Post
by Anonymous User » Fri Jan 12, 2024 11:44 am
Something else to consider is that they're fine with the work you're doing, they just like things done a certain way, and part of their process is revision. I clerked for one judge where we did at least 2-3 drafts on routine stuff and many more for complicated/significant matters. That was just their process and it wasn't b/c they thought I was doing a bad job. Certainly, over time the number/intensity of revisions probably diminished, but they were never really going to go away because that was how they rolled. I was fine with that b/c I worked in a profession involving writing and lots of revision before I went to law school, but if you've absorbed the unconscious expectation that you should be able to get things "right" instantly, it could feel sort of overwhelming/critical. To be fair, my judge was also willing to discuss/explain every single revision, which helped a lot, but again, it doesn't have to be a reflection on you/your ability.
I realize that they could be presenting these revisions to you as problems - like you haven't caught on to this yet and that's a bad thing because you should be getting this right by now - so if that's the case, ignore me. But I wanted to throw it out there that revisions and corrections aren't always a sign of you doing anything wrong, and your judge may not be disappointed. It's much easier to edit stuff that's already drafted than to start from scratch, so even if your judge decides to change things around a lot, providing the basis for that is important and helpful (even if they don't acknowledge that to you!).
If your judge (and/or co-clerk) is actively expressing disappointment, another thing to consider is whether they're reasonable. I was in a different grad program before law school and one particular prof was notorious for telling their advisees to take approach X, never Y, and then in their next meeting they'd ask, "why on earth would you do X, Y is the only appropriate thing to do in this situation." This is super frustrating and annoying but there's not too much you can do about it except, in this context at least, just let them change their mind and make the changes. Keep in mind that while there are definitely principles of good writing and a lot of people will agree on what makes good legal writing, there are also lots of ways to write and preferences can be very subjective. So you do what your judge wants b/c that's your job, not because they are the last word in writing and you are terrible.
One thing to think about in this regard is whether you're getting the same comments over and over again (in which case there are probably somethings you can/should do about addressing them), or if the comments differ a lot. If the latter, there's probably more an organic, holistic revision process going on that's going to be much harder to predict just by it's nature (not b/c you're bad at this).
One substantive thing, when you say formatting, I agree with the idea of coming up with a checklist. One thing could be to take a bunch of final orders that have all been approved and just building a template for yourself. If by formatting you also mean more like organization of the order, you can do a similar thing - what is the structure that the orders tend to follow, and set up a generic outline as a baseline for when you start. Just keep in mind that each order may require something slightly different, so be prepared to deviate.
