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

[Dede93]

Hi TLS,

Was looking for honest feedback at my chances on a COA clerkship. I am applying to 9th Circuit exclusively for now because my SO and I will likely be moving to California next year. My stats are as follows:

-CCN graduate
-Graduated slightly above median
-Working in litigation group of V5 firm in NY for a little over three years now
-Moot court experience (didn't make it past the first round but received honorable mention)
-No journal experience

Happy to share any other information that might be relevant but I think these are the big data points. I guess my big hesitations are that I didn't do a journal in law school and I wasn't near the top of my class. My understanding is those are strongly preferred for COA.

Thanks very much.

[Anonymous User]

Going to be hard to get a COA in California unless you have fed soc ties + UChicago. District court in CA is doable and then that district could presumably give you increased odds for a COA.

[Anonymous User]

Your odds at a district court are better than your odds at a COA, which are very long unless there’s something relevant you aren’t mentioning, especially if you aren’t at Chicago.

[Anonymous User]

Hi TLS,

Was looking for honest feedback at my chances on a COA clerkship. I am applying to 9th Circuit exclusively for now because my SO and I will likely be moving to California next year. My stats are as follows:

-CCN graduate
-Graduated slightly above median
-Working in litigation group of V5 firm in NY for a little over three years now
-Moot court experience (didn't make it past the first round but received honorable mention)
-No journal experience

Happy to share any other information that might be relevant but I think these are the big data points. I guess my big hesitations are that I didn't do a journal in law school and I wasn't near the top of my class. My understanding is those are strongly preferred for COA.

Thanks very much.

Respectfully, your grades and softs are too weak to make you a competitive applicant for the 9th Circuit. I don’t think working as an associate in big law for three years can make up for them. The 9th is just so competitive—even compared to Rawlinson clerks who are the least impressive, you don’t compare as an applicant.

But the District Court isn’t out of the question! And if your District Court judge likes you, perhaps that’ll open up appellate clerkship opportunities.

[lavarman84]

I clerked for a judge on an ostensibly less competitive circuit, and your application wouldn't have gotten pulled from the pile in our chambers (absent something special, like a personal recommendation from somebody the judge greatly respected).

[Anonymous User]

Some context from someone who recently helped hire clerks for a Ninth Circuit judge: we get *a lot* of applications like this from NYU and Columbia--biglaw experience and good (but not great) grades. Even a district court clerkship wouldn't do much to separate you from the pack, unless you really impressed that district judge and that district judge was willing to call a Ninth Circuit judge that knows them well. And even in that (quite unlikely) scenario, it's still an uphill battle.

[Anonymous User]

Some context from someone who recently helped hire clerks for a Ninth Circuit judge: we get *a lot* of applications like this from NYU and Columbia--biglaw experience and good (but not great) grades. Even a district court clerkship wouldn't do much to separate you from the pack, unless you really impressed that district judge and that district judge was willing to call a Ninth Circuit judge that knows them well. And even in that (quite unlikely) scenario, it's still an uphill battle.

What's the NYU/Columbia + biglaw experience needed to get seriously considered? Something like top 10%? Assuming for the purposes that this Ninth Circuit judge isn't someone like O'Scannlain or any of the heavy hitter ones.

[Anonymous User]

Some context from someone who recently helped hire clerks for a Ninth Circuit judge: we get *a lot* of applications like this from NYU and Columbia--biglaw experience and good (but not great) grades. Even a district court clerkship wouldn't do much to separate you from the pack, unless you really impressed that district judge and that district judge was willing to call a Ninth Circuit judge that knows them well. And even in that (quite unlikely) scenario, it's still an uphill battle.

What's the NYU/Columbia + biglaw experience needed to get seriously considered? Something like top 10%? Assuming for the purposes that this Ninth Circuit judge isn't someone like O'Scannlain or any of the heavy hitter ones.

Yeah, likely at least double Kent (mostly BLL) at CLS?

[Anonymous User]

Some context from someone who recently helped hire clerks for a Ninth Circuit judge: we get *a lot* of applications like this from NYU and Columbia--biglaw experience and good (but not great) grades. Even a district court clerkship wouldn't do much to separate you from the pack, unless you really impressed that district judge and that district judge was willing to call a Ninth Circuit judge that knows them well. And even in that (quite unlikely) scenario, it's still an uphill battle.

What's the NYU/Columbia + biglaw experience needed to get seriously considered? Something like top 10%? Assuming for the purposes that this Ninth Circuit judge isn't someone like O'Scannlain or any of the heavy hitter ones.

Yeah, likely at least double Kent (mostly BLL) at CLS?

Isn't double Kent more like top ~3%?

[Anonymous User]

Some context from someone who recently helped hire clerks for a Ninth Circuit judge: we get *a lot* of applications like this from NYU and Columbia--biglaw experience and good (but not great) grades. Even a district court clerkship wouldn't do much to separate you from the pack, unless you really impressed that district judge and that district judge was willing to call a Ninth Circuit judge that knows them well. And even in that (quite unlikely) scenario, it's still an uphill battle.

What's the NYU/Columbia + biglaw experience needed to get seriously considered? Something like top 10%? Assuming for the purposes that this Ninth Circuit judge isn't someone like O'Scannlain or any of the heavy hitter ones.

Yeah, likely at least double Kent (mostly BLL) at CLS?

Isn't double Kent more like top ~3%?

There are 15-20 RBG scholars per year, which is roughly top 3-5% of a 400 person class. Anecdotally, a lot (30%+?) of people seem to get Kent at least once during 2L/3L. I’d guess Stone 1L + Kent 2L & 3L puts you somewhere in the top 5-15% of the class depending on underlying grade breakdown.

[crazywafflez]

I don't think you'll be competitive. I don't think district court clerkships are out of the question though, and, as others have said, if you get a district court judge that you really wow, they may be able to pull the trigger and call a COA judge they are close with a get you an interview. I just think it'll be tough.
If you are flexible with circuits, you might be able to snag something in another circuit if you've got some special wildcard factor.

[Anonymous User]

Some context from someone who recently helped hire clerks for a Ninth Circuit judge: we get *a lot* of applications like this from NYU and Columbia--biglaw experience and good (but not great) grades. Even a district court clerkship wouldn't do much to separate you from the pack, unless you really impressed that district judge and that district judge was willing to call a Ninth Circuit judge that knows them well. And even in that (quite unlikely) scenario, it's still an uphill battle.

What's the NYU/Columbia + biglaw experience needed to get seriously considered? Something like top 10%? Assuming for the purposes that this Ninth Circuit judge isn't someone like O'Scannlain or any of the heavy hitter ones.

Yeah, likely at least double Kent (mostly BLL) at CLS?

Isn't double Kent more like top ~3%?

No because the RBG folks (Kent all three years) comprise the top 5%, so people who were Stone-Kent-Kent will comprise the next 5% of the class.

[Anonymous User]

Hi TLS,

Was looking for honest feedback at my chances on a COA clerkship. I am applying to 9th Circuit exclusively for now because my SO and I will likely be moving to California next year. My stats are as follows:

-CCN graduate
-Graduated slightly above median
-Working in litigation group of V5 firm in NY for a little over three years now
-Moot court experience (didn't make it past the first round but received honorable mention)
-No journal experience

Happy to share any other information that might be relevant but I think these are the big data points. I guess my big hesitations are that I didn't do a journal in law school and I wasn't near the top of my class. My understanding is those are strongly preferred for COA.

Thanks very much.

Respectfully, your grades and softs are too weak to make you a competitive applicant for the 9th Circuit. I don’t think working as an associate in big law for three years can make up for them. The 9th is just so competitive—even compared to Rawlinson clerks who are the least impressive, you don’t compare as an applicant.

But the District Court isn’t out of the question! And if your District Court judge likes you, perhaps that’ll open up appellate clerkship opportunities.

Gotta stick up for the Rawlinson bros here (clerked on the court but not for her)--she isn't as grade selective as other judges but her clerks always have interesting work experience so I wouldn't call them "the least impressive" by any stretch...plenty of judges on the circuit hire 24-year-olds with strong grades but no experience, which is apples and oranges in terms of "impressiveness."

I agree that OP's best play here, if they are interested in and financially able to do two clerkships, is to apply to D.Ct. now and try to use that as a springboard to CoA.

[Anonymous User]

Some context from someone who recently helped hire clerks for a Ninth Circuit judge: we get *a lot* of applications like this from NYU and Columbia--biglaw experience and good (but not great) grades. Even a district court clerkship wouldn't do much to separate you from the pack, unless you really impressed that district judge and that district judge was willing to call a Ninth Circuit judge that knows them well. And even in that (quite unlikely) scenario, it's still an uphill battle.

What's the NYU/Columbia + biglaw experience needed to get seriously considered? Something like top 10%? Assuming for the purposes that this Ninth Circuit judge isn't someone like O'Scannlain or any of the heavy hitter ones.

Yeah, likely at least double Kent (mostly BLL) at CLS?

Isn't double Kent more like top ~3%?

OP here, this is actually a problem we had with looking at CCN applications; transcripts don't provide cumulative GPAs and (particularly Columbia) it can be difficult to make sense of the schools' awards and ranking systems. None of us went to a CCN, so we tried to do our best but never felt like we were getting it right. The cut-off we were looking for would be top 10%; that wouldn't be either necessary or sufficient, but it was a good marker. If a candidate was in say, the top 20% but had otherwise sterling credentials (i.e. law review, a published note, interesting WE, and/or a connection to the judge/city), they would maybe get a closer look. Below that, they would be out of the running.

I also second the other poster's defense of Rawlinson clerks. Judge Rawlinson hires from a broad set of schools and cares a lot about diversity. That doesn't mean that she's not selective or that her clerks are "unimpressive."

[Anonymous User]

Some context from someone who recently helped hire clerks for a Ninth Circuit judge: we get *a lot* of applications like this from NYU and Columbia--biglaw experience and good (but not great) grades. Even a district court clerkship wouldn't do much to separate you from the pack, unless you really impressed that district judge and that district judge was willing to call a Ninth Circuit judge that knows them well. And even in that (quite unlikely) scenario, it's still an uphill battle.

What's the NYU/Columbia + biglaw experience needed to get seriously considered? Something like top 10%? Assuming for the purposes that this Ninth Circuit judge isn't someone like O'Scannlain or any of the heavy hitter ones.

Yeah, likely at least double Kent (mostly BLL) at CLS?

Isn't double Kent more like top ~3%?

OP here, this is actually a problem we had with looking at CCN applications; transcripts don't provide cumulative GPAs and (particularly Columbia) it can be difficult to make sense of the schools' awards and ranking systems. None of us went to a CCN, so we tried to do our best but never felt like we were getting it right. The cut-off we were looking for would be top 10%; that wouldn't be either necessary or sufficient, but it was a good marker. If a candidate was in say, the top 20% but had otherwise sterling credentials (i.e. law review, a published note, interesting WE, and/or a connection to the judge/city), they would maybe get a closer look. Below that, they would be out of the running.

I also second the other poster's defense of Rawlinson clerks. Judge Rawlinson hires from a broad set of schools and cares a lot about diversity. That doesn't mean that she's not selective or that her clerks are "unimpressive."

NYU is pretty clear though if I recall. Top 10 students, top 10%, top 25%. Columbia's is really unhelpful because you either have Kent which is very good, or Stone which at least with clerkships does not really mean much. Columbia should really pick something in the middle that captures like those below Kent but in the top 10–15 percent or something.

More to OP's question also do not look at just CD Cal. Of course apply there, but I don't think you can necessarily afford to be picky so I would blanket all the California districts.

[Anonymous User]

Some context from someone who recently helped hire clerks for a Ninth Circuit judge: we get *a lot* of applications like this from NYU and Columbia--biglaw experience and good (but not great) grades. Even a district court clerkship wouldn't do much to separate you from the pack, unless you really impressed that district judge and that district judge was willing to call a Ninth Circuit judge that knows them well. And even in that (quite unlikely) scenario, it's still an uphill battle.

What's the NYU/Columbia + biglaw experience needed to get seriously considered? Something like top 10%? Assuming for the purposes that this Ninth Circuit judge isn't someone like O'Scannlain or any of the heavy hitter ones.

Yeah, likely at least double Kent (mostly BLL) at CLS?

Isn't double Kent more like top ~3%?

OP here, this is actually a problem we had with looking at CCN applications; transcripts don't provide cumulative GPAs and (particularly Columbia) it can be difficult to make sense of the schools' awards and ranking systems. None of us went to a CCN, so we tried to do our best but never felt like we were getting it right. The cut-off we were looking for would be top 10%; that wouldn't be either necessary or sufficient, but it was a good marker. If a candidate was in say, the top 20% but had otherwise sterling credentials (i.e. law review, a published note, interesting WE, and/or a connection to the judge/city), they would maybe get a closer look. Below that, they would be out of the running.

I also second the other poster's defense of Rawlinson clerks. Judge Rawlinson hires from a broad set of schools and cares a lot about diversity. That doesn't mean that she's not selective or that her clerks are "unimpressive."

NYU is pretty clear though if I recall. Top 10 students, top 10%, top 25%. Columbia's is really unhelpful because you either have Kent which is very good, or Stone which at least with clerkships does not really mean much. Columbia should really pick something in the middle that captures like those below Kent but in the top 10–15 percent or something.

More to OP's question also do not look at just CD Cal. Of course apply there, but I don't think you can necessarily afford to be picky so I would blanket all the California districts.

Yeah, NYU is pretty clear. Columbia is changing their Kent/Stone scholars honors to more standard "Highest Honors," "High Honors," and "Honors," but the big problem is that it's just awarded based on year. Obviously if someone had Kent (or high honors) all three years, that's good. And two Kents is probably pretty good. But what if the third year their grades were terrible? Or what if they had two Stones and a Kent?

Also, if you're willing to accept a bit of distance from your SO for a year, it's definitely worth it to apply to districts outside CA and in the Ninth Circuit. I know that W.D. Wash., D. Ariz., and D. Oregon in particular have some great, well-connected judges, but I'm sure you could find great judges in each district in the circuit. And if your SO has to be in CA, the trips from say, Phoenix to LA or Seattle to SF are just as quick as LA to SF.

[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.

[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.

[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.

Notre Dame?

[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.

Notre Dame?

Yeah, exactly. I mean, I'm not at all complaining but...

[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.

I get that it seems unfair, but from the other side, we get inundated with applications, we don't have a ton of time to look through them, and frankly, applicants blend together. There is no real difference between an applicants with a 3.7 and a 3.6 who both worked for Davis Polk or Latham or something and is from New York or New Jersey. Putting in the extra effort to have someone vouch meaningfully for you is one of the only ways to get yourself noticed, and says something about the candidate. Going through law school without trying to get to know any professors just isn't a good use of your three years there.

[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.

Doesn't seem that unfair to me, given the lack of correlation between lawyer qualities versus GPA or law school rank. There is broad correlation, don't get me wrong, but the causation link is very easily and often broken. You can be a highly successful lawyer from California Western or a blithering idiot from NYU.

What you end up having, then, is a competition where the winner tends to be students who have stronger social skills. Extroverts win out over introverts. Is that "fair"? Arguable on both sides, but not really the injustice this started out sounding like.

[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.

Doesn't seem that unfair to me, given the lack of correlation between lawyer qualities versus GPA or law school rank. There is broad correlation, don't get me wrong, but the causation link is very easily and often broken. You can be a highly successful lawyer from California Western or a blithering idiot from NYU.

What you end up having, then, is a competition where the winner tends to be students who have stronger social skills. Extroverts win out over introverts. Is that "fair"? Arguable on both sides, but not really the injustice this started out sounding like.

Introverts with social skills do just fine in clerkship interviews. As a hardcore I who is capable of turning on the charm for about an hour at a time to get a job, clerking has been the best job imaginable. Small, quiet office with the same people every day, thoughtful conversation, plenty of time and space to work independently, and no networking/client development/mindless happy-hour or water-cooler yammering.

[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.

Doesn't seem that unfair to me, given the lack of correlation between lawyer qualities versus GPA or law school rank. There is broad correlation, don't get me wrong, but the causation link is very easily and often broken. You can be a highly successful lawyer from California Western or a blithering idiot from NYU.

What you end up having, then, is a competition where the winner tends to be students who have stronger social skills. Extroverts win out over introverts. Is that "fair"? Arguable on both sides, but not really the injustice this started out sounding like.

Introverts with social skills do just fine in clerkship interviews. As a hardcore I who is capable of turning on the charm for about an hour at a time to get a job, clerking has been the best job imaginable. Small, quiet office with the same people every day, thoughtful conversation, plenty of time and space to work independently, and no networking/client development/mindless happy-hour or water-cooler yammering.

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.

[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,