via
Getty)
Law
school
career
services
offices
have
historically
been
clerkship
gatekeepers
and
facilitators
—
hoarding
information,
providing
incomplete
resources,
and
hosting
one-sided
programming
to
facilitate
clerkship
opportunities
for
students.
Yet
schools’
overwhelmingly
positive
and
misleading
messaging
provides
a
dangerously
rosy
and
overly
optimistic
picture
of
clerking. Biased
advising
fail
to
highlight
potential
downsides,
let
alone
negative
experiences
that
are
all
too
common
in
hierarchical,
unregulated
work
environments.
By
creating
unrealistic
expectations,
schools
set
students
up
for
failure:
if
clerks
are
mistreated,
they
self-internalize
criticism
and
assume
they’re
to
blame.
So,
they
keep
their
heads
down
and
stay
silent,
perpetuating
the
problem
by
failing
to
warn
others.
Beyond
this,
law
schools
have
misaligned
incentives:
they
don’t
always
have
students’
best
interests
at
heart.
They’re
far
more
interested
in
placing
as
many
students
as
possible
into
prestigious
clerkships,
and
maintaining
relationships
with
judges
(even
abusive
ones).
They
care
about
prestige
over
positive
experience:
clerks’
well-being
barely
makes
the
priority
list.
In
April
2024,
The
Legal
Accountability
Project
(LAP)
upended
the
clerkship
system
by
launching
“Glassdoor
for
Judges”
to
correct
informational
asymmetries
and
warn
students
about
abusive
judges.
LAP’s
nationwide
Clerkships
Database
democratizes
clerkships:
clerks
review
judges
as
managers,
and
students
take
agency
over
their
careers
by
paying
a
small
annual
fee
to
access
exponentially
more
information
than
they
otherwise
could.
Students
are
no
longer
beholden
to
schools
that
historically
withheld
information
from
them.
It’s
a
testament
to
schools’
inadequate
resources
that
LAP
already
served
over
3,000
students
and
recent
graduates
in
just
18
months
—
helping
them
identify
positive
work
environments
and
avoid
abusive
judges
and
bad
bosses.
Seeing
their
students
flock
to
LAP’s
Database,
some
schools
tried
to
prevent
them
from
accessing
it,
fearing
it
would
dissuade
them
from
clerking
for
abusive
and
prestigious
judges.
Yale
Law
School
(YLS)
and
Maryland
Law
barred
student
organizations
from
subscribing
to
the
Database
on
behalf
of
members
using
student
organization
funds.
This
backfired,
galvanizing
eight
donors
to
cover
Database
subscriptions
for
students
at
YLS
and
seven
other
schools,
and
inspiring
more
law
journals
to
subscribe.
LAP’s
Database
has
only
grown
in
popularity
since
then:
students
saw
through
these
nakedly
malicious
efforts
and
were
undeterred
from
subscribing.
How
common
are
the
negative
experiences
schools
worked
so
hard
to
prevent
students
from
learning
about?
According
to
LAP’s
data
—
nearly
2,000
surveys
about
more
than
1,200
judges
—
around
30%
of
experiences
are
negative.
And
more
than
100
out
of
around
1,700
currently
serving
federal
judges
are
“do
not
clerk
for”
jurists.
That
means
federal
clerkship
applicants
have
around
a
1
in
17
chance
of
being
mistreated
while
clerking
—
perhaps
the
most
dangerous
white-collar
workplace
in
America.
Many
2Ls
don’t
realize
schools
—
even
highly
ranked
ones
—
provide
incomplete
and
misleading
information.
Unless
students
can
name
all
100
federal
judges
to
avoid,
they
need
LAP’s
Database.
And
even
if
they
can,
they
should
probably
still
research
them,
rather
than
gamble
their
futures
on
someone’s
word.
A
handful
of
primarily
T14
schools
maintain
internal
clerkship
databases
containing
post-interview
and
post-clerkship
surveys.
Even
under
the
best
circumstances,
no
school
has
information
about
all
the
judges
students
will
apply
to.
New
judges
are
appointed
and
elected
each
year.
Schools’
information
is
restricted
by
whom
alumni
have
clerked
for
and
clerks’
willingness
to
share
it
—
in
contrast
to
LAP’s
Database,
which
is
constantly
growing,
thanks
to
clerks’
trust
in
LAP’s
safeguards
and
security
protocols,
which
far
exceed
schools’.
Out
of
several
hundred
post-clerkship
surveys
populating
the
most
robust
school
databases,
typically
fewer
than
10
are
negative
—
not
reflective
of
clerks’
actual
experiences.
Where
are
the
negative
surveys?
Clerks
are
instructed,
including
by
their
schools,
not
to
say
anything
negative
about
judges
—
certainly
not
in
writing.
And
at
most
schools,
unlike
LAP’s
Database,
clerks
cannot
submit
anonymously:
mistreated
clerks
fear
retaliation
by
judges
and
career
repercussions.
School
databases
also
contain
misleading
positive
surveys
about
known
abusive
judges.
Schools
either
know
or
should
know
the
contents
of
their
databases,
since
they
signal
to
students
that
theirs
is
a
school-approved
resource
while
LAP’s
is
not.
Schools
should
be
held
accountable
if
students
end
up
in
abusive
clerkships
after
relying
on
their
school’s
database.
I
don’t
expect
schools
to
know
about
all
the
judges.
But
they’re
not
working
very
hard
to
inform
themselves.
On
the
contrary,
they
seem
to
be
working
hard
not
to
obtain
any
negative
information
about
judges,
so
they
won’t
have
to
confront
the
cognitive
dissonance
of
knowing
judges
mistreat
their
clerks
while
failing
to
warn
students.
To
the
extent
schools
have
some
negative
information
about
judges,
they
withhold
it
from
students
who
need
it.
Schools
could
maintain
internal
“do
not
clerk”
lists.
They
could
actively
warn
students
not
to
apply
when
reviewing
students’
judge
lists.
Clerkship
advisors
refuse:
they
tell
students
“we’ve
heard
mixed
things”
to
cover
their
butts,
disclaim
responsibility,
and
perpetuate
a
status
quo
that
benefits
them.
Schools
could
also
note
in
their
databases
to
“contact
us
before
applying
to
this
judge.”
Yet
I’ve
only
heard
of
one
instance
like
that,
in
a
database
with
no
other
warnings.
Schools’
misbehavior
is
particularly
outrageous,
since
they
benefit
from
clerks’
negative
experiences
—
the
number
of
clerkship
placements
they
announce
annually
improves
their
ranking,
reputation,
and
applicant
recruitment.
It’s
not
complicated,
though
some
claim
it
is:
the
status
quo
is
just
wrong.
Advisors
know
far
more
about
judges
than
students
who
don’t
subscribe
to
LAP’s
Database.
Students
rely
on
them
for
information:
not
warning
students
is
malpractice,
given
the
information
asymmetry
and
enormous
pressure
to
clerk.
Law
schools
have
a
duty
of
care
to
students:
they’ve
failed.
Some
schools
also
maintain
historical
alumni
clerk
lists.
But
while
schools
instruct
students
to
research
judges
before
applying,
they
don’t
equip
them
with
sufficient
tools.
It’s
too
onerous
for
applicants
to
email
dozens
of
clerks
and
schedule
calls
with
each
before
applying.
Students
don’t.
They
apply
indiscriminately
to
as
many
as
100
judges
and
only
contact
former
clerks
if
they’re
invited
to
interview.
Several
top
schools
make
things
even
harder,
gatekeeping
lists
and
making
introductions
themselves
only
after
students
get
interviews.
But
by
then
it’s
often
too
late.
When
students
can’t
research
judges
before
applying,
they
may
find
themselves
in
dangerous
bird-in-the-hand
situations.
Upon
receiving
an
interview,
clerks
warn
them
about
the
judge.
But
it’s
their
only
interview.
Do
they
turn
it
down,
leaving
them
with
no
clerkship
at
all,
in
this
tough
job
market?
Or
do
they
decide
they
can
handle
it?
Every
mistreated
clerk
I’ve
spoken
with
said
they
wished
they’d
turned
the
clerkship
down.
Students
applying
via
OSCAR’s
Law
Clerk
Hiring
Plan
may
receive
interview
offers
with
as
little
as
48
hours’
notice,
without
time
to
speak
with
clerks.
Importantly,
many
mistreated
clerks
are
untruthful
when
students
reach
out,
fearing
career
repercussions
for
speaking
ill
of
a
powerful
judge.
The
frequently
offered,
tone-deaf
advice,
“talk
to
clerks
before
applying”
fails
to
recognize
that
students
don’t
have
access
to
those
networks,
nor
bandwidth
for
voluminous
outreach
before
applying
—
and
that
mistreated
clerks
may
not
be
truthful
when
contacted.
Many
schools
instruct
students
never
to
turn
down
a
clerkship
interview,
let
alone
an
offer.
It’s
not
just
friendly
advice:
they
won’t
assist
further.
Some
schools
even
intervene
in
students’
bar
applications
as
retribution
for
turning
down
clerkship
offers.
And,
of
course,
only
a
few
schools
maintain
such
resources.
Most
students
are
on
their
own:
since
it’s
more
difficult
to
get
a
clerkship,
especially
a
federal
clerkship,
if
you
attended
a
less
prestigious
school,
these
students
may
be
even
more
vulnerable
to
abuse
and
willing
to
endure
it
to
obtain
this
coveted
credential.
Let’s
be
clear:
law
schools,
who’ve
fought
hard
to
ensure
clerkships
were
their
express
purview,
and
insisted
they
didn’t
need
LAP’s
Database,
punish
students
for
turning
down
clerkship
offers
but
refuse
to
provide
information
to
help
them
avoid
those
clerkships
in
the
first
place.
It’s
quite
a
conundrum
—
telling
students
to
“do
their
research”
while
not
empowering
them
with
tools
to
do
it;
and
instructing
students
never
to
turn
down
an
offer
without
providing
information
to
decide
whether
to
apply.
These
practices
benefit
two
groups
—
abusive
judges,
who
benefit
from
applicants
not
knowing
about
their
misconduct
until
it’s
too
late;
and
law
schools
obsessed
with
prestige
over
positive
experiences.
LAP’s
Database
solves
all
these
problems.
Clerks
can
submit
surveys
anonymously
(they’re
not
anonymous
to
LAP,
but
they’re
anonymous
to
users
reading
reviews),
ensuring
honest
reviews.
Hundreds
of
clerks
say
they’ve
never
had
a
platform
to
share
candidly
and
warn
applicants.
Importantly,
students
can
start
their
research
now,
long
before
applying,
so
they’re
confident
every
judge
they
apply
to
is
a
good
boss.
And
the
nationwide
scope
of
LAP’s
Database
makes
it
far
superior
to
any
school’s
limited
information.
That’s
why
LAP
hoped
some
schools
would
want
to
broaden
their
information
by
subscribing.
Students
who
choose
not
to
subscribe
to
LAP’s
Database
before
applying,
or
who
read
negative
reviews
and
pursue
those
clerkships
anyway,
may
not
realize
how
treacherous
some
clerkships
are.
I
receive
at
least
weekly
outreach
from
incoming
clerks
trying
to
withdraw
from
clerkships
they
subsequently
learned
are
abusive;
or
from
mistreated
clerks
who’ve
quit,
been
fired,
or
need
to
extract
themselves
from
hostile
work
environments.
You
shouldn’t
need
therapy
after
your
clerkship:
yet
whole
generations
of
young
lawyers
are
traumatized
by
abusive,
imperious
judges.
They
take
that
trauma
to
their
next
jobs
—
afraid
to
ask
for
extensions,
for
example,
because
the
judge
they
clerked
for
berated
them
for
asking;
or
paranoid
that
turning
in
an
assignment
automatically
means
being
called
into
an
office
and
excoriated,
because
that’s
how
the
judge
conducted
themselves.
Traumatized
clerks
make
bad
lawyers,
or
become
abusive
managers
themselves,
because
hurt
people,
hurt
people.
It’s
a
difficult
time
for
law
students.
Government
jobs
vanished,
the
rug
pulled
out
from
under
aspiring
public
servants.
But
at
a
time
when
students
are
even
more
desperate
to
clerk,
given
the
lack
of
federal
jobs
(last
year
was
a
particularly
competitive
clerkship
application
cycle),
it’s
even
more
important
to
be
informed
decision-makers
and
avoid
career-
and
life-altering
experiences.
Law
students
must
take
responsibility
for
their
careers:
seek
out
candid
clerkship
information
and
pay
to
access
it.
Frankly,
the
$50
they’ll
spend
to
subscribe
per
school
year
is
a
drop
in
the
bucket
compared
to
the
hundreds
of
dollars
(or
more)
they’ll
spend
on
wardrobe,
travel,
and
lodging
for
clerkship
interviews,
let
alone
the
massive
pay
cut
to
clerk.
They’ll
uproot
their
entire
lives,
take
out
a
one-year
lease,
and
move
somewhere
random
—
only
to
risk
having
their
lives
and
careers
destroyed
by
abusive
clerkships
and
retaliatory
judges.
Thousands
of
students
and
recent
graduates
apply
for
clerkships
annually:
if
everyone
subscribed
to
LAP’s
Database,
far
fewer
would
be
mistreated.
Law
schools
steering
students
toward
their
incomplete
and
misleading
resources
rather
than
to
LAP’s,
and
funneling
students
into
clerkships
with
little
regard
for
the
quality
of
the
work
environment,
should
be
ashamed
of
themselves:
it
costs
them
nothing
to
direct
students
to
truthful
information.
Instead,
they’re
perpetuating
a
significant
civil
rights
abuse
—
harassment,
discrimination,
and
retaliation
committed
by
federal
judges
who
interpret
our
anti-discrimination
laws
while
exempt
from
those
same
laws.
Aliza
Shatzman
is
the
President
and
Founder
of The
Legal
Accountability
Project,
a
nonprofit
aimed
at
ensuring
that
law
clerks
have
positive
clerkship
experiences,
while
extending
support
and
resources
to
those
who
do
not.
She
regularly
writes
and
speaks
about
judicial
accountability
and
clerkships.
Reach
out
to
her
via
email
at [email protected] and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@AlizaShatzman.