Reapplying after you’ve been rejected from? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I know it’s common for applicants to re-apply for clerkships across numerous cycles, especially if you’ve gotten no interview bites. But what if you were rejected *after* interviewing? Does it still make sense to re-apply for the judge for a later term? Do applicants even get hired that way?

And when judges tell you to re-apply in their rejection email, is that genuine or just boilerplate language?

[Anonymous User]

Worst they can say is no. Probably wouldnt have a reccomender call the judge or anything as that could probably come off as annoying.

[Anonymous User]

Our chambers would absolutely welcome applicants who we'd previously interviewed but not offered. We generally do twice as many interviews as we have spots, so not getting an offer post-interview is generally just 'we like you a lot, just slightly less than the person we're hiring', rather than an indictment of the interview (or of fit in chambers).

[Anonymous User]

Our chambers would absolutely welcome applicants who we'd previously interviewed but not offered. We generally do twice as many interviews as we have spots, so not getting an offer post-interview is generally just 'we like you a lot, just slightly less than the person we're hiring', rather than an indictment of the interview (or of fit in chambers).

Not OP but just curious. Should said applicant acknowledge they interviewed but didn't get it in the cover letter?

[Anonymous User]

I had 6 interviews this cycle, and 2 of those judges specifically invited me to apply again next cycle if I was still looking. One of them even said they'd keep my materials on file. Caveat being that I explicitly said during these interviews that I was looking to do multiple clerkships until the federal government decides they're hiring again. I doubt they would have said this otherwise, so I wouldn't take the fact that a judge didn't specifically invite you to apply again to mean they wouldn't welcome it.

If you've been given an interview before, you're already within the universe of people they would consider hiring. Unless there was something specific in the interview you felt went horribly wrong or otherwise felt like you weren't a good "fit", I'd say go for it.

[Anonymous User]

Our chambers would absolutely welcome applicants who we'd previously interviewed but not offered. We generally do twice as many interviews as we have spots, so not getting an offer post-interview is generally just 'we like you a lot, just slightly less than the person we're hiring', rather than an indictment of the interview (or of fit in chambers).

Not OP but just curious. Should said applicant acknowledge they interviewed but didn't get it in the cover letter?

With the caveat that I can’t speak to this from personal experience, I think it would be weird not to mention it. Even a COA judge with 4 clerks [that’s right, isn’t it? outing myself as not clerking for a COA] who interviews twice as many candidates as slots is only interviewing 8 people - they’re going to remember who you are.

I think the best move would be to treat it like a normal human conversation, saying something about applying again because you enjoyed interviewing with them and therefore would like to be considered again.

[Anonymous User]

(I'm the poster who said our chambers would welcome reapplicants)

It wouldn't make a huge difference to us whether it was mentioned or not. If the same clerks who pulled your application the first time around are still in chambers when you reapply, they'll probably remember that they pulled you. (There are two applicants we interviewed last time around who I'm really hoping reapply when we start soliciting applications again.) And if not, saying you were previously interviewed won't really weigh one way or another. But yes, you could have a line in the cover letter saying that you appreciated the opportunity to interview for a clerkship in (X term) and the experience reaffirmed your interest in clerking for the judge.