWIW, I applied super broadly and not to notably competitive places.

If you want to do high-level appellate work, a prestigious appellate clerkship goes a long way. And yes, even a senior federal COA judge in the "middle of nowhere" is relatively prestigious. It's a gold star on the resume. I agree with the others who are of the opinion that you don't have the credentials to be too picky. Does that mean you won't succeed if you are picky? No, I certainly can't predict that. But the odds won't be on your side.

[nixy]

Agreed that it's worth it even if it's a light caseload in the middle of nowhere.