Counter Clerk Experience Forum

[Anonymous User]

I received an interview with a circuit court judge where I would be a counter clerk (liberal for conservative Trump appointee that is not one of the very ideological ones). I have heard this judge is kind and considerate to clerks, so I’m not worried they’re a jerk.

But I’m a bit worried about 1) the actual process of disagreeing with the opinions/dissents I’m drafting on a regular basis (including morally) and 2) the ramifications of having a conservative judge/clerk network on my resume forever. On the other hand, I think the process of counter clerking would make me a better litigator; it’s basically a crash course in understanding conservative legal arguments & how they’re crafted (so I can argue better against them in the future).

I’d be really interested to hear the experiences of other counter clerks. What was it like? Would you do it again? Are you glad for the experience? Was it uncomfortable in chambers with the judge or clerks when you’d disagree with them?

[lavarman84]

I am a progressive who clerked for a conservative judge. I wouldn't say I was a counter clerk because my judge didn't hire ideologically. It was a great experience. My judge was a kind boss. We still have a good relationship today.

I understood going in what his ideology was and made my recommendations with that in mind. We disagreed a few times. He was always courteous in his disagreement. But we agreed in the vast majority of cases on what the right way to go was.

As for chambers, I got along well with all my co-clerks. We were all over the political spectrum, but we didn't spend much time talking politics. There were plenty of other things to bond over. And in the rare cases we did talk politics, we simply treated each other with respect. The judge also rarely, if ever, talked politics. And I kept my politics mostly to myself.

It hasn't hurt my career at all. I litigate for a progressive impact litigation org. I basically sold my experience the way you are thinking about it, that there is value in understanding how conservatives think about the law and how to present cases to conservative judges.

Ultimately, the question you should ask yourself is if you're comfortable writing an opinion you have strong personal disagreements with. For me, the answer was yes. But if you're not comfortable with that, pass on the job. Otherwise, I think you'll be just fine.

[Anonymous User]

I had the same experience.

I actually don’t remember disagreeing with any opinions I wrote, though that’s kind of the luck of the draw. Remember that the vast majority of cases are unanimous, and many circuits do not receive substantial amounts of impact lit and are not polarized. Roughly, DC, the Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh are polarized. The First, Second, Third, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth aren’t really. The Fourth seems to be in between.

My judge was truly a wonderful person, my coclerks were great (my judge hired roughly 50-50 politically). Not all judges who hire counterclerks are great bosses, of course, but I do think there may be a correlation as it signals openness to hearing opposition. The conservatives my judge hired tended to be more Romney than Trump, just like the judge himself; MAGA stuff on your resume would get you axed just like working at Americans United would. Again I think that’s very common (Trump appointed tons of quieter George Conway types). But if you’re concerned that you can’t get along with people who disagree with you it might not be a good fit.

I do think there’s tremendous value to understanding the conservative legal movement from the internal point of view, especially if you plan to practice in a conservative jurisdiction. Frankly I think that’s a big problem in the impact lit community. There’s a reason why conservatives are overrepresented in private-practice appellate shops and the SG.

As far as resume goes, I will practice ant a “liberal” firm and don’t think it matters in that context, can’t speak to e.g. the ACLU or LDF.

[Anonymous User]

I was at a district court, so this is of limited relevance to your experience (though I also did a state appellate clerkship); I wouldn't really count as a "counter" clerk given how differently district courts operate and hiring was not ideological. But FWIW my DCt judge and co-clerk (permanent) were very much more conservative than I was (my appellate judge was actually pretty tight-lipped about their personal beliefs, so I don't even really know to what extent we agreed).

The first thing I'd ask is whether you would be what I'd consider a "counter" clerk, proper - that is, would the judge hire you specifically because you disagree politically and they want a counter to their own beliefs? Or is it that you happen to be liberal and you happened to get an interview with a judge who is conservative? (For instance, does your resume scream PROGRESSIVE!!!!!!! or is it more typical law student resume? Is this judge known to want political balance? you said they're not super ideological, so it sounds less likely?)

Because if it's the second option - if there isn't some kind of express expectation that your purpose is to provide political balance - your personal political beliefs are rarely rarely implicated in the work (even at the appellate level, IME). For so many cases, the law is relatively clear and it's a question of parsing the facts in your case and finding the law that's most pertinent - you're not making tough ethical decisions. There are obviously exceptions, but the degree to which you run into them is sort of luck of the draw. I had two appellate cases on very hot button issues but even there, the goal is to apply the law as it exists and the judge was very careful.

To the extent you worry about disagreeing, I think you kind of have to consider whether you disagree with the outcome, or you think the legal conclusion is wrong. Your job is to help the judge get the law right, even if the law compels an outcome you disagree with. I'm probably a bit of a sociopath, but I don't have a moral problem with being a cog in that machine. If the cog weren't me, it would be someone else; the clerk isn't really in the position of fundamentally changing the law, just applying it. And I don't mean to minimize the influence that individual judges have, because obviously under common law, that's how law is actually made. Just that on an individual case-by-case basis, deciding on what's in front of you, it doesn't often feel like you (or the judge) are in a position to impose your beliefs on the outcome. (Of course there are judges who do start from the outcome and try to find law to justify it, rather than follow the law to reach their outcome, and I guess I can't say how frequently that happens, only that I and friends who clerked didn't experience this.)

If you would be hired specifically for your political beliefs, that's probably a very different experience and I can't speak to that, although presumably if a judge is consciously doing that, the point is to have you disagree (respectfully) and they actually want to know what you think, so the atmosphere shouldn't be crushing.

Finally, this is something that will likely come up in the interview to some extent - not specifically politics, but most judges will ask you how you'd handle it if the judge disagreed with your recommendation, b/c it's an important part of the clerk's job. It's important enough that if they didn't bring it up, I'd ask them how they handle that situation. Interviews are hard to trust entirely b/c everyone's on their best behavior, but that conversation can tell you a lot.

On a personal level, it sometimes got a little odd with the permanent clerk (and very occasionally the judge's other staff), in part b/c they were very outspoken about lots of things and it was hard not to (politely!) disagree sometimes (there was one discussion about a trans student going to the local high school prom that probably I shouldn't have pursued! but thankfully we all got along well otherwise so they put up with my occasional liberal madness). That was never an issue with the judge, although it was clear we didn't agree on everything, b/c he never brought stuff up (unlike their permanent clerk). It was sometimes a little weird/isolating to be the only liberal in a very small workplace with conservative colleagues, but b/c everyone was generally nice, it was a useful experience to have (as I at least have spent lots of time in liberal bubbles).

I can't really comment on the employment issue from personal experience, but in addition to lavarman's good points about how you can sell the experience, I don't think most employers attribute the judge's politics to the clerk. And if the issue is only that they're a Trump appointee, rather than that they've issued notoriously conservatively-slanted controversial opinions, no one will care - I think everyone recognizes that just because a judge gets appointed by a particular administration, that doesn't mean that judge will adopt all that admin's positions, unless the judge shows they do in their work. Trump notoriously pushed a fedsoc agenda harder than many previous presidents, but I think sensible people recognize that many of his appointees were still eminently qualified. I don't think most people hiring former clerks are going to hold who appointed the judge against the clerk.

[Anonymous User]

Counter clerk is a thing that left-leaning students say to justify to themselves and the world that they're progressive despite clerking for Laurence Silberman or whatever. Very few judges are hiring you because they want you to counter everything they say. And, there are a lot of things you will do for the judge that you both a) will not disagree with and b) are not that political (especially if district). I clerked for two judges one who was left leaning and one who was right leaning and I disagreed with them both sometimes and I would just mark my disagreement, try to convince them otherwise, and if they weren't moved I would draft the opinion anyways.

This being said, the judge is interviewing you because he wants smart students I think. I was fine clerking for my conservative judge.

Now here is the thing that you should consider and I think it is getting increasingly worse depending on the judge. From the perspective of someone who is center-left, some of these fed soc kids are getting increasingly nuts and hard to be around (yes, for anyone in fed soc I'm sure the leftist kids are also increasingly nuts and communists etc...). Since your judge is not of the kind that screens based on ideology your fellow clerks are going to be fine, but there are a lot of judges now-a-days who I personally think are hiring clerks that would not make an enjoyable working environment for me. But, again, maybe I'm just cloistered and can't handle opposing viewpoints.

[Anonymous User]

I want to express my gratitude for the level of thought and detail your responses have provided! It really is helpful to hear from people who have gone through it before.

My resume does not overtly scream politics, although my marginalized identities may tend to carry "assumptions." I have a fairly strong specialization in a niche area of law, so my RA work does show a political bent, but that would likely be attributed to my professor, not me. Similarly, my pro bono experience could be seen by some as partisan (election law), but most would know that pro bono is nonpartisan. Based on this and your responses above, I would not be officially a "counter clerk" and the judge appears to be hiring non-ideologically.

I'm also glad to hear the disagreements are infrequent - I expected that they would be, but it is nice to have it confirmed. The idea to ask how disagreements are handled in the interview is a great one; I will definitely do that. It would tie in well with a question I normally ask.

I appreciate your grounding responses. I knew in the past political ideology was not automatically imparted onto the clerks, but I was not sure how that had shifted in the Trump years. This judge is not a member of Fed Soc and has bucked the "party line" in at least one high profile case, which was part of why I felt comfortable applying. Getting offered the interview suddenly made it very real, and I'm grateful to this forum for continuing to provide such helpful advice. Thank you all!

[Anonymous User]

I want to express my gratitude for the level of thought and detail your responses have provided! It really is helpful to hear from people who have gone through it before.

My resume does not overtly scream politics, although my marginalized identities may tend to carry "assumptions." I have a fairly strong specialization in a niche area of law, so my RA work does show a political bent, but that would likely be attributed to my professor, not me. Similarly, my pro bono experience could be seen by some as partisan (election law), but most would know that pro bono is nonpartisan. Based on this and your responses above, I would not be officially a "counter clerk" and the judge appears to be hiring non-ideologically.

I'm also glad to hear the disagreements are infrequent - I expected that they would be, but it is nice to have it confirmed. The idea to ask how disagreements are handled in the interview is a great one; I will definitely do that. It would tie in well with a question I normally ask.

I appreciate your grounding responses. I knew in the past political ideology was not automatically imparted onto the clerks, but I was not sure how that had shifted in the Trump years. This judge is not a member of Fed Soc and has bucked the "party line" in at least one high profile case, which was part of why I felt comfortable applying. Getting offered the interview suddenly made it very real, and I'm grateful to this forum for continuing to provide such helpful advice. Thank you all!

I'm the last anon before this one. The fact that your judge is not a member of Fed Soc is a green flag (for someone in your profile). That also means their clerks are not being fed straight through the Fed Soc pipeline as much. I would not worry about this and take the interview.

[Anonymous User]

These are amazing responses. Can people share more on even getting interview offers with top conservative judges if you're a liberal? I would be open to counter clerking for the right judge; however, my resume has multiple work experiences at progressive organizations (ACLU, NAACP, Public Defender, etc). Furthermore, if they google my name, they'll see I'm very pro DEI and representation. FWIW, I have gotten multiple interviews with liberal feeder judges on the plan.

[Anonymous User]

Counter clerk is a thing that left-leaning students say to justify to themselves and the world that they're progressive despite clerking for Laurence Silberman or whatever. Very few judges are hiring you because they want you to counter everything they say. And, there are a lot of things you will do for the judge that you both a) will not disagree with and b) are not that political (especially if district). I clerked for two judges one who was left leaning and one who was right leaning and I disagreed with them both sometimes and I would just mark my disagreement, try to convince them otherwise, and if they weren't moved I would draft the opinion anyways.

This.

[charlesives95]

I’m left-leaning and clerking for a judge like you describe here. Feel free to PM - happy to discuss further.

[maoisthayek]

Can folks share more perspective on chances of getting interviews from conservative judges if your resume very clearly screams progressive?

For context, I'm a T-14 rising 3L who has gotten interviews with liberal feeder judges on plan. I am also open to interviewing with the Romney type conservative judges; however, I am wondering if I should even bother given the multiple progressive organizations I've worked for (eg ACLU, NAACP, Planned Parenthood, etc). Thank you.

[Anonymous User]

Can folks share more perspective on chances of getting interviews from conservative judges if your resume very clearly screams progressive?

For context, I'm a T-14 rising 3L who has gotten interviews with liberal feeder judges on plan. I am also open to interviewing with the Romney type conservative judges; however, I am wondering if I should even bother given the multiple progressive organizations I've worked for (eg ACLU, NAACP, Planned Parenthood, etc). Thank you.

There's no cost to applying, but I think it's unlikely. Though I think some judges would be fine with the ACLU or NAACP; Planned Parenthood or Americans United, not so much.

[Anonymous User]

I was in the interesting position of learning, mid-clerkship, from my district judge that I had been hired as a sort of counter-clerk, but not in the political sense. I lean right and my judge is liberal, but my resume was politically neutral and I never discussed politics in chambers (the judge really wasn't interested in the political tennis match). However, the judge and my co-clerk both came from impact litigation backgrounds, and part of the thinking in hiring me was getting someone from outside that world in the room who could give a dispassionate take when one was needed.

[Anonymous User]

Can folks share more perspective on chances of getting interviews from conservative judges if your resume very clearly screams progressive?

For context, I'm a T-14 rising 3L who has gotten interviews with liberal feeder judges on plan. I am also open to interviewing with the Romney type conservative judges; however, I am wondering if I should even bother given the multiple progressive organizations I've worked for (eg ACLU, NAACP, Planned Parenthood, etc). Thank you.

There's no cost to applying, but I think it's unlikely. Though I think some judges would be fine with the ACLU or NAACP; Planned Parenthood or Americans United, not so much.

Yeah, Planned Parenthood is just going to get your resume trashed by most, including clerks filtering.

[Anonymous User]

Can folks share more perspective on chances of getting interviews from conservative judges if your resume very clearly screams progressive?

For context, I'm a T-14 rising 3L who has gotten interviews with liberal feeder judges on plan. I am also open to interviewing with the Romney type conservative judges; however, I am wondering if I should even bother given the multiple progressive organizations I've worked for (eg ACLU, NAACP, Planned Parenthood, etc). Thank you.

There's no cost to applying, but I think it's unlikely. Though I think some judges would be fine with the ACLU or NAACP; Planned Parenthood or Americans United, not so much.

Yeah, Planned Parenthood is just going to get your resume trashed by most, including clerks filtering.

Clerked for two Romney-esque judges, and neither would trash a resume based on a single organization, but both were wary of applicants whose resumes screamed "public interest advocacy." As in, at seemingly every junction--pre-work experience, internships, law school clubs--the person chose to work in or affiliate themselves with a politically-oriented group. This was true for conservative and liberal applicants.

[Anonymous User]

Now here is the thing that you should consider and I think it is getting increasingly worse depending on the judge. From the perspective of someone who is center-left, some of these fed soc kids are getting increasingly nuts and hard to be around (yes, for anyone in fed soc I'm sure the leftist kids are also increasingly nuts and communists etc...). Since your judge is not of the kind that screens based on ideology your fellow clerks are going to be fine, but there are a lot of judges now-a-days who I personally think are hiring clerks that would not make an enjoyable working environment for me. But, again, maybe I'm just cloistered and can't handle opposing viewpoints.

I didn't clerk but I was in fedsoc so I want to address this point. From my experience in fedsoc, yes there's always going to be a couple of "liberal tears" charlie Kirk kinda kids. We tolerated them because they are ideological allies and we don't have many, but we did try to avoid them becoming the face of the org. Most fedsoc kids are just generic conservatives, some even barely right of center.

[Anonymous User]

Now here is the thing that you should consider and I think it is getting increasingly worse depending on the judge. From the perspective of someone who is center-left, some of these fed soc kids are getting increasingly nuts and hard to be around (yes, for anyone in fed soc I'm sure the leftist kids are also increasingly nuts and communists etc...). Since your judge is not of the kind that screens based on ideology your fellow clerks are going to be fine, but there are a lot of judges now-a-days who I personally think are hiring clerks that would not make an enjoyable working environment for me. But, again, maybe I'm just cloistered and can't handle opposing viewpoints.

I didn't clerk but I was in fedsoc so I want to address this point. From my experience in fedsoc, yes there's always going to be a couple of "liberal tears" charlie Kirk kinda kids. We tolerated them because they are ideological allies and we don't have many, but we did try to avoid them becoming the face of the org. Most fedsoc kids are just generic conservatives, some even barely right of center.

Same here. We had a couple Charlie Kirk types and they were mostly people you avoided at FedSoc events. 90% of FedSoc was normal people who happened to be somewhere on the center to right spectrum.

[Anonymous User]

Now here is the thing that you should consider and I think it is getting increasingly worse depending on the judge. From the perspective of someone who is center-left, some of these fed soc kids are getting increasingly nuts and hard to be around (yes, for anyone in fed soc I'm sure the leftist kids are also increasingly nuts and communists etc...). Since your judge is not of the kind that screens based on ideology your fellow clerks are going to be fine, but there are a lot of judges now-a-days who I personally think are hiring clerks that would not make an enjoyable working environment for me. But, again, maybe I'm just cloistered and can't handle opposing viewpoints.

I didn't clerk but I was in fedsoc so I want to address this point. From my experience in fedsoc, yes there's always going to be a couple of "liberal tears" charlie Kirk kinda kids. We tolerated them because they are ideological allies and we don't have many, but we did try to avoid them becoming the face of the org. Most fedsoc kids are just generic conservatives, some even barely right of center.

Same here. We had a couple Charlie Kirk types and they were mostly people you avoided at FedSoc events. 90% of FedSoc was normal people who happened to be somewhere on the center to right spectrum.

Issue is that a lot of the particularly partisan judges end up pulling in the Charlie Kirk types

[Anonymous User]

Can folks share more perspective on chances of getting interviews from conservative judges if your resume very clearly screams progressive?

For context, I'm a T-14 rising 3L who has gotten interviews with liberal feeder judges on plan. I am also open to interviewing with the Romney type conservative judges; however, I am wondering if I should even bother given the multiple progressive organizations I've worked for (eg ACLU, NAACP, Planned Parenthood, etc). Thank you.

There's no cost to applying, but I think it's unlikely. Though I think some judges would be fine with the ACLU or NAACP; Planned Parenthood or Americans United, not so much.

Yeah, Planned Parenthood is just going to get your resume trashed by most, including clerks filtering.

Clerked for two Romney-esque judges, and neither would trash a resume based on a single organization, but both were wary of applicants whose resumes screamed "public interest advocacy." As in, at seemingly every junction--pre-work experience, internships, law school clubs--the person chose to work in or affiliate themselves with a politically-oriented group. This was true for conservative and liberal applicants.

agree that this is the general vibe with conservative judges. I clerked for a conservative district court judge who generally doesn't require fed soc or his clerks to be conservative. I myself am quite liberal. That said, he still threw out a very qualified candidate because he had a ton of progressive organizations on his resume

[Anonymous User]

I went into a very conservative clerkship as a moderate counter-clerk and it was in fact horrible. I brought it on myself, and I own the consequences of being a gunner and convincing myself it'd be fine, but I just want to balance out the other stories of respectful judges, clerks, and all gamely debating the issues and living together in harmony. I can't speak for every clerkship but after this one I wouldn't recommend counter-clerking regardless of context. This applies to you- the moderate person reading this and thinking you'll be fine. Maybe you will. I was also as moderate as you view yourself and wasn't fine.

[Anonymous User]

I went into a very conservative clerkship as a moderate counter-clerk and it was in fact horrible. I brought it on myself, and I own the consequences of being a gunner and convincing myself it'd be fine, but I just want to balance out the other stories of respectful judges, clerks, and all gamely debating the issues and living together in harmony. I can't speak for every clerkship but after this one I wouldn't recommend counter-clerking regardless of context. This applies to you- the moderate person reading this and thinking you'll be fine. Maybe you will. I was also as moderate as you view yourself and wasn't fine.

Could you expand on why it was horrible?