Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=314416
I would say the most important factor for prestige is whether they're considered a feeder or semi-feeder. And if they're not, especially if they're new, then the above traits you mentioned become a factor because they're indicators of whether they have potential of becoming a feeder or not.praktischevernunft wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 2:41 pmThis all seems to me highly arbitrary. Pedigrees? Personal connections? Jurisprudence? Intellectual merits as a judge?
No real disagreement with what you've written (and apologies for the tangent), but I've certainly heard the "DC/2/9 are the 'best' circuits" trope from an older generation of practitioners. I think I've seen an article (might've been something David Lat wrote) talking about the idea of "feeder circuits" being outdated wisdom, so maybe it's just a view that was more commonly held 20 years ago but is slowly fading away.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 2:16 pmThe online legal hive-mind, TLS included, tells us that DC/2/9 are the "best" circuits, and judges that went to Yale are preferable to those who went to the local state school.
Some of it might also be supply and demand. In DC/2/9, many judges sit where young professionals most like to live. So more people vie for those spots. You will be perceived to have beaten out a lot of applicants for an SDNY or EDNY spot. Not so for the District of Oklahoma. Same thing with the circuits.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 4:49 pmNo real disagreement with what you've written (and apologies for the tangent), but I've certainly heard the "DC/2/9 are the 'best' circuits" trope from an older generation of practitioners. I think I've seen an article (might've been something David Lat wrote) talking about the idea of "feeder circuits" being outdated wisdom, so maybe it's just a view that was more commonly held 20 years ago but is slowly fading away.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 2:16 pmThe online legal hive-mind, TLS included, tells us that DC/2/9 are the "best" circuits, and judges that went to Yale are preferable to those who went to the local state school.
I don't really get the DC/2/9 trope today also. From where I stand, the only universally prestigous circuit is the DC Circuit. With the other circuits—especially the Ninth Circuit—I don't see why we should consider a non-feeder random circuit judge outside of California as somehow above a non-feeder random circuit judge in say Virginia or Florida or Illinois for example.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 5:11 pmSome of it might also be supply and demand. In DC/2/9, many judges sit where young professionals most like to live. So more people vie for those spots. You will be perceived to have beaten out a lot of applicants for an SDNY or EDNY spot. Not so for the District of Oklahoma. Same thing with the circuits.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 4:49 pmNo real disagreement with what you've written (and apologies for the tangent), but I've certainly heard the "DC/2/9 are the 'best' circuits" trope from an older generation of practitioners. I think I've seen an article (might've been something David Lat wrote) talking about the idea of "feeder circuits" being outdated wisdom, so maybe it's just a view that was more commonly held 20 years ago but is slowly fading away.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 2:16 pmThe online legal hive-mind, TLS included, tells us that DC/2/9 are the "best" circuits, and judges that went to Yale are preferable to those who went to the local state school.
I think it is just self-reinforcing. As long as firms and academia continue to view CA9 more favorably than a random judge on CA11 or CA8, applicants are going to continue feeling that way tooAnonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 5:15 pmI don't really get the DC/2/9 trope today also. From where I stand, the only universally prestigous circuit is the DC Circuit. With the other circuits—especially the Ninth Circuit—I don't see why we should consider a non-feeder random circuit judge outside of California as somehow above a non-feeder random circuit judge in say Virginia or Florida or Illinois for example.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 5:11 pmSome of it might also be supply and demand. In DC/2/9, many judges sit where young professionals most like to live. So more people vie for those spots. You will be perceived to have beaten out a lot of applicants for an SDNY or EDNY spot. Not so for the District of Oklahoma. Same thing with the circuits.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 4:49 pmNo real disagreement with what you've written (and apologies for the tangent), but I've certainly heard the "DC/2/9 are the 'best' circuits" trope from an older generation of practitioners. I think I've seen an article (might've been something David Lat wrote) talking about the idea of "feeder circuits" being outdated wisdom, so maybe it's just a view that was more commonly held 20 years ago but is slowly fading away.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 2:16 pmThe online legal hive-mind, TLS included, tells us that DC/2/9 are the "best" circuits, and judges that went to Yale are preferable to those who went to the local state school.
What evidence do you have that academia/firms do this? Like all else being equal, a firm in LA will likely view a CA9 clerkship more favorably, but a firm in Miami will favor CA11 and a firm in Minneapolis will favor CA8. Academia wants you to publish in fancy law reviews. I don’t think favoring CA9 in a vacuum is a thing. (Specific judges on CA9, sure, but that’s about the judge, not the circuit.)Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:33 pmI think it is just self-reinforcing. As long as firms and academia continue to view CA9 more favorably than a random judge on CA11 or CA8, applicants are going to continue feeling that way tooAnonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 5:15 pmI don't really get the DC/2/9 trope today also. From where I stand, the only universally prestigous circuit is the DC Circuit. With the other circuits—especially the Ninth Circuit—I don't see why we should consider a non-feeder random circuit judge outside of California as somehow above a non-feeder random circuit judge in say Virginia or Florida or Illinois for example.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 5:11 pmSome of it might also be supply and demand. In DC/2/9, many judges sit where young professionals most like to live. So more people vie for those spots. You will be perceived to have beaten out a lot of applicants for an SDNY or EDNY spot. Not so for the District of Oklahoma. Same thing with the circuits.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 4:49 pmNo real disagreement with what you've written (and apologies for the tangent), but I've certainly heard the "DC/2/9 are the 'best' circuits" trope from an older generation of practitioners. I think I've seen an article (might've been something David Lat wrote) talking about the idea of "feeder circuits" being outdated wisdom, so maybe it's just a view that was more commonly held 20 years ago but is slowly fading away.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 2:16 pmThe online legal hive-mind, TLS included, tells us that DC/2/9 are the "best" circuits, and judges that went to Yale are preferable to those who went to the local state school.
Not to suggest you're advocating that POV, but doesn't the supply & demand argument hold less water once you consider that (for example) the the 9th has almost twice as many judges as the 10th? So even if, say, SDNY gets more applicants than a random flyover circuit, there's more openings available to begin with.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 5:11 pmSome of it might also be supply and demand. In DC/2/9, many judges sit where young professionals most like to live. So more people vie for those spots. You will be perceived to have beaten out a lot of applicants for an SDNY or EDNY spot. Not so for the District of Oklahoma. Same thing with the circuits.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 4:49 pmNo real disagreement with what you've written (and apologies for the tangent), but I've certainly heard the "DC/2/9 are the 'best' circuits" trope from an older generation of practitioners. I think I've seen an article (might've been something David Lat wrote) talking about the idea of "feeder circuits" being outdated wisdom, so maybe it's just a view that was more commonly held 20 years ago but is slowly fading away.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 2:16 pmThe online legal hive-mind, TLS included, tells us that DC/2/9 are the "best" circuits, and judges that went to Yale are preferable to those who went to the local state school.
The CA9 is better take was pretty silly 20 years ago and it’s completely false now, particularly for conservatives. CA9 doesn’t have a single conservative feeder. CA11 has three: Pryor, Grant, Newsom. CA9 barely even has liberal feeders anymore. Top students aren’t targeting CA9 at all.nixy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:24 pmWhat evidence do you have that academia/firms do this? Like all else being equal, a firm in LA will likely view a CA9 clerkship more favorably, but a firm in Miami will favor CA11 and a firm in Minneapolis will favor CA8. Academia wants you to publish in fancy law reviews. I don’t think favoring CA9 in a vacuum is a thing. (Specific judges on CA9, sure, but that’s about the judge, not the circuit.)Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:33 pmI think it is just self-reinforcing. As long as firms and academia continue to view CA9 more favorably than a random judge on CA11 or CA8, applicants are going to continue feeling that way tooAnonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 5:15 pmI don't really get the DC/2/9 trope today also. From where I stand, the only universally prestigous circuit is the DC Circuit. With the other circuits—especially the Ninth Circuit—I don't see why we should consider a non-feeder random circuit judge outside of California as somehow above a non-feeder random circuit judge in say Virginia or Florida or Illinois for example.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 5:11 pmSome of it might also be supply and demand. In DC/2/9, many judges sit where young professionals most like to live. So more people vie for those spots. You will be perceived to have beaten out a lot of applicants for an SDNY or EDNY spot. Not so for the District of Oklahoma. Same thing with the circuits.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 4:49 pmNo real disagreement with what you've written (and apologies for the tangent), but I've certainly heard the "DC/2/9 are the 'best' circuits" trope from an older generation of practitioners. I think I've seen an article (might've been something David Lat wrote) talking about the idea of "feeder circuits" being outdated wisdom, so maybe it's just a view that was more commonly held 20 years ago but is slowly fading away.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 2:16 pmThe online legal hive-mind, TLS included, tells us that DC/2/9 are the "best" circuits, and judges that went to Yale are preferable to those who went to the local state school.
Interestingly, from 2017 to 2021, the 9th had the second most SCOTUS clerks (34), but a relatively low number "per capita" (1.17 SCOTUS clerks per judgeship), and no clerks at all for 2022. Also, I don't think the 9th is less appealing for conservatives than liberals (at least for preftige purposes). Now that Watford is out, there aren't really any active liberal appointees with feeder potential (other than maybe Koh), whereas conservatives have Bress and Bumatay as potential feeders as well as semi-feeders like Ikuta and Collins (though Ikuta is, from what I hear, non-ideological).Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:00 pmThe CA9 is better take was pretty silly 20 years ago and it’s completely false now, particularly for conservatives. CA9 doesn’t have a single conservative feeder. CA11 has three: Pryor, Grant, Newsom. CA9 barely even has liberal feeders anymore. Top students aren’t targeting CA9 at all.
The DC/2/9 distinction reminds me a lot of Harvard Law students who say HYS and Skadden associates who say V3 etc... Getting a COA clerkship is a great accomplishment idk why people have to keep breaking these things up into tiers in order to give themselves an extra sense of superiority—it seems borderline unhealthy to do so.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:00 pmThe CA9 is better take was pretty silly 20 years ago and it’s completely false now, particularly for conservatives. CA9 doesn’t have a single conservative feeder. CA11 has three: Pryor, Grant, Newsom. CA9 barely even has liberal feeders anymore. Top students aren’t targeting CA9 at all.nixy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:24 pmWhat evidence do you have that academia/firms do this? Like all else being equal, a firm in LA will likely view a CA9 clerkship more favorably, but a firm in Miami will favor CA11 and a firm in Minneapolis will favor CA8. Academia wants you to publish in fancy law reviews. I don’t think favoring CA9 in a vacuum is a thing. (Specific judges on CA9, sure, but that’s about the judge, not the circuit.)Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:33 pmI think it is just self-reinforcing. As long as firms and academia continue to view CA9 more favorably than a random judge on CA11 or CA8, applicants are going to continue feeling that way tooAnonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 5:15 pmI don't really get the DC/2/9 trope today also. From where I stand, the only universally prestigous circuit is the DC Circuit. With the other circuits—especially the Ninth Circuit—I don't see why we should consider a non-feeder random circuit judge outside of California as somehow above a non-feeder random circuit judge in say Virginia or Florida or Illinois for example.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 5:11 pmSome of it might also be supply and demand. In DC/2/9, many judges sit where young professionals most like to live. So more people vie for those spots. You will be perceived to have beaten out a lot of applicants for an SDNY or EDNY spot. Not so for the District of Oklahoma. Same thing with the circuits.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 4:49 pmNo real disagreement with what you've written (and apologies for the tangent), but I've certainly heard the "DC/2/9 are the 'best' circuits" trope from an older generation of practitioners. I think I've seen an article (might've been something David Lat wrote) talking about the idea of "feeder circuits" being outdated wisdom, so maybe it's just a view that was more commonly held 20 years ago but is slowly fading away.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 2:16 pmThe online legal hive-mind, TLS included, tells us that DC/2/9 are the "best" circuits, and judges that went to Yale are preferable to those who went to the local state school.
I'm not so sure—I'm not in Fed Soc world and I think in judge-by-judge terms. Like I'm not more impressed by someone clerking for Beth Robinson (2d) than for Julia Gibbons (6th) or Veronica Rossman (10th), or for Jennifer Sung (9th) as opposed to Robert Bacharach (10th) or Carl Stewart (5th). It's all kinda the same for me. I would, however, be more impressed by a Barron (1st) or Sutton (6th) clerkship than any of the other names I've listed.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:46 amCA9 isn’t as selective back-to-front as CA2 and CADC, but it’s still ahead of the other circuits for those who are not in Fed Soc. In the Fed Soc world the balance is tipped more in favor of a judge-by-judge approach versus circuit-by-circuit one.
Seems like you are too in-the-know about these specific judges to be the ordinary familiar-with-clerkship-prestige-but-not-nonfeeder-judges crowd that the discussion is about. Lots of firms/employers know that C2 has judges in Manhattan and CA9 has judges in desirable locations on the West Coast, that these are competitive, and lots of top students target them. They aren't as fine-grained about who Veronica Rossman or Julia Gibbons are -- at that level of familiarity, moderately-informed prestige proxies no longer apply anyway and the whole conversation becomes moot.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 11:12 amI'm not so sure—I'm not in Fed Soc world and I think in judge-by-judge terms. Like I'm not more impressed by someone clerking for Beth Robinson (2d) than for Julia Gibbons (6th) or Veronica Rossman (10th), or for Jennifer Sung (9th) as opposed to Robert Bacharach (10th) or Carl Stewart (5th). It's all kinda the same for me. I would, however, be more impressed by a Barron (1st) or Sutton (6th) clerkship than any of the other names I've listed.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:46 amCA9 isn’t as selective back-to-front as CA2 and CADC, but it’s still ahead of the other circuits for those who are not in Fed Soc. In the Fed Soc world the balance is tipped more in favor of a judge-by-judge approach versus circuit-by-circuit one.
But those circuits are statistically desirable because of where they are, not because the jurisdiction is somehow inherently more prestigious.* "Lots of people want to be in those locations" isn't really about being in a particular circuit, it's about being in a particular city. (Obviously this is a bit different for DC than 2/9.) So yes, you might be able to assume that someone who clerked in LA or NYC beat out a lot of applicants and therefore is even more competitive than your average but also highly competitive candidate who clerked in a less desirable city. But the person who clerked in Pocatello or Syracuse and therefore beat out fewer applicants clerked on the same circuit as the LA/NYC person, but isn't in the same position in terms of statistical desirability/competitiveness.Joachim2017 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 9:55 amSome of these posts are honestly a little perplexing.
CA 2/9/DC = statistically most desirable at the circuit level = statistically most competitive at the circuit level = perceived as most prestigious at the circuit level.
Of course there are individual judges on other circuits that are more prestigious than just any rando 2/9/DC judge, but at the higher level of generality, 2/9/DC is still a thing, it's a reasonable thing, and only the Very Online have trouble understanding why.
What hard evidence does anyone actually have that 2/9/DC is statistically more desirable or competitive?Joachim2017 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 9:55 amSome of these posts are honestly a little perplexing.
CA 2/9/DC = statistically most desirable at the circuit level = statistically most competitive at the circuit level = perceived as most prestigious at the circuit level.
Of course there are individual judges on other circuits that are more prestigious than just any rando 2/9/DC judge, but at the higher level of generality, 2/9/DC is still a thing, it's a reasonable thing, and only the Very Online have trouble understanding why.
I'm sorry but the very online people are the ones separating out circuits into which one is better. Normal adults don't fight over why working for a circuit judge in Arizona is actually leagues better than working for a circuit judge in New Mexico.Joachim2017 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 9:55 amSome of these posts are honestly a little perplexing.
CA 2/9/DC = statistically most desirable at the circuit level = statistically most competitive at the circuit level = perceived as most prestigious at the circuit level.
Of course there are individual judges on other circuits that are more prestigious than just any rando 2/9/DC judge, but at the higher level of generality, 2/9/DC is still a thing, it's a reasonable thing, and only the Very Online have trouble understanding why.
If I can't procrastinate doing things I actually need to do by debating the most meaningless topic, is life even worth living??
Is it even accurate to call anyone who isn't on CADC a liberal feeder judge right now?Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 10:32 pmI think what's missing from this thread is the factor of ideology. DC/2/9 are more prestigious if you're targeting a liberal feeder judge. Can anyone name me an appellate liberal feeder judge that isn't on DC/2/9? If there are any, it's an outlier. Most law students are left-learning so it makes sense that DC/2/9 become more prestigious in folklore.
For conservatives, agree that the circuit hardly matters anymore.
Who are these liberal feeder judges on the ninth circuit you speak of. Are they in the room with us now.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 10:32 pmI think what's missing from this thread is the factor of ideology. DC/2/9 are more prestigious if you're targeting a liberal feeder judge. Can anyone name me an appellate liberal feeder judge that isn't on DC/2/9? If there are any, it's an outlier. Most law students are left-learning so it makes sense that DC/2/9 become more prestigious in folklore.
For conservatives, agree that the circuit hardly matters anymore.