What Are My Chances (9th Cir.)? Forum

[lavarman84]

Yeah, I will say that the most impressive appellate litigators I've met (which, to be fair, isn't a ton) are people who are honestly kind of weirdos socially and just strange nerds but extremely smart and good at "turning on the charm" when they need to.

That's very accurate.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, I will say that the most impressive appellate litigators I've met (which, to be fair, isn't a ton) are people who are honestly kind of weirdos socially and just strange nerds but extremely smart and good at "turning on the charm" when they need to.

That's very accurate.

I'm a trial litigator who does plenty of appeals too, and I agree that the appellate specialists I get to work with tend to be--let me put it this way--lovable social weirdos. The good and successful ones are wonderful human beings who I really love working with. They're quirky, but they're smart, very good writing editors, contribute excellent ideas to the appellate process, and I just plain enjoy teaming up with them. They would do terrible in front of a jury and who cares.

One thing that works well universally in the legal profession, no matter what your skill set: just be kind to people around you.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, I will say that the most impressive appellate litigators I've met (which, to be fair, isn't a ton) are people who are honestly kind of weirdos socially and just strange nerds but extremely smart and good at "turning on the charm" when they need to.

That's very accurate.

I'm a trial litigator who does plenty of appeals too, and I agree that the appellate specialists I get to work with tend to be--let me put it this way--lovable social weirdos. The good and successful ones are wonderful human beings who I really love working with. They're quirky, but they're smart, very good writing editors, contribute excellent ideas to the appellate process, and I just plain enjoy teaming up with them. They would do terrible in front of a jury and who cares.

One thing that works well universally in the legal profession, no matter what your skill set: just be kind to people around you.

Be kind and be honest/accountable. Add that to work ethic and that makes up pretty much 80% of what it takes to succeed in this line of work.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah NYU and CLS students pay a penalty in that 80% of them have materially identical resumes—NY BL, some combo of Stone and Kent, mildly fluffy transcripts, lifelong coastal. And there are a ton of them. Unless you have exceptional grades it’s hard to stand out. Chicago students seemingly have much more variation in interests and geography, which advantages them, plus there are fewer and they tend to have very black-letter transcripts with no ungraded classes.

Not really on topic, but this stuff does make me wonder how much of a crapshoot the clerkship process is if you don't have super strong connections and the unfairness of it all if you're someone who just didn't stumble on the "right" people to get to know.

I'm a student at a T30 and our clerkship rate is probably way higher than it should be. We have people with 3.6's snagging COAs over candidates at T14 who I'm sure are more academically "qualified", and I'm guessing that's all because our faculty is super well connected.

To be fair, doesn't ND curve to somewhere between a 3.1/3.2, so a 3.6 is probably somewhere near the top ~15% of the class?

Also - cannot overstate how valuable it is to clerkship numbers to have (1) a conservative student body + (2) conservative professors who are willing to aggressively advocate for students (the Garnetts (X2), the Bellias (X2), Carozza) given the current state of the judiciary haha
That said,

Nah we curve to a 3.25-3.30 for 1L classes, and a 3.35 for upper levels

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, I will say that the most impressive appellate litigators I've met (which, to be fair, isn't a ton) are people who are honestly kind of weirdos socially and just strange nerds but extremely smart and good at "turning on the charm" when they need to.

That's very accurate.

I'm a trial litigator who does plenty of appeals too, and I agree that the appellate specialists I get to work with tend to be--let me put it this way--lovable social weirdos. The good and successful ones are wonderful human beings who I really love working with. They're quirky, but they're smart, very good writing editors, contribute excellent ideas to the appellate process, and I just plain enjoy teaming up with them. They would do terrible in front of a jury and who cares.

One thing that works well universally in the legal profession, no matter what your skill set: just be kind to people around you.

100% agree that this holds true for the best clerkship candidates too. Somebody mentioned earlier that the NYU/Columbia candidates are all materially the same, and I think that it is a problem for clerkship applications. So many people focus on just trying to "learn the game" and doing what they think is "right"-law review (and other extracurriculars meant to signal something like FedSoc), research assistantship for certain professors, taking classes with certain professors, and spurning all other things but law school and networking (in a selective/discriminating manner) for three years. One professor told me that although she thinks grades matter the most for judges, she is never surprised when a clerkship candidate that brings something different to the table such as a quirky (but kind) personality or useful skills, obscure hobbies or serious work experience locks down a clerkship just because they are INTERESTING. They forget that judges will be spending time in chambers with these people, and judges want hard, smart workers but they also (shockingly) want to be entertained.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah NYU and CLS students pay a penalty in that 80% of them have materially identical resumes—NY BL, some combo of Stone and Kent, mildly fluffy transcripts, lifelong coastal. And there are a ton of them. Unless you have exceptional grades it’s hard to stand out. Chicago students seemingly have much more variation in interests and geography, which advantages them, plus there are fewer and they tend to have very black-letter transcripts with no ungraded classes.

Not really on topic, but this stuff does make me wonder how much of a crapshoot the clerkship process is if you don't have super strong connections and the unfairness of it all if you're someone who just didn't stumble on the "right" people to get to know.

I'm a student at a T30 and our clerkship rate is probably way higher than it should be. We have people with 3.6's snagging COAs over candidates at T14 who I'm sure are more academically "qualified", and I'm guessing that's all because our faculty is super well connected.

To be fair, doesn't ND curve to somewhere between a 3.1/3.2, so a 3.6 is probably somewhere near the top ~15% of the class?

Also - cannot overstate how valuable it is to clerkship numbers to have (1) a conservative student body + (2) conservative professors who are willing to aggressively advocate for students (the Garnetts (X2), the Bellias (X2), Carozza) given the current state of the judiciary haha
That said,

What is the clerkship placement like for liberal or moderate students? And do those conservative professors go to bat for people without those numbers - below 3.6 - or just for the ones they think have a chance in the first place?

[Anonymous User]

Yeah NYU and CLS students pay a penalty in that 80% of them have materially identical resumes—NY BL, some combo of Stone and Kent, mildly fluffy transcripts, lifelong coastal. And there are a ton of them. Unless you have exceptional grades it’s hard to stand out. Chicago students seemingly have much more variation in interests and geography, which advantages them, plus there are fewer and they tend to have very black-letter transcripts with no ungraded classes.

Not really on topic, but this stuff does make me wonder how much of a crapshoot the clerkship process is if you don't have super strong connections and the unfairness of it all if you're someone who just didn't stumble on the "right" people to get to know.

I'm a student at a T30 and our clerkship rate is probably way higher than it should be. We have people with 3.6's snagging COAs over candidates at T14 who I'm sure are more academically "qualified", and I'm guessing that's all because our faculty is super well connected.

To be fair, doesn't ND curve to somewhere between a 3.1/3.2, so a 3.6 is probably somewhere near the top ~15% of the class?

Also - cannot overstate how valuable it is to clerkship numbers to have (1) a conservative student body + (2) conservative professors who are willing to aggressively advocate for students (the Garnetts (X2), the Bellias (X2), Carozza) given the current state of the judiciary haha
That said,

how are those professors so well-connected, at least compared to other faculty at similarly ranked law schools? i looked at their faculty bios and they're impressive, but they look exactly like the bios of professors at other law schools.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah NYU and CLS students pay a penalty in that 80% of them have materially identical resumes—NY BL, some combo of Stone and Kent, mildly fluffy transcripts, lifelong coastal. And there are a ton of them. Unless you have exceptional grades it’s hard to stand out. Chicago students seemingly have much more variation in interests and geography, which advantages them, plus there are fewer and they tend to have very black-letter transcripts with no ungraded classes.

Not really on topic, but this stuff does make me wonder how much of a crapshoot the clerkship process is if you don't have super strong connections and the unfairness of it all if you're someone who just didn't stumble on the "right" people to get to know.

I'm a student at a T30 and our clerkship rate is probably way higher than it should be. We have people with 3.6's snagging COAs over candidates at T14 who I'm sure are more academically "qualified", and I'm guessing that's all because our faculty is super well connected.

To be fair, doesn't ND curve to somewhere between a 3.1/3.2, so a 3.6 is probably somewhere near the top ~15% of the class?

Also - cannot overstate how valuable it is to clerkship numbers to have (1) a conservative student body + (2) conservative professors who are willing to aggressively advocate for students (the Garnetts (X2), the Bellias (X2), Carozza) given the current state of the judiciary haha
That said,

how are those professors so well-connected, at least compared to other faculty at similarly ranked law schools? i looked at their faculty bios and they're impressive, but they look exactly like the bios of professors at other law schools.

Same way some law firm partners are more well connected than others -- combination of luck, skill at, and desire to, network, build connections, establish a rapport, have people remember you, etc. some professors are better at these soft networking skills than others even from the same law school graduate class, and it compounds after things like clerkships and Big Law/Big Gov stints. It's the same reason certain law professors/lawyers get nominated for the Supreme Court while others, just as smart/hardworking, never get nominated.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah NYU and CLS students pay a penalty in that 80% of them have materially identical resumes—NY BL, some combo of Stone and Kent, mildly fluffy transcripts, lifelong coastal. And there are a ton of them. Unless you have exceptional grades it’s hard to stand out. Chicago students seemingly have much more variation in interests and geography, which advantages them, plus there are fewer and they tend to have very black-letter transcripts with no ungraded classes.

Not really on topic, but this stuff does make me wonder how much of a crapshoot the clerkship process is if you don't have super strong connections and the unfairness of it all if you're someone who just didn't stumble on the "right" people to get to know.

I'm a student at a T30 and our clerkship rate is probably way higher than it should be. We have people with 3.6's snagging COAs over candidates at T14 who I'm sure are more academically "qualified", and I'm guessing that's all because our faculty is super well connected.

To be fair, doesn't ND curve to somewhere between a 3.1/3.2, so a 3.6 is probably somewhere near the top ~15% of the class?

Also - cannot overstate how valuable it is to clerkship numbers to have (1) a conservative student body + (2) conservative professors who are willing to aggressively advocate for students (the Garnetts (X2), the Bellias (X2), Carozza) given the current state of the judiciary haha
That said,

how are those professors so well-connected, at least compared to other faculty at similarly ranked law schools? i looked at their faculty bios and they're impressive, but they look exactly like the bios of professors at other law schools.

I don't think that's true - they have the same pedigree as a lot of T14 profs, but they pretty clearly outstrip the average prof pedigree at T20s and certainly T30s.

But also - they are known in conservative/christian academia circles, so their word carries weight with the current composition of the judiciary. Also just actually going to bat for a lot of students has value regardless of the depth of connections. Same thing as Strahilevitz at UChi.