Etiquette of Leveraging Interviews Forum

[Anonymous User]

What is the etiquette of using an interview invite from one chamber to nudge for a potential interview invite at another chamber, especially if the latter is where I prefer to work? Do I wait until I pass the interview with the clerks and get called back for an interview with the judge before reaching out to my preferred chambers? For context, both are circuit judges.

[Anonymous User]

I’d say it’s a bit presumptuous to reach out to your preferred chambers before you get an interview. (Unless you’re saying you already interviewed with the clerks? Couldn’t tell from your post. Even so, I’d wait for an invite from the judge.)

Also, you should probably only reach out if you get an offer from the first judge. Reaching out after only an interview invite might read as presumptuous, as there’s no promising you’ll get an offer.

[Anonymous User]

It comes off as presumptuous. There might be wiggle room if a similarly-situated judge in the same district gives you an offer, but you really want another similarly-situated judge in the same district and would take an offer from the second judge in a heartbeat. Also, don’t call Chambers asking for an interview (it won’t work in your favor).

[Anonymous User]

This used to be a very common thing pre-virtual interviews when candidates had to pay to fly all over for interviews - if you got an interview with a judge in one courthouse, it was very normal to contact the others to say something to the effect of “I’m going to be at your courthouse on [dates] if you were considering me for an interview, I’d love to speak with you about your clerkship.” It didn’t always get you anything more, but it might, and was considered very normal to do. Especially during former versions of the Plan, where there were fewer post-grad applicants and a real hiring frenzy around the Plan dates. (For reference, I was applying in 2011 and 2012.)

I don’t think this reasoning still survives now that virtual interviews are so common, or even with the possibility of virtual interviews. The point never really to say “see, someone else thinks I’m worth interviewing!” (although that was a subtext) but to save good candidates money on having to fly out to the same location twice, especially in close succession, and especially when most judges were interviewing around the same time.

I’m not as up on clerkship stuff these days, and maybe a lot of judges still require in-person interviews to make a final decision, but my sense is that dates/timing and formats vary much more, and without having to travel all over the country at the drop of a hat within a short period, nudging other judges with an interview invite doesn’t really work anymore.

That’s especially the case if this is just an interview with the clerks and you haven’t made it to the judge yet.

I think if you are going to physically travel to a courthouse for an interview, with a judge (and it’s not your local courthouse), you can still try the “I’m going to be in town and would like to meet if you’re interested” with other local judges. But I don’t think it’s as pressing, and if that’s not the scenario, I see no point in telling another chambers you’re being interviewed. I agree that for that kind of leverage, you have to wait for an offer.

[Anonymous User]

This used to be a very common thing pre-virtual interviews when candidates had to pay to fly all over for interviews - if you got an interview with a judge in one courthouse, it was very normal to contact the others to say something to the effect of “I’m going to be at your courthouse on [dates] if you were considering me for an interview, I’d love to speak with you about your clerkship.” It didn’t always get you anything more, but it might, and was considered very normal to do. Especially during former versions of the Plan, where there were fewer post-grad applicants and a real hiring frenzy around the Plan dates. (For reference, I was applying in 2011 and 2012.)

I don’t think this reasoning still survives now that virtual interviews are so common, or even with the possibility of virtual interviews. The point never really to say “see, someone else thinks I’m worth interviewing!” (although that was a subtext) but to save good candidates money on having to fly out to the same location twice, especially in close succession, and especially when most judges were interviewing around the same time.

I’m not as up on clerkship stuff these days, and maybe a lot of judges still require in-person interviews to make a final decision, but my sense is that dates/timing and formats vary much more, and without having to travel all over the country at the drop of a hat within a short period, nudging other judges with an interview invite doesn’t really work anymore.

That’s especially the case if this is just an interview with the clerks and you haven’t made it to the judge yet.

I think if you are going to physically travel to a courthouse for an interview, with a judge (and it’s not your local courthouse), you can still try the “I’m going to be in town and would like to meet if you’re interested” with other local judges. But I don’t think it’s as pressing, and if that’s not the scenario, I see no point in telling another chambers you’re being interviewed. I agree that for that kind of leverage, you have to wait for an offer.

Just finished clerking, all this wisdom still holds. It is normal to say something like "I'll be in [city/courthouse you're in for X reason] and would like to meet if you are available/interested." In my experience, someone in chambers would see this, pull the application, and then decide if there is the time or interest in interviewing. It's true that video interviews are more common now, but they are not necessarily the norm, and everyone understands that in person is preferable to virtual.

The stuff you mention about waiting to pass the clerk interview stage I think is essentially irrelevant. That's not information you would volunteer in a cold email -- even if say clerks are virtual and judge is in person, all you say is I'm in town for an interview. You don't want to give the impression that you're trying to trade up. And if in your leveraging you name drop Judge 1 to Judge 2, there's a decent chance Judge 2 tells Judge 1 because they're friends/colleagues/etc, especially if it's the same circuit. That could work out well, but it could also...not. It could come across as entitled to say to Judge 2 that you have an impending interview with Judge 1 but would strongly prefer Judge 2. Finally, consider that you may have imperfect information on what your "preferred" chambers is.