Quickly after I launched The Legal Accountability Project (LAP), I met with a Washington College in St. Louis College of Regulation (WashU Regulation) professor to speak about LAP’s work. There’s no love misplaced between me and my alma mater: after I used to be harassed and fired from my clerkship, I realized WashU Regulation directors and professors knew the choose who harassed me had harassed one other alum a couple of years earlier — however selected to not share that with me earlier than I accepted the clerkship. I may have gotten over that, however for the truth that three separate deans subsequently advised me they “don’t consider” I used to be mistreated by the choose I labored for. And the regulation college cancelled 4 LAP occasions in simply three years, together with one with one other alumnus who’s a federal choose. So, it was unsurprising that this professor mentioned: “You appear to suppose clerkships are a hazard, whereas I believe there’s a clerkship for everyone.”
That framing caught with me as LAP struggled to satisfied regulation faculties to subscribe to our Clerkships Database (“Glassdoor for Judges”). Some even tried to bar students from subscribing. Earlier than LAP launched the Clerkships Database — serving 1000’s of scholars yearly whereas gathering information on the incidence of damaging versus optimistic clerkship experiences — college directors framed LAP as “dissuading” students from clerking.
Not precisely. I encourage college students to be aware of who they clerk for and to be empowered customers of clerkship info, in methods they traditionally weren’t. I discourage candidates from clerking for abusive judges. It’s disturbing that schools refuse to warn college students about abusive judges, and all however two refuse to subscribe to LAP’s database — exhibiting how little they care about college students’ well-being, and forcing college students to pay individually. Thankfully, college students not rely solely on their faculties for info, so long as they pay $50 to subscribe to LAP’s database.
As soon as LAP launched the Clerkships Database in April 2024, candidates lastly noticed for themselves simply how hazardous some clerkships are, firsthand from clerks. Our information recommend round 30% of clerkship experiences are damaging, based mostly on over 2,000 surveys about greater than 1,200 judges and knowledge from each state, federal circuit, and U.S. district courtroom.
Our information additionally point out that round 1 in 17 federal judges are abusive, which aligns with the federal judiciary’s own data: as many as 106 judges (out of round 1,700) dedicated actionable misconduct by mistreating clerks in 2023, according to a climate survey launched earlier this 12 months. I shared that statistic with round 30 college students at a LAP occasion: statistically, a minimum of one or two on this room will endure abusive clerkships. Let that sink in.
It’s no shock so many judges abuse their energy: judicial chambers are particularly conducive to mistreatment. There’s an monumental energy disparity between younger regulation clerks and life-tenured judges. Importantly, federal clerks are exempt from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all federal anti-discrimination legal guidelines: if they’re harassed, discriminated in opposition to, unjustly fired, or retaliated in opposition to (or the entire above, in my case), they can not sue to hunt redress. Regulation clerks mainly don’t have any rights, and judges have authorized immunity for harassing them.
Title VII can appear summary. Right here’s the fact: legal guidelines deter dangerous habits. Staff don’t harass their co-workers (or, much less typically than they in any other case may), if for no different cause than they don’t wish to get sued. Title VII places the onus on the employer, if an worker complains about harassment, to research, handle the issue, and self-discipline the offender: in any other case, the wronged worker can sue for damages. Exempting a complete department of presidency means federal judges don’t face this deterrent — there’s actually nothing legally stopping or dissuading them from mistreating workers.
That is compounded by the truth that there are no effective reporting processes, criticism mechanisms, or other avenues to seek help. Clerks not often use the formal or inner criticism processes — the Judicial Conduct & Disability (JC&D) Act and the Employee Dispute Resolution (EDR) Plan. Juxtapose the judiciary’s 2023 local weather survey with criticism statistics from that interval: just three JC&D complaints in 2023, and just seven EDR complaints between 2021 and 2023, had been filed by regulation clerks, due primarily to clerks’ fears of retaliation for reporting — retaliation they’re not legally protected in opposition to, since they’re exempt from Title VII. This implies judges are not often held accountable for misconduct. College students ought to do every little thing doable to keep away from abusive clerkships, as a result of the outcomes for mistreated clerks are bleak.
Think about three current examples that made information — representing a miniscule fraction of judicial misconduct:
Second Circuit Judge Sarah Merriam was disciplined and publicly reprimanded in December 2023 for creating an “overly harsh work surroundings.” In July 2024, former Alaska choose Joshua Kindred resigned in scandal, after a Ninth Circuit Judicial Council discovered that he sexually harassed and retaliated in opposition to clerks. Kindred was recently disbarred. And former Minnesota federal chapter choose Kesha Tanabe resigned in scandal in early 2025 after bullying and retaliating in opposition to clerks. That case by no means would have made information — and Tanabe would have evaded accountability, after the Eighth Circuit tried to guard her by pressuring a regulation clerk to withdraw their JC&D criticism — however for my Above the Law article. These examples — only a fraction of what comes over my transom at LAP — ought to let you know how severely the federal courts take accountability and secure workplaces (in no way); how efficient judicial criticism processes and self-discipline are at stopping and addressing misconduct (in no way); and the significance of choosing a clerkship based mostly on the choose’s administration type and office conduct (all-important).
Not all clerkships are hazardous. However as somebody who does this for a living, way more are treacherous than anybody else would admit. Even most mistreated clerks by no means inform anybody they had been mistreated: they’ve solely shared in LAP’s Clerkships Database.
Regulation faculties and authorized trade leaders paint an excessively rosy and one-sided image of clerking — typically while knowing realities they won’t admit — deceptive college students to consider clerkships confer solely skilled advantages, and so they’ll develop a lifelong mentor/mentee or “familial” relationship with the judges they clerk for. Clerks consult with judges fondly, years later, as “my judge” (typically even after they had been mistreated) — a time period of affection that lionizes judges unnecessarily and contributes to the harmful notion that judges’ office conduct shouldn’t be questioned, irrespective of how unethical. However this can be the exception, not the rule. In actuality, most clerkships are jobs like every other: you’ll work for a 12 months or two to examine a field earlier than advancing in your profession. Creating unrealistic expectations units clerks as much as fail. Clerks take determined measures to drive a bond, together with “nonjudicial duties” like fetching judges’ dry cleansing, tutoring their youngsters, and strolling their canines. They self-internalize failure, pondering they did one thing incorrect, if these relationships don’t materialize.
I don’t consider there’s a clerkship for everyone. Not everybody ought to clerk. If the selection is between an abusive clerkship and no clerkship in any respect — don’t clerk. Ask why you wish to clerk and what your objectives are. On the identical time, nobody who needs to clerk ought to rely themselves out. In reality, LAP’s database fosters better fairness by guaranteeing any applicant, no matter regulation college, pays $50 to entry the identical baseline details about clerkships — fairly than the pre-LAP established order, which restricted entry to only a handful of scholars from prime regulation faculties.
What are the proper inquiries to ask your self earlier than clerking?
- Why do I wish to clerk?
- What are my objectives for the clerkship?
- The place do I wish to stay after my clerkship, and can this clerkship assist me get a job on this jurisdiction?
- What sort of regulation do I wish to apply, and can this clerkship assist me hone the proper abilities and get a job in my chosen area?
- What sort of work surroundings am I searching for?
- How do I prefer to be supervised and obtain suggestions?
- When do I wish to clerk — straight out of regulation college, or can I watch for a couple of years? If I wait, how will I fill these hole 12 months(s) earlier than my clerkship begins?
- How far am I prepared to maneuver to clerk? The place am I prepared to stay for a 12 months or two?
There’s nothing incorrect with clerking for the credential, fairly than (or along with) in search of writing and analysis expertise, litigation or appellate coaching, and perception into judges’ decision-making — so long as you don’t settle for an abusive clerkship for the status. There’s a incorrect query to ask: What am I prepared to place up with to clerk? Given the shortage of federal jobs proper now, some will nonetheless ask. If everybody making use of for clerkships subscribed to LAP’s Clerkships Database, far fewer would endure mistreatment, as a result of they’d actually understanding simply how terrible some clerkships are. Frankly, understanding the trash regulation faculties present, I fear about college students who haven’t subscribed. The place are they getting info, if not from LAP, and the way do they confirm it?
Sadly, some will say, “I can deal with it,” or “It’s price it for the status.” Nonetheless others suppose it gained’t occur to them. However I’ve recommended tons of of mistreated clerks: all of them mentioned in the event that they knew how dangerous it will be, they wouldn’t have accepted the clerkship. Frankly, my expertise isn’t uncommon: it’s only one that’s not often shared publicly, because of the tradition of silence and worry surrounding the judiciary — one in every of deifying judges and disbelieving regulation clerks. To place it bluntly: should you’re making use of for clerkships and also you select not to take company over your profession by fully informing yourself, you’re taking an monumental profession threat, given the outsized affect of clerkships — a profession you sacrificed three years and tons of of 1000’s of {dollars} to construct.
Some folks deceptive college students to consider there’s a clerkship for everyone have misaligned incentives and questionable motives: they want as many students as possible to clerk, for instance. Others simply lack body of reference: clerks don’t repeatedly share damaging experiences with them, or their clerkships had been great so that they don’t perceive how others’ couldn’t be. However the judiciary’s and LAP’s information each recommend that for each 17 college students making use of for federal clerkships, one might be mistreated. That’s quite a lot of destroyed lives and careers. Possibly it’s time legal professionals had been trustworthy concerning the realities inherent in workplaces exempt from office legal guidelines.
Aliza Shatzman is the President and Founding father of The Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit aimed toward guaranteeing that regulation clerks have optimistic clerkship experiences, whereas extending assist and assets to those that don’t. She repeatedly writes and speaks about judicial accountability and clerkships. Attain out to her through electronic mail at [email protected] and observe her on Twitter @AlizaShatzman.
