Aspiring
law
clerks
are
applying
and
interviewing
for
clerkships
right
now.
Before
The
Legal
Accountability
Project
(LAP)
launched
our
nationwide
Clerkships
Database
(aka
“Glassdoor
for
Judges”),
clerkship
applicants
accessed
information
about
judges,
if
it
existed,
from
their
law
schools.
But
schools’
clerkship
resources
are
insufficient
at
best
and
misleading
at
worst.
No
school
knows
about
all
the
judges
students
will
apply
to,
and
schools’
information
is
restricted
by
who
alumni
have
clerked
for
in
the
past
and
clerks’
willingness
to
share
it.
Importantly,
schools
suffer
from
misaligned
incentives:
most
are
far
more
interested
in
funneling
students
into
prestigious
clerkships
than
in
ensuring
positive
work
experiences
for
graduates.
Today’s
law
students
won’t
remember
a
time
when
clerkship
hiring
was
less
than
transparent.
It’s
the
second
application
cycle
where
applicants
benefit
from
LAP’s
Database,
a
repository
of
over
1,700
candid
clerkship
surveys
about
more
than
1,100
judges
that
democratizes
judicial
clerkships.
Clerks
can
submit
reviews
anonymously,
and
students,
irrespective
of
law
school,
can
pay
just
$50
per
year,
less
than
they
spend
annually
on
Netflix,
Hulu,
or
New
York
Times
subscriptions
—
for
access
to
a
treasure
trove
of
never-before-seen
insights.
Importantly,
this
is
the
only
source
of
honest
feedback,
particularly
about
judges
to
avoid.
Disturbingly,
surveys
in
schools’
internal
clerkships
databases
are
almost
uniformly
positive:
out
of
hundreds
of
surveys,
often
fewer
than
10
are
negative.
Considering
the
federal
judiciary’s
workplace
climate
survey
results
suggest
around
80%
of
employees’
experiences
are
positive,
and
LAP’s
data
indicates
this
number
is
actually
closer
to
70%,
less
than
10
negative
surveys
out
of
hundreds
seems
suspect.
That’s
why
LAP’s
Database
is
so
necessary.
Clerks
are
dissuaded
—
including
by
their
law
schools
—
from
“talking
bad”
about
judges,
let
alone
putting
negative
information
in
writing.
They
fear
retaliation
or
reputational
harm.
And
messaging
from
the
legal
industry
deifies
judges,
suggesting
judges
can
do
no
wrong
and
should
not
be
criticized.
What’s
more
disturbing
than
the
absence
of
negative
information
is
misleading
positive
surveys
in
schools’
databases,
with
no
“contact
us
before
applying”
disclaimer
to
signal
that
advisors
have
additional
insights
to
share.
Yellers,
throwers,
judges
whose
12-hour
workdays
are
written
in
their
law
clerk
manuals
—
work
experiences
where
no
clerkship
at
all,
is
better
than
that
clerkship
—
you’ll
find
positive
reviews
about
them
in
schools’
databases.
When
all
information
in
the
school’s
database
is
positive,
students
should
question
the
veracity
of
all
surveys.
Schools’
resources
are
worthless
for
anyone
trying
to
avoid
a
negative
clerkship
—
which,
according
to
LAP’s
surveys,
20%
or
more
are.
When
I
was
a
Washington
University
School
of
Law
student
applying
for
clerkships,
I
had
no
way
to
know
which
judges
were
great
bosses
to
apply
to,
and
which
to
avoid.
I
was
misled
into
an
unsafe
work
environment
—
one
my
law
school
knew
of
and
should
have
warned
me
about
—
because
no
transparency
clearinghouse
existed.
And
my
law
school,
like
too
many,
doesn’t
care
about
its
graduates’
well-being.
Because
if
they
did,
more
schools
already
would
have
embraced
LAP’s
Database.
Fortunately,
more
than
2,000
subscribers
from
law
schools
nationwide
avoided
more
than
100
negatively
reviewed
federal
judges
this
year
—
representing
around
one
seventeenth
of
federal
judges
—
and
poorly-reviewed
state
judges,
too.
This
empowered
clerks
to
reshuffle
to
positively
reviewed
judges,
including
some
they
might
not
otherwise
have
known
about,
given
their
schools’
regional
interests.
As
one
state
supreme
court
justice
remarked
recently,
clerkship
applicants
were
particularly
strong
this
year,
and
they
suspect
LAP’s
work
had
something
to
do
with
it.
I’ve
also
noticed
a
welcome
improvement
in
how
lawyers
talk
about
clerkships
—
no
longer
framed
as
an
unadulterated
good.
Perhaps
they’ve
digested
the
increased
media
coverage
of
harassment
in
the
judiciary
—
a
lengthy
NPR
investigation,
several
high-profile
instances
of
litigation,
scandal,
judicial
discipline,
and
resignation,
and
legislative
efforts
on
Capitol
Hill.
Clearly,
there’s
a
systemic
misconduct
problem,
stemming
from
the
lack
of
legal
guardrails,
workplace
protections,
outside
oversight,
and
the
insular
nature
of
the
judiciary.
It’s
not
that
all
judges
are
bad
—
but
the
bad
ones
are
shielded
by
their
colleagues
from
accountability.
Apparently,
this
was
a
particularly
competitive
clerkship
hiring
cycle,
as
students
who
would
otherwise
pursue
careers
with
the
Justice
Department’s
Honors
Program
and
throughout
the
federal
government
had
offers
revoked
or
decided
federal
service
was
politically
inhospitable.
More
young
lawyers
are
looking
for
one-
or
two-year
perches
to
regroup
as
public
service
dreams
are
shattered.
But
this
creates
a
dangerous
bird-in-the-hand
situation:
when
applicants
are
forced
to
choose
between
an
opportunity
with
a
notoriously
abusive
judge
and
no
clerkship
at
all,
someone
desperate,
even
after
reading
negative
reviews,
will
accept
that
clerkship
anyway.
LAP’s
Database
creates
accountability
through
transparency
—
because
there’s
nothing
imperious
federal
judges
who
abuse
their
power
hate
more
than
negative
feedback
traveling
through
the
grapevine
that
they
cannot
see.
This
third-party
solution,
wholly
independent
of
law
schools
and
the
judiciary,
creates
transparency
and
accountability
where
before
there
was
none.
Judges
are
forced
to
take
a
hard
look
inward
and
consider
their
workplace
conduct
—
how
they
can
be
better
managers
—
knowing
their
behavior
is
under
scrutiny:
reviewed
by
their
clerks
in
LAP’s
Database
and
on
display
for
thousands
of
applicants.
Judges
historically
benefited
from
the
lack
of
transparent
information
about
them
as
managers,
to
get
away
with
mistreating
clerks
year
after
year
—
because
prospective
clerks
did
not
know
until
it
was
too
late.
No
longer.
This
year,
applicants
will
avoid
abusive
bosses
entirely.
I’ve
even
spoken
with
incoming
clerks
about
withdrawing
from
their
clerkships
because
they
learned
negative
information
after
they’d
accepted.
Incoming
clerks
would
never
have
considered
this
before
LAP:
now,
clerks
warn
applicants;
applicants
are
empowered
to
make
informed
career
decisions;
and
prospective
clerks
can
take
agency
over
their
careers.
LAP’s
Database
doesn’t
replace
formal
reporting
mechanisms.
I
encourage
every
clerk
I
correspond
with
to
file
a
complaint.
Most
will
never
report,
though
I’ve
assisted
a
few.
Why
not?
According
to
the
judiciary’s
own
survey,
only
42%
of
employees
would
report
misconduct,
fearing
retaliation
and
believing
nothing
will
be
done.
Clerks
regularly
tell
me
they
have
not
and
would
not
report,
because
they
do
not
believe
their
concerns
will
be
taken
seriously
and
robustly,
impartially
investigated.
It’s
a
hard
sell,
since
employees
are
not
legally
protected
against
retaliation
—
the
entire
federal
judiciary
is
exempt
from
Title
VII
of
the
Civil
Rights
Act
and
all
other
anti-discrimination
laws
—
and
the
judiciary
has
done
nothing
to
give
clerks
confidence
in
existing
processes.
It’s
hard
not
to
get
frustrated,
knowing
the
judiciary
seems
to
have
succeeded
in
chilling
complaints
and
stymying
formal
reporting.
Dozens
of
currently
serving
judges
won’t
be
held
formally
accountable
for
misconduct.
Fortunately,
LAP’s
Database
contains
honest
insights:
the
hostility
we’ve
engendered
from
some
abusive
judges
desperate
to
prevent
applicants
from
learning
about
their
misbehavior
tells
you
everything
you
need
to
know
about
the
effectiveness
of
LAP’s
theory
of
accountability
through
transparency.
Law
clerks
nationwide
are
galvanized
to
share
their
experiences
with
LAP,
and
with
aspiring
clerks.
Because
Glassdoor
for
Judges
would
have
helped
them
when
they
were
applying.
Even
those
who
weren’t
mistreated
know
someone
who
was,
or
understand
that
the
structure
of
judicial
chambers
—
hierarchical,
isolated,
lacking
workplace
protections
and
outside
oversight
—
creates
a
risk
of
abusive
conduct.
Thousands
of
clerks
conclude
their
clerkships
this
summer,
and
all
should
contribute
a
survey.
Some
clerks
whose
experiences
were
positive
think
their
judges
wouldn’t
want
them
to
submit,
or
worse,
are
discouraged
by
judges
from
submitting
(a
huge
red
flag).
Given
that
LAP
has
surveys
about
1,100
judges,
subscribers
interpret
a
lack
of
surveys
as
a
negative
sign.
Clerks
love
to
rave
about
their
clerkships
—
if
it
was
so
great,
why
wouldn’t
clerks
submit?
I
discourage
students
from
applying
to
clerk
for
judges
who
oppose
transparency.
So,
it
actually
bolsters
the
judge’s
reputation
for
clerks
to
review
them,
and
hurts
their
reputations
when
clerks
don’t.
For
clerks
who
were
mistreated,
this
is
the
best
way
to
safely
and
anonymously
warn
applicants
to
avoid
the
mistreatment
you
endured.
It’s
also
a
way
to
hold
judges
accountable
for
misconduct
through
transparency:
their
misbehavior
will,
at
least,
be
known
to
applicants.
We
know
judges
are
obsessed
with
their
reputations.
Those
perpetuating
the
toxic
culture
of
silence
rather
than
contributing
to
this
nationwide
transparency
effort,
perpetuate
bullying,
harassment,
and
abuse
of
power
in
the
courts.
We
should
hold
judges
—
and
the
lawyers
who
protect
them
—
to
higher
ethical
standards.
Our
profession
self-regulates,
yet
many
toss
ethics
aside
when
it
comes
to
judges
—
which
is
particularly
disturbing,
since
there
are
fewer
legal
guardrails
in
the
federal
judiciary
than
the
rest
of
the
legal
industry.
The
solutions
to
judicial
lawlessness
exist,
if
we’re
tenacious
enough
to
fight
for
them.
They
won’t
come
from
this
Congress
or
judiciary.
But
the
nationwide
grassroots
transparency
movement
LAP
sparked
is
holding
the
judiciary’s
feet
to
the
fire
like
never
before.
We’re
not
waiting
on
anyone
to
make
the
change
we
know
is
necessary.
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.