Top Law Schools

I've heard mixed advice on calling chambers of other judges in similar geographic areas to say that you're going to be interviewing but are interested in those other judges and see if they will look at your application for an interview. Is there generally advice on leveraging interviews to get other interviews or does that not really happen? Would seem odd to call the same court where judges talk, but maybe it's effective for other courthouses in the same area?

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 30, 2023 1:59 pm

I've heard mixed advice on calling chambers of other judges in similar geographic areas to say that you're going to be interviewing but are interested in those other judges and see if they will look at your application for an interview. Is there generally advice on leveraging interviews to get other interviews or does that not really happen? Would seem odd to call the same court where judges talk, but maybe it's effective for other courthouses in the same area?

My understanding is this used to happen in the "good old days" of in-person interviewing, where you'd essentially let a judge know that you'd "be in town for an interview," and that this is not appropriate in the new era of Zoom interviews.

However, you can still subtly leverage other interviews, especially if you already have ties, using your recommenders. I had a recommender who reached out to let a judge know that I was actively interviewing but was very interested in this judge's chambers, and it helped accelerate my process with the judge I preferred. YMMV.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 30, 2023 1:59 pm

I've heard mixed advice on calling chambers of other judges in similar geographic areas to say that you're going to be interviewing but are interested in those other judges and see if they will look at your application for an interview. Is there generally advice on leveraging interviews to get other interviews or does that not really happen? Would seem odd to call the same court where judges talk, but maybe it's effective for other courthouses in the same area?

NGL, if an applicant called chambers to tell us this I would just hang up the phone.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 30, 2023 2:14 pm

My understanding is this used to happen in the "good old days" of in-person interviewing, where you'd essentially let a judge know that you'd "be in town for an interview," and that this is not appropriate in the new era of Zoom interviews.

Yeah, this was very much a thing back when I was applying for clerkships (yonks ago now), but I agree that after going to Zoom for the pandemic, it's no longer compelling.

I once tried to do this and the clerk who I spoke to on the phone straight up said this wasn't a thing and that I shouldn't try to do it again.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 30, 2023 3:38 pm

I once tried to do this and the clerk who I spoke to on the phone straight up said this wasn't a thing and that I shouldn't try to do it again.

Dang, how times have changed. Less than ten years ago, I leveraged an interview in one Mountain state into another interview two states away (but also in the Mountain region)--on the advice of my clerkship office, and both judges thought it was standard practice.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 03, 2023 12:31 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 30, 2023 3:38 pm

I once tried to do this and the clerk who I spoke to on the phone straight up said this wasn't a thing and that I shouldn't try to do it again.

Dang, how times have changed. Less than ten years ago, I leveraged an interview in one Mountain state into another interview two states away (but also in the Mountain region)--on the advice of my clerkship office, and both judges thought it was standard practice.

Yeah, it’s funny how this is something that is dead as a doornail, once the obligation to fly to judges for interviews went away.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 03, 2023 2:29 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 03, 2023 12:31 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 30, 2023 3:38 pm

I once tried to do this and the clerk who I spoke to on the phone straight up said this wasn't a thing and that I shouldn't try to do it again.

Dang, how times have changed. Less than ten years ago, I leveraged an interview in one Mountain state into another interview two states away (but also in the Mountain region)--on the advice of my clerkship office, and both judges thought it was standard practice.

Yeah, it’s funny how this is something that is dead as a doornail, once the obligation to fly to judges for interviews went away.

If it means I don't have to pay outrageous prices for plane tickets to go all over the place... I'm okay with this dying.

I've heard of people doing this if they are interview in the same city. E.g., "I am going to be in X city to interview with Judge Y on Z date. I just wanted to give you a heads up, as I remained interested in clerking for you." Many judges might not make you pay to fly down to interview if you are a marginal candidate, but if you are going to be around anyways, it removes consideration of the cost that they would impose on you.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 04, 2023 10:57 am

I've heard of people doing this if they are interview in the same city. E.g., "I am going to be in X city to interview with Judge Y on Z date. I just wanted to give you a heads up, as I remained interested in clerking for you." Many judges might not make you pay to fly down to interview if you are a marginal candidate, but if you are going to be around anyways, it removes consideration of the cost that they would impose on you.

Yes, this is exactly what this thread has been discussing, and people have said that this isn't a thing any more now that judges can and do interview via Zoom. A judge doesn't have to worry about costing you money to interview you any more.

This would be a no-no.

I know judges that will not interview candidates who are interviewing with their colleagues out of respect for their colleagues. Or if they were interested in the candidate would wait until after their colleague made a decision before interviewing. Obviously not necessarily how it works during the frenzy of the plan, but I imagine an applicant trying to "leverage" interviews for more would be a huge no-no and would get them rejected out right by some judges.

People are shutting this down because of Zoom... but some judges interview in person still. And I'm not sure the economic concerns of interviewees govern what behavior judges find acceptable.

I don't buy that this was standard practice a decade ago but is a "no-no" now. It's not like we couldn't videoconference before Zoom...

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 08, 2023 5:11 am

People are shutting this down because of Zoom... but some judges interview in person still. And I'm not sure the economic concerns of interviewees govern what behavior judges find acceptable.

I don't buy that this was standard practice a decade ago but is a "no-no" now. It's not like we couldn't videoconference before Zoom...

If you're interviewing in person, this practice is appropriate because it is good for the judge. The judge can schedule you without worrying about logistics, delays, etc. It has the added bonus of being good for the applicants, since it saves them an extra flight and might help them be considered by another judge they preferred, but this would not have become a commonplace practice unless it benefited the judge.

If you're interviewing by Zoom, this is no longer something that benefits the judge, so it likely will come across as inappropriate. This would have been true if you were videoconferencing or doing a call by phone ten years ago too. The key is the practice has to benefit the judge, not the applicant.

By all means, though, feel free to try it out - I'd be interested to hear how it goes! I could see it maybe working if you could email your top choice and say, "I'm about to have an interview but you're my top choice and I will drop everything to work for you."

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 08, 2023 5:11 am

People are shutting this down because of Zoom... but some judges interview in person still. And I'm not sure the economic concerns of interviewees govern what behavior judges find acceptable.

I don't buy that this was standard practice a decade ago but is a "no-no" now. It's not like we couldn't videoconference before Zoom...

You *could* videoconference before Zoom (long ago I interned for a judge who interviewed by videoconference as an accommodation to a specific non-plan candidate they really liked). But it just wasn't widespread and judges had no real incentive to do so, because it was accepted that candidates traveled to the judge. Plus, despite the cost of travel, many candidates didn't want to videoconference because of a perception that if everyone else was interviewing in person (the standard expectation), they would be at a disadvantage for not doing so. Both candidates and judges felt that a virtual interview was less effective than an in-person one

This kind of geographic leverage was also, I think, very much a function of the original plan. When judges were all calling applicants on the same day to line up interviews with the top candidates and you had that feeding frenzy going, and so many judges were interviewing at the same time, someone saying "hey, I'm going to be at your courthouse, want to talk to me?" was appealing because, as noted above, it benefited the judge - they could speak to another top candidate in a timely fashion without having to do anything. Off-plan, it doesn't necessarily advantage the judge to be able to talk to one more person without effort; their timeline for making a decision is different and doesn't drive practice in the same way. I know we currently have a plan but it's different from the original plan back in the day, and I think fewer judges follow it, so it doesn't have quite the same cultural force.

You're also underestimating the impact of Zoom. Anyone who appeared in court regularly during the first days of the pandemic knows that going to video was a BIG adjustment for probably 95% of judges. But it quickly became normal. That's a huge cultural change. Videoconferencing also used to be way more complicated than firing up Zoom on your computer, in part because chambers computers were desktops with separate monitors, and not equipped with cameras. You usually had to set up in a separate room equipped with a camera and big TV screen function-made for the purpose and dial in using information guarded by your IT people; it was also designed to communicate with other people in the same network (so other courthouses) rather than with the public at large, so the interviewees often had to find access to a computer/camera that could communicate with the interviewing judge (so the people I saw interview by videoconference were usually clerking in another courthouse and did the interview using their courthouse technology). Now, I'm sure there were improvements that made videoconferencing easier between the time I'm describing and pandemic-era Zoom, but that's the culture that was in place about videoconferencing until the pandemic forced everyone to change, especially with long-serving judges.

But of course, nothing is stopping you from trying the geography argument. There could well be some judges who still dislike video/prefer in person, who would be receptive. Other judges will probably just say they haven't made decisions on applications yet and will get back to you when they do (especially more recent appointees who don't have a history of this kind of leverage). I have no idea what percentage of judges will fall into either category, and you have current clerks saying it's not a thing, so it's entirely up to you how much you think it's worth trying. It *may* be a kind of way to get your application pulled/looked at, and if you're a top candidate maybe it's worth it; probably less helpful for a more average or marginal candidate, unless they have something non-traditional that would appeal to judges but might not get them past a school/grades screening in a huge pile of candidates.