Legal Accountability Project Forum

[lavarman84]

I get why you say this, and I too find the promotion a little intense. But I have a sort of 6-degrees-of-separation connection with her and while I don't know her personally, I don't think it's grift as much as influencer-style grind and trying to get this off the ground. I'm not sure biglaw was a realistic option for her, which may make the LAP look griftier (she needs an income), but I also think it comes from genuine commitment and is consistent with her government/"justice" focus throughout law school. She's definitely hustling to support herself, but I think the promotion style is more that it's a one-woman show and she isn't that great at marketing.

It sort of feels like she's trying to pivot to judicial accountability as a career in the way that the founders of Law School Transparency pivoted to law school reform (but that's a guess, I have no inside info about this). I guess time will tell how it works out, and whether law clerk abuse really is a widespread enough issue to make a career out of.

Yeah, I've just assumed she's going over the top on promotion to get the word out. This all relies on clerks knowing about it and submitting information. It also relies on law schools/students believing that the database has sufficient information. I submitted information on both my clerkships (which were positive experiences) a while ago, FWIW. I am disappointed about the paywall. I get that the nonprofit needs revenue, but that doesn't really feel consistent with the mission.

[Anonymous User]

The database seems useful so long as it gets a representative sample--though I'm somewhat dubious that it will (I'd guess it'll be left-skewed and bad-experience-skewed). The Pledge seems hokey.

I agree. It’s mostly going to be positive reviews. I’m sorry but I have 0 incentive to provide a negative review (with my name or anonymously) for free to anyone who will pay about a federal judge that could possibly get back to me and ruin my career. Why would anyone do that? I don’t know the people who will view my review. I don’t trust my review won’t get out. They say the media won’t get access, but what stops a student from just copy and pasting the review and emailing it to above the law?

I also agree regarding grifter vibes. She seems very self centered about the whole thing. And I agree about the making info more available yet being behind a paywall. Might be better to make it free but if you can prove you got an interview with the judge you get access. This also limits who is viewing (and potentially spreading) the reviews.

[Anonymous User]

Just read a Bloomberg article from today that says the Legal Accountability Project's database got over 800 responses and is launching in March. Curious what people think about the database and if their schools will pay. I know the Tenth Circuit advised the whole court that it would violate ethics to participate.

Wait, what?

[Anonymous User]

Just read a Bloomberg article from today that says the Legal Accountability Project's database got over 800 responses and is launching in March. Curious what people think about the database and if their schools will pay. I know the Tenth Circuit advised the whole court that it would violate ethics to participate.

Wait, what?

This is not surprising at all. I have heard multiple negative accounts about Rossman and racial prejudice — I would touch her with a ten-foot pole if i weren’t white. Not sure how this plays out with the rest of the circuit, but the circuit I clerked for encouraged transparency. These “ethical” concerns speak volumes.

That being said, TAP does feel like a grift. I’m not convinced most judges suck. Maybe in state courts. We’ll see.

First I've heard of anything about Rossman since she's so new - got any more details?

[Anonymous User]

Just read a Bloomberg article from today that says the Legal Accountability Project's database got over 800 responses and is launching in March. Curious what people think about the database and if their schools will pay. I know the Tenth Circuit advised the whole court that it would violate ethics to participate.

Wait, what?

This is not surprising at all. I have heard multiple negative accounts about Rossman and racial prejudice — I would touch her with a ten-foot pole if i weren’t white. Not sure how this plays out with the rest of the circuit, but the circuit I clerked for encouraged transparency. These “ethical” concerns speak volumes.

That being said, TAP does feel like a grift. I’m not convinced most judges suck. Maybe in state courts. We’ll see.

You have to be making this up. I clerk on the Tenth and have never heard this and am friends with her clerks. She currently has a few non-white clerks and her JA is a Black woman. Lol.

[Anonymous User]

Just read a Bloomberg article from today that says the Legal Accountability Project's database got over 800 responses and is launching in March. Curious what people think about the database and if their schools will pay. I know the Tenth Circuit advised the whole court that it would violate ethics to participate.

Wait, what?

This is not surprising at all. I have heard multiple negative accounts about Rossman and racial prejudice — I would touch her with a ten-foot pole if i weren’t white. Not sure how this plays out with the rest of the circuit, but the circuit I clerked for encouraged transparency. These “ethical” concerns speak volumes.

That being said, TAP does feel like a grift. I’m not convinced most judges suck. Maybe in state courts. We’ll see.

You have to be making this up. I clerk on the Tenth and have never heard this and am friends with her clerks. She currently has a few non-white clerks and her JA is a Black woman. Lol.

True, tbh I could be conflating what I’ve heard about the Denver federal defender’s office’s reputation with her herself.

[Anonymous User]

Just read a Bloomberg article from today that says the Legal Accountability Project's database got over 800 responses and is launching in March. Curious what people think about the database and if their schools will pay. I know the Tenth Circuit advised the whole court that it would violate ethics to participate.

Wait, what?

This is not surprising at all. I have heard multiple negative accounts about Rossman and racial prejudice — I would touch her with a ten-foot pole if i weren’t white. Not sure how this plays out with the rest of the circuit, but the circuit I clerked for encouraged transparency. These “ethical” concerns speak volumes.

That being said, TAP does feel like a grift. I’m not convinced most judges suck. Maybe in state courts. We’ll see.

You have to be making this up. I clerk on the Tenth and have never heard this and am friends with her clerks. She currently has a few non-white clerks and her JA is a Black woman. Lol.

True, tbh I could be conflating what I’ve heard about the Denver federal defender’s office’s reputation with her herself.

>posts wild, outlandish claim suggesting non-whites should not clerk for a federal judge
>gets presented with concrete evidence calling into question the speculation
>immediately downgrades claim to "my bad, I actually meant her former employer"

Never change, TLS.

[Anonymous User]

I get why you say this, and I too find the promotion a little intense. But I have a sort of 6-degrees-of-separation connection with her and while I don't know her personally, I don't think it's grift as much as influencer-style grind and trying to get this off the ground. I'm not sure biglaw was a realistic option for her, which may make the LAP look griftier (she needs an income), but I also think it comes from genuine commitment and is consistent with her government/"justice" focus throughout law school. She's definitely hustling to support herself, but I think the promotion style is more that it's a one-woman show and she isn't that great at marketing.

It sort of feels like she's trying to pivot to judicial accountability as a career in the way that the founders of Law School Transparency pivoted to law school reform (but that's a guess, I have no inside info about this). I guess time will tell how it works out, and whether law clerk abuse really is a widespread enough issue to make a career out of.

Yeah, I've just assumed she's going over the top on promotion to get the word out. This all relies on clerks knowing about it and submitting information. It also relies on law schools/students believing that the database has sufficient information. I submitted information on both my clerkships (which were positive experiences) a while ago, FWIW. I am disappointed about the paywall. I get that the nonprofit needs revenue, but that doesn't really feel consistent with the mission.

I truly sympathize with the mission, but she's gotta chill on linkedin.

[Anonymous User]

I get why you say this, and I too find the promotion a little intense. But I have a sort of 6-degrees-of-separation connection with her and while I don't know her personally, I don't think it's grift as much as influencer-style grind and trying to get this off the ground. I'm not sure biglaw was a realistic option for her, which may make the LAP look griftier (she needs an income), but I also think it comes from genuine commitment and is consistent with her government/"justice" focus throughout law school. She's definitely hustling to support herself, but I think the promotion style is more that it's a one-woman show and she isn't that great at marketing.

It sort of feels like she's trying to pivot to judicial accountability as a career in the way that the founders of Law School Transparency pivoted to law school reform (but that's a guess, I have no inside info about this). I guess time will tell how it works out, and whether law clerk abuse really is a widespread enough issue to make a career out of.

Yeah, I've just assumed she's going over the top on promotion to get the word out. This all relies on clerks knowing about it and submitting information. It also relies on law schools/students believing that the database has sufficient information. I submitted information on both my clerkships (which were positive experiences) a while ago, FWIW. I am disappointed about the paywall. I get that the nonprofit needs revenue, but that doesn't really feel consistent with the mission.

I truly sympathize with the mission, but she's gotta chill on linkedin.

Like this one for example is seriously just inappropriate and unprofessional (seriously "blow sunshine up the administrations’ butts"):

"WashU Law has canceled a THIRD LAP event.

Some were only comfortable with my visit if I was going to blow sunshine up the administrations’ butts.

I’m disappointed, but not surprised.

I wouldn’t participate in an event where I was prevented from criticizing the administration. That’s a disservice to students, who lack hashtag#clerkship info.

At The Legal Accountability Project’s 30+ law school events, I always share my clerkship experience - including WashU’s role in it - to illustrate the problems I discuss, particularly with hashtag#lawschool clerkship advising. I planned to say no more and no less than I always do.

Of course, the critique hits differently in the room where it happened. But anyone who follows LAP’s work knows my slant on hashtag#clerking.

There are 2 paths an Administration can take when they’ve done wrong and someone calls them out on it. Admit their mistakes and make changes, or bury their heads in the sand.

WashU has chosen the latter path. We hoped that would change with this visit.

LAP’s programming is necessary everywhere - but particularly at WashU, a school that lacks proper clerkship advising. We were also planning to announce free Database subscriptions for WashU students.

Fortunately, students no longer need to rely on WashU for hashtag#clerkship info! They can bypass career services and pre-register for Database access right now.

Advocacy work that creates real and lasting change is not intended to make people - particularly entrenched power structures - comfortable.

Maybe it's time for WashU to take a broader view on acceptable speech.

WashU alums have been reaching out to share negative experiences with Career Services. If you’re a student or an alum, and you’re outraged by this, tell the Dean and Chancellor. WashU MUST make changes, and they should be held hashtag#accountable for their poor behavior.

It's painful to encounter opposition like this at any law school, but *particularly* at my alma mater. But those who seek to maintain the broken status quo benefit from silence.

Make your voice heard. Students, you’re the customers at your school. You deserve better. You should demand it. hashtag#clerkships hashtag#lawschools hashtag#transparency"

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/aliza-sh ... er_desktop

[Anonymous User]

She sent an email to our chambers email asking the clerks to submit reviews. Pretty bold.

[Anonymous User]

I get why you say this, and I too find the promotion a little intense. But I have a sort of 6-degrees-of-separation connection with her and while I don't know her personally, I don't think it's grift as much as influencer-style grind and trying to get this off the ground. I'm not sure biglaw was a realistic option for her, which may make the LAP look griftier (she needs an income), but I also think it comes from genuine commitment and is consistent with her government/"justice" focus throughout law school. She's definitely hustling to support herself, but I think the promotion style is more that it's a one-woman show and she isn't that great at marketing.

It sort of feels like she's trying to pivot to judicial accountability as a career in the way that the founders of Law School Transparency pivoted to law school reform (but that's a guess, I have no inside info about this). I guess time will tell how it works out, and whether law clerk abuse really is a widespread enough issue to make a career out of.

Yeah, I've just assumed she's going over the top on promotion to get the word out. This all relies on clerks knowing about it and submitting information. It also relies on law schools/students believing that the database has sufficient information. I submitted information on both my clerkships (which were positive experiences) a while ago, FWIW. I am disappointed about the paywall. I get that the nonprofit needs revenue, but that doesn't really feel consistent with the mission.

I truly sympathize with the mission, but she's gotta chill on linkedin.

Agree. I think LAP is a good idea in theory, but frankly given what I've read about the founder, interviews I've watched, and the statements she puts out, it seems like she's all about self-promotion. To me, she just comes off as full of hubris. She recently called herself a trailblazer on LinkedIn and said LAP who will "go down in the history books." Regardless of the virtues of the database she's helped create, outside the legal field, nobody is going to give much attention to LAP and the chances of it causing any meaningful change are slim to none given the constitutional protections afforded to Article III judges.

I also have some skepticism regarding how bad her clerkship experience was. Some of her gripes seem legitimate, like her judge telling her he thought she'd fail the bar, which is just a jerk comment to make. But reading between the lines of some of her other complaints, like him calling her aggressive/bossy or having her leave the courtroom for spending too much in court, it seems like she liked to argue with the judge and wasn't managing her time properly. Because we've only heard her side of the story, I am obviously speculating some. But it definitely seems to me that part of the problem with her clerkship experience was that she didn't properly understand her role as a clerk and thought her voice and judgment should be given equal weight as the judge's. And her self-aggrandizing on LinkedIn and with media outlets only furthers my belief that this was part of the problem.

That said, I do think that the LAP is a net positive and will help students/grads make better informed decisions about what judges to apply to.

[Anonymous User]

I get why you say this, and I too find the promotion a little intense. But I have a sort of 6-degrees-of-separation connection with her and while I don't know her personally, I don't think it's grift as much as influencer-style grind and trying to get this off the ground. I'm not sure biglaw was a realistic option for her, which may make the LAP look griftier (she needs an income), but I also think it comes from genuine commitment and is consistent with her government/"justice" focus throughout law school. She's definitely hustling to support herself, but I think the promotion style is more that it's a one-woman show and she isn't that great at marketing.

It sort of feels like she's trying to pivot to judicial accountability as a career in the way that the founders of Law School Transparency pivoted to law school reform (but that's a guess, I have no inside info about this). I guess time will tell how it works out, and whether law clerk abuse really is a widespread enough issue to make a career out of.

Yeah, I've just assumed she's going over the top on promotion to get the word out. This all relies on clerks knowing about it and submitting information. It also relies on law schools/students believing that the database has sufficient information. I submitted information on both my clerkships (which were positive experiences) a while ago, FWIW. I am disappointed about the paywall. I get that the nonprofit needs revenue, but that doesn't really feel consistent with the mission.

I truly sympathize with the mission, but she's gotta chill on linkedin.

Like this one for example is seriously just inappropriate and unprofessional (seriously "blow sunshine up the administrations’ butts"):

"WashU Law has canceled a THIRD LAP event.

Some were only comfortable with my visit if I was going to blow sunshine up the administrations’ butts.

I’m disappointed, but not surprised.

I wouldn’t participate in an event where I was prevented from criticizing the administration. That’s a disservice to students, who lack hashtag#clerkship info.

At The Legal Accountability Project’s 30+ law school events, I always share my clerkship experience - including WashU’s role in it - to illustrate the problems I discuss, particularly with hashtag#lawschool clerkship advising. I planned to say no more and no less than I always do.

Of course, the critique hits differently in the room where it happened. But anyone who follows LAP’s work knows my slant on hashtag#clerking.

There are 2 paths an Administration can take when they’ve done wrong and someone calls them out on it. Admit their mistakes and make changes, or bury their heads in the sand.

WashU has chosen the latter path. We hoped that would change with this visit.

LAP’s programming is necessary everywhere - but particularly at WashU, a school that lacks proper clerkship advising. We were also planning to announce free Database subscriptions for WashU students.

Fortunately, students no longer need to rely on WashU for hashtag#clerkship info! They can bypass career services and pre-register for Database access right now.

Advocacy work that creates real and lasting change is not intended to make people - particularly entrenched power structures - comfortable.

Maybe it's time for WashU to take a broader view on acceptable speech.

WashU alums have been reaching out to share negative experiences with Career Services. If you’re a student or an alum, and you’re outraged by this, tell the Dean and Chancellor. WashU MUST make changes, and they should be held hashtag#accountable for their poor behavior.

It's painful to encounter opposition like this at any law school, but *particularly* at my alma mater. But those who seek to maintain the broken status quo benefit from silence.

Make your voice heard. Students, you’re the customers at your school. You deserve better. You should demand it. hashtag#clerkships hashtag#lawschools hashtag#transparency"

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/aliza-sh ... er_desktop

As someone who wants this to work and think it's worth trying, really need them to pull back on the cringe. It's like, mortifying and really undermines her own credibility as a "former clerk" or whatever. Makes you look like an unserious disgruntled child and is counterproductive to actually bringing to light serious issues in chambers. It's giving Jojo Siwa...

[Anonymous User]

The whole thing gives grifter vibes. She is marketing the database very intensely and reaching out to students and student orgs trying to get them to pony up $20 per person to access information that former clerks are supplying for free. She also makes it seem like every clerkship is a terrible experience when they are critical to unlocking many coveted jobs: academia, AUSA, FPD, appellate lit, etc. I get she had a bad experience but don't go around making it seem like every judge is a ruthless dictator.

[Anonymous User]

I get why you say this, and I too find the promotion a little intense. But I have a sort of 6-degrees-of-separation connection with her and while I don't know her personally, I don't think it's grift as much as influencer-style grind and trying to get this off the ground. I'm not sure biglaw was a realistic option for her, which may make the LAP look griftier (she needs an income), but I also think it comes from genuine commitment and is consistent with her government/"justice" focus throughout law school. She's definitely hustling to support herself, but I think the promotion style is more that it's a one-woman show and she isn't that great at marketing.

It sort of feels like she's trying to pivot to judicial accountability as a career in the way that the founders of Law School Transparency pivoted to law school reform (but that's a guess, I have no inside info about this). I guess time will tell how it works out, and whether law clerk abuse really is a widespread enough issue to make a career out of.

Yeah, I've just assumed she's going over the top on promotion to get the word out. This all relies on clerks knowing about it and submitting information. It also relies on law schools/students believing that the database has sufficient information. I submitted information on both my clerkships (which were positive experiences) a while ago, FWIW. I am disappointed about the paywall. I get that the nonprofit needs revenue, but that doesn't really feel consistent with the mission.

I truly sympathize with the mission, but she's gotta chill on linkedin.

Like this one for example is seriously just inappropriate and unprofessional (seriously "blow sunshine up the administrations’ butts"):

"WashU Law has canceled a THIRD LAP event.

Some were only comfortable with my visit if I was going to blow sunshine up the administrations’ butts.

I’m disappointed, but not surprised.

I wouldn’t participate in an event where I was prevented from criticizing the administration. That’s a disservice to students, who lack hashtag#clerkship info.

At The Legal Accountability Project’s 30+ law school events, I always share my clerkship experience - including WashU’s role in it - to illustrate the problems I discuss, particularly with hashtag#lawschool clerkship advising. I planned to say no more and no less than I always do.

Of course, the critique hits differently in the room where it happened. But anyone who follows LAP’s work knows my slant on hashtag#clerking.

There are 2 paths an Administration can take when they’ve done wrong and someone calls them out on it. Admit their mistakes and make changes, or bury their heads in the sand.

WashU has chosen the latter path. We hoped that would change with this visit.

LAP’s programming is necessary everywhere - but particularly at WashU, a school that lacks proper clerkship advising. We were also planning to announce free Database subscriptions for WashU students.

Fortunately, students no longer need to rely on WashU for hashtag#clerkship info! They can bypass career services and pre-register for Database access right now.

Advocacy work that creates real and lasting change is not intended to make people - particularly entrenched power structures - comfortable.

Maybe it's time for WashU to take a broader view on acceptable speech.

WashU alums have been reaching out to share negative experiences with Career Services. If you’re a student or an alum, and you’re outraged by this, tell the Dean and Chancellor. WashU MUST make changes, and they should be held hashtag#accountable for their poor behavior.

It's painful to encounter opposition like this at any law school, but *particularly* at my alma mater. But those who seek to maintain the broken status quo benefit from silence.

Make your voice heard. Students, you’re the customers at your school. You deserve better. You should demand it. hashtag#clerkships hashtag#lawschools hashtag#transparency"

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/aliza-sh ... er_desktop

As someone who wants this to work and think it's worth trying, really need them to pull back on the cringe. It's like, mortifying and really undermines her own credibility as a "former clerk" or whatever. Makes you look like an unserious disgruntled child and is counterproductive to actually bringing to light serious issues in chambers. It's giving Jojo Siwa...

Not to sound elitist (we're talking about clerking so we're all elitist), but to the credibility point, she wasn't even a federal clerk. I know the DC Superior Court is well-regarded in criminal circles, but it's not the same as a federal court and everyone knows it.

[Anonymous User]

The whole point of elite schools is so that students and alumni enjoy a substantial competitive advantage.

This is as stupid and shortsighted as eliminating legacy admissions.

[Anonymous User]

I also have some skepticism regarding how bad her clerkship experience was. Some of her gripes seem legitimate, like her judge telling her he thought she'd fail the bar, which is just a jerk comment to make. But reading between the lines of some of her other complaints, like him calling her aggressive/bossy or having her leave the courtroom for spending too much in court, it seems like she liked to argue with the judge and wasn't managing her time properly. Because we've only heard her side of the story, I am obviously speculating some. But it definitely seems to me that part of the problem with her clerkship experience was that she didn't properly understand her role as a clerk and thought her voice and judgment should be given equal weight as the judge's. And her self-aggrandizing on LinkedIn and with media outlets only furthers my belief that this was part of the problem.

That said, I do think that the LAP is a net positive and will help students/grads make better informed decisions about what judges to apply to.

I think questioning her experience is a little unfair. It's true that we have only her account of things, but I don't think there's anything particularly questionable about it. "Bossy" is super gender-coded; you don't call men bossy, and following up by saying, "and I know bossy because my wife is bossy!" just isn't a good look in any way, shape, or form. If he thought that she was spending too much time in the courtroom, he could have just said that, rather than tell her that he made her uncomfortable and that he was doing it to punish her b/c he knew how much she liked to be in court; he also apparently started kicking her out of the courtroom in September, when she can hardly have been there long enough to not be handling her workload. She got fired 4 months early and after telling her she'd get a neutral reference, the judge sabotaged her with a bad one. None of this naturally follows from arguing too much with a judge, but even if she was, there are much more straightforward ways to handle it. He's the boss; he can tell her to stop, not call her names and berate her.

And little over a year after firing her, the judge was forced into retirement due to inability to handle his docket and having a disability that interfered with performance of his judicial duties (including a brief reference to cognitive issues); he was investigated in response to a number of complaints, and the investigation noted that the extraordinary delays in cases ramped up right around the time that he fired the former clerk.

It's possible that the timing is just coincidence, but it seems likely that chambers was experiencing fallout from the judge's issues while she clerked for him. I mean, I agree that this judge clearly thought she wasn't sufficiently deferential, but him thinking that doesn't mean she was actually doing anything wrong. And given the reference to cognitive issues, if something like early-onset Alzheimer's or similar was involved (which I hope for his sake it wasn't, but who knows), irritability and aggression are common early symptoms.

The other thing I think is entirely possible/plausible is that her current tenor online is the result of her experience with this judge, not a sign that she was the problem. (But I also don't think the post above is as incredibly inappropriate/unprofessional as the person who posted it does.)

The whole point of elite schools is so that students and alumni enjoy a substantial competitive advantage.

This is as stupid and shortsighted as eliminating legacy admissions.

How does this relate to the LAP?

[Anonymous User]

I get why you say this, and I too find the promotion a little intense. But I have a sort of 6-degrees-of-separation connection with her and while I don't know her personally, I don't think it's grift as much as influencer-style grind and trying to get this off the ground. I'm not sure biglaw was a realistic option for her, which may make the LAP look griftier (she needs an income), but I also think it comes from genuine commitment and is consistent with her government/"justice" focus throughout law school. She's definitely hustling to support herself, but I think the promotion style is more that it's a one-woman show and she isn't that great at marketing.

It sort of feels like she's trying to pivot to judicial accountability as a career in the way that the founders of Law School Transparency pivoted to law school reform (but that's a guess, I have no inside info about this). I guess time will tell how it works out, and whether law clerk abuse really is a widespread enough issue to make a career out of.

Yeah, I've just assumed she's going over the top on promotion to get the word out. This all relies on clerks knowing about it and submitting information. It also relies on law schools/students believing that the database has sufficient information. I submitted information on both my clerkships (which were positive experiences) a while ago, FWIW. I am disappointed about the paywall. I get that the nonprofit needs revenue, but that doesn't really feel consistent with the mission.

I truly sympathize with the mission, but she's gotta chill on linkedin.

Like this one for example is seriously just inappropriate and unprofessional (seriously "blow sunshine up the administrations’ butts"):

"WashU Law has canceled a THIRD LAP event.

Some were only comfortable with my visit if I was going to blow sunshine up the administrations’ butts.

I’m disappointed, but not surprised.

I wouldn’t participate in an event where I was prevented from criticizing the administration. That’s a disservice to students, who lack hashtag#clerkship info.

At The Legal Accountability Project’s 30+ law school events, I always share my clerkship experience - including WashU’s role in it - to illustrate the problems I discuss, particularly with hashtag#lawschool clerkship advising. I planned to say no more and no less than I always do.

Of course, the critique hits differently in the room where it happened. But anyone who follows LAP’s work knows my slant on hashtag#clerking.

There are 2 paths an Administration can take when they’ve done wrong and someone calls them out on it. Admit their mistakes and make changes, or bury their heads in the sand.

WashU has chosen the latter path. We hoped that would change with this visit.

LAP’s programming is necessary everywhere - but particularly at WashU, a school that lacks proper clerkship advising. We were also planning to announce free Database subscriptions for WashU students.

Fortunately, students no longer need to rely on WashU for hashtag#clerkship info! They can bypass career services and pre-register for Database access right now.

Advocacy work that creates real and lasting change is not intended to make people - particularly entrenched power structures - comfortable.

Maybe it's time for WashU to take a broader view on acceptable speech.

WashU alums have been reaching out to share negative experiences with Career Services. If you’re a student or an alum, and you’re outraged by this, tell the Dean and Chancellor. WashU MUST make changes, and they should be held hashtag#accountable for their poor behavior.

It's painful to encounter opposition like this at any law school, but *particularly* at my alma mater. But those who seek to maintain the broken status quo benefit from silence.

Make your voice heard. Students, you’re the customers at your school. You deserve better. You should demand it. hashtag#clerkships hashtag#lawschools hashtag#transparency"

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/aliza-sh ... er_desktop

As someone who wants this to work and think it's worth trying, really need them to pull back on the cringe. It's like, mortifying and really undermines her own credibility as a "former clerk" or whatever. Makes you look like an unserious disgruntled child and is counterproductive to actually bringing to light serious issues in chambers. It's giving Jojo Siwa...

Not to sound elitist (we're talking about clerking so we're all elitist), but to the credibility point, she wasn't even a federal clerk. I know the DC Superior Court is well-regarded in criminal circles, but it's not the same as a federal court and everyone knows it.

What does that have to do with credibility lol. I'm sure DC superior court clerks also get abused. Her lack of credibility comes from her cringey actions online and obvious self interest not where she clerked. Why does every topic turn into a pissing contest.

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone managed to get access to the database yet? I paid my $20 but haven't gotten a response

[Anonymous User]

I get why you say this, and I too find the promotion a little intense. But I have a sort of 6-degrees-of-separation connection with her and while I don't know her personally, I don't think it's grift as much as influencer-style grind and trying to get this off the ground. I'm not sure biglaw was a realistic option for her, which may make the LAP look griftier (she needs an income), but I also think it comes from genuine commitment and is consistent with her government/"justice" focus throughout law school. She's definitely hustling to support herself, but I think the promotion style is more that it's a one-woman show and she isn't that great at marketing.

It sort of feels like she's trying to pivot to judicial accountability as a career in the way that the founders of Law School Transparency pivoted to law school reform (but that's a guess, I have no inside info about this). I guess time will tell how it works out, and whether law clerk abuse really is a widespread enough issue to make a career out of.

Yeah, I've just assumed she's going over the top on promotion to get the word out. This all relies on clerks knowing about it and submitting information. It also relies on law schools/students believing that the database has sufficient information. I submitted information on both my clerkships (which were positive experiences) a while ago, FWIW. I am disappointed about the paywall. I get that the nonprofit needs revenue, but that doesn't really feel consistent with the mission.

I truly sympathize with the mission, but she's gotta chill on linkedin.

Like this one for example is seriously just inappropriate and unprofessional (seriously "blow sunshine up the administrations’ butts"):

"WashU Law has canceled a THIRD LAP event.

Some were only comfortable with my visit if I was going to blow sunshine up the administrations’ butts.

I’m disappointed, but not surprised.

I wouldn’t participate in an event where I was prevented from criticizing the administration. That’s a disservice to students, who lack hashtag#clerkship info.

At The Legal Accountability Project’s 30+ law school events, I always share my clerkship experience - including WashU’s role in it - to illustrate the problems I discuss, particularly with hashtag#lawschool clerkship advising. I planned to say no more and no less than I always do.

Of course, the critique hits differently in the room where it happened. But anyone who follows LAP’s work knows my slant on hashtag#clerking.

There are 2 paths an Administration can take when they’ve done wrong and someone calls them out on it. Admit their mistakes and make changes, or bury their heads in the sand.

WashU has chosen the latter path. We hoped that would change with this visit.

LAP’s programming is necessary everywhere - but particularly at WashU, a school that lacks proper clerkship advising. We were also planning to announce free Database subscriptions for WashU students.

Fortunately, students no longer need to rely on WashU for hashtag#clerkship info! They can bypass career services and pre-register for Database access right now.

Advocacy work that creates real and lasting change is not intended to make people - particularly entrenched power structures - comfortable.

Maybe it's time for WashU to take a broader view on acceptable speech.

WashU alums have been reaching out to share negative experiences with Career Services. If you’re a student or an alum, and you’re outraged by this, tell the Dean and Chancellor. WashU MUST make changes, and they should be held hashtag#accountable for their poor behavior.

It's painful to encounter opposition like this at any law school, but *particularly* at my alma mater. But those who seek to maintain the broken status quo benefit from silence.

Make your voice heard. Students, you’re the customers at your school. You deserve better. You should demand it. hashtag#clerkships hashtag#lawschools hashtag#transparency"

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/aliza-sh ... er_desktop

As someone who wants this to work and think it's worth trying, really need them to pull back on the cringe. It's like, mortifying and really undermines her own credibility as a "former clerk" or whatever. Makes you look like an unserious disgruntled child and is counterproductive to actually bringing to light serious issues in chambers. It's giving Jojo Siwa...

Not to sound elitist (we're talking about clerking so we're all elitist), but to the credibility point, she wasn't even a federal clerk. I know the DC Superior Court is well-regarded in criminal circles, but it's not the same as a federal court and everyone knows it.

What does that have to do with credibility lol. I'm sure DC superior court clerks also get abused. Her lack of credibility comes from her cringey actions online and obvious self interest not where she clerked. Why does every topic turn into a pissing contest.

It’s always a pissing contest here because you’re dealing with insecure law students/judicial clerks who are figuring out that they’re totally clueless. That’s the majority of the site. I agree with your sentiments overall.

[Anonymous User]

The overwhelming majority of the reviews on the database are not only positive, but very positive. Not really an epidemic.

[Anonymous User]

The overwhelming majority of the reviews on the database are not only positive, but very positive. Not really an epidemic.

I readily admit I'm a coward or whatever but there is no way I am saying anything negative about a federal judge who can readily/easily negatively effect my career trajectory in a tangible way. What LAP needs is a mass "I am Spartacus" moment, which will not happen in the legal career on a wide scale.

In fact if anything, I fear this launders view and the fact that people say only positive things can make some judges out to be better than they are. I have no evidence to support this, but its just a lurking thought I had.

[Anonymous User]

The overwhelming majority of the reviews on the database are not only positive, but very positive. Not really an epidemic.

Are the reviews anonymous or do they include the reviewer's name? I already clerked for district court/court of appeals so no reason to pay to see it but am just nosey.

[Anonymous User]

The overwhelming majority of the reviews on the database are not only positive, but very positive. Not really an epidemic.

I readily admit I'm a coward or whatever but there is no way I am saying anything negative about a federal judge who can readily/easily negatively effect my career trajectory in a tangible way. What LAP needs is a mass "I am Spartacus" moment, which will not happen in the legal career on a wide scale.

In fact if anything, I fear this launders view and the fact that people say only positive things can make some judges out to be better than they are. I have no evidence to support this, but its just a lurking thought I had.

If I wanted to blast a judge, I would just post it here. No way am I trusting the LAP person to hide my identity properly.

[Anonymous User]

The overwhelming majority of the reviews on the database are not only positive, but very positive. Not really an epidemic.

Are the reviews anonymous or do they include the reviewer's name? I already clerked for district court/court of appeals so no reason to pay to see it but am just nosey.

They’re anonymous, unless you want to put your name on it. Also judges and journalists aren’t allowed to access it (not that that would prevent someone who can access it from showing it to others, of course).

I think probably most clerks do have a positive experience, or positive enough that they’re not going to say anything bad. And I get concerns that being honest about a bad experience would out you if the judge ever saw it. I think the intent of the site is admirable, but I don’t know how it will work out in practice.

Like, democratizing information about clerkships is a great thing, and in theory, knowing there’s a place where behavior can be reported could serve as some kind of a check.

Problems I see: I don’t know that bad reviews will outweigh the incentive many applicants have to take any clerkship, even if it’s a bad experience. The value of a federal clerkship to a career can be pretty divorced from the quality of the experience. The people who most benefit from democratizing this info are also likely to be the people who have the most to gain from any clerkship and aren’t in a position to shop around (that is, people at schools that don’t send a lot of students to clerkships and thus tend to have less access to this info). So it’s not clear to me that bad reviews will have much impact on judges, in the sense that they’ll end up with fewer/worse applicants. Applicants who can legitimately afford to be choosy are far fewer than those who can’t, and if you really are in a position to pick/choose between clerkships, you probably already have decent access to relevant information (not invariably, but likely).

Plus the abusive judges all think what they’re doing is justified so they’re just going to think any complaints are from whiners, they don’t need to change.

It will be easy for people reading the database to convince themselves that a bad review was from a clerk who couldn’t hack it and not really about the judge.

And tbf in some cases that will be true.

(Tbf I’m not sure the intent of the database is to change judges’ behavior rather than just help applicants avoid a bad experience.)

It might develop momentum and turns into a really robust dataset, which would be interesting to see. It reminds me a lot of the early days of Law School Transparency. Just not sure the information that LAP is trading in is as useful/clear cut as the job info stuff.

[Anonymous User]

The overwhelming majority of the reviews on the database are not only positive, but very positive. Not really an epidemic.

I readily admit I'm a coward or whatever but there is no way I am saying anything negative about a federal judge who can readily/easily negatively effect my career trajectory in a tangible way. What LAP needs is a mass "I am Spartacus" moment, which will not happen in the legal career on a wide scale.

In fact if anything, I fear this launders view and the fact that people say only positive things can make some judges out to be better than they are. I have no evidence to support this, but its just a lurking thought I had.

If I wanted to blast a judge, I would just post it here. No way am I trusting the LAP person to hide my identity properly.

The problem isn’t LAP concealing your identity, which I’m sure it’s perfectly capable of doing. The problem is that anyone who can access the information can show your review to others, who may or may not be able to figure out who you are.

I mean I have a hard time thinking the average judge is going to go to the trouble of doing this, but some of the judges who earn bad reviews might earn those reviews precisely for being the kind of person who would, so who knows.