So,
you
want
to
clerk?
How
will
you
avoid
judges
who
harass
their
clerks?
For
two
years,
I
posed
this
question
at
dozens
of
The
Legal
Accountability
Project’s
(LAP)
law
school
events
across
the
country.
Then,
in
April
2024
—
two
years
ago
this
month
—
that
answer
changed
forever.
LAP
launched
our
first-of-its-kind
Clerkships
Database
(“Glassdoor
for
Judges”),
a
nationally
recognized,
award-winning
platform
now
containing
over
2,000
candid
clerkship
reviews
about
more
than
1,200
federal
and
state
court
judges
nationwide.
It’s
the
largest
independent
repository
of
clerkship
information
in
the
U.S.
—
several
times
the
size
of
the
largest
law
school
databases
—
and
the
only
source
of
honest
feedback,
particularly
about
judges
to
avoid.
I
recently
returned
from
a
LAP
event
at
Yale
Law
School
(YLS)
—
known
for
funneling
students
into
prestigious
clerkships
but
perhaps
not
for
ensuring
positive
experiences
for
graduates.
In
fact,
last
school
year,
YLS
prohibited
students
from
using
student
organization
funds
to
subscribe
to
LAP’s
Database
on
behalf
of
members
—
perhaps
intending
to
dissuade
students
from
accessing
LAP’s
information.
It
sparked
outraged,
inspired
more
than
10
donors
to
cover
Database
costs
for
students,
including
at
YLS
—
and
over
160
YLS
students
subscribed
last
year.
At
YLS,
I
shared
my
personal
experience,
because
it’s
the
first
time
many
students
hear
about
a
negative
clerkship
experience.
Legal
academia
and
the
legal
industry
still
lionize
judges,
acting
as
if
they
can
do
no
wrong.
It
may
shake
eager
students’
worldviews
to
learn
their
legal
heroes
—
the
liberal
lion
or
conservative
crusader
writing
the
bombshell
opinions
they
just
read
in
class
—
are
adjudicating
litigants’
misconduct
in
front
of
the
bench,
while
committing
misconduct
behind
the
bench.
Students’
eyes
bug
out
when
I
share
that
I
was
fired
over
the
phone
during
the
COVID-19
pandemic
by
a
judge
who
told
me
I
made
him
“uncomfortable”
and
“lacked
respect”
for
him.
I
hear
audible
gasps
when
I
discuss
the
judge’s
negative
reference
to
the
DC
U.S.
Attorney’s
Office
(USAO)
a
year
later
that
caused
the
USAO
to
deny
me
a
security
clearance
and
revoke
my
job
offer.
I
emphasize
my
experience
is
not
rare
—
I
hear
regularly
from
clerks
—
but
it’s
rarely
shared
publicly,
due
to
the
culture
of
silence
and
fear
surrounding
the
judiciary.
During
audience
questions,
a
student
recounted
searching
for
judges
in
the
YLS
internal
database,
which
requires
clerks
to
put
their
names
on
their
surveys
(dissuading
those
who
were
mistreated
from
disclosing).
The
only
information
about
certain
judges
was
“contact
me”
—
a
euphemism
for
mistreatment.
(I
cautioned
students
that
some
mistreated
clerks
are
untruthful
even
when
contacted,
thereby
misleading
students
into
bad
clerkships
—
which
is
why
a
platform
like
LAP’s,
which
replaces
individual
conversations,
is
so
important.)
But,
when
the
student
searched
for
the
same
judges
in
LAP’s
Database,
clerks
actually
described
the
mistreatment.
Many
students
understand
schools’
misaligned
clerkship
incentives.
Schools
benefit
when
more
students
clerk:
they
rarely
dissuade
students
from
clerking
for
judges
they
know
mistreat
clerks,
especially
when
schools
have
relationships
with
judges
or
they’re
alumni.
This
necessitates
a
third-party,
independent
information
source.
LAP’s
Database
is
the
resource
I
wish
existed
when
I
was
applying
for
clerkships
a
decade
ago.
This
student-
and
clerk-centric
platform
is
heavily
informed
by
what
students
want
to
know
before
clerking,
and
what
clerks
wish
they’d
known
before
clerking.
Because
I
conceptualized
it
and
oversee
its
daily
operations,
students’
and
clerks’
needs
remain
front
and
center.
As
someone
whose
law
school
misled
me
into
a
career-ending
clerkship;
who
endured
mistreatment
until
I
was
fired
because
no
support
or
resources
like
LAP
existed;
and
was
subsequently
retaliated
against
by
the
judge
I
worked
for,
I
am
particularly
sensitive
to
the
need
to
balance
clerks’
privacy
and
data
security
with
transparency
and
candor.
Anyone
who
clerked
can
submit
a
survey
to
LAP’s
Database
—
anonymously
if
they
choose.
Anonymity
vastly
increases
the
candor
of
submissions,
yet
inexplicably,
some
law
schools
won’t
allow
clerks
to
submit
anonymously
to
their
internal
databases.
Clerks
aren’t
anonymous
to
me,
of
course
—
they
register
with
all
their
information.
Importantly,
only
students
and
recent
graduates
can
subscribe
to
read
reviews
—
no
judges
—
to
prevent
retaliation.
For
just
$50
per
school
year,
students
can
avoid
career-
and
life-altering
negative
experiences
like
mine.
LAP’s
Database
offers
exponentially
more
information
than
students
could
otherwise
access
when
applying
for
clerkships.
While
a
handful
of
top
schools
maintain
internal
databases
where
students
can
search
for
judges
by
name,
state,
and
court,
none
enable
students
to
search
by
judges’
race,
gender,
law
school,
or
appointing
president.
Beyond
LAP’s
unique
search
filters
and
user-friendly
interface,
we
ask
candid
questions
about
judges
as
managers,
clerk
treatment,
and
workplace
conduct.
And,
because
clerks
can
submit
anonymously,
we
receive
honest
responses.
Clerks
also
rate
both
the
judge
as
a
manager
and
the
clerkship
experience,
and
LAP
posts
those
ratings
on
judges’
profiles.
And
while
every
law
school’s
information
is
restricted
by
who
alumni
clerked
for
and
clerks’
willingness
to
share
information,
LAP
is
not:
the
Database
compiles
reviews
from
clerks
nationwide
from
every
law
school,
state,
and
court.
Nothing
else
like
it
exists.
I
couldn’t
in
good
conscience
encourage
anyone
to
clerk
without
subscribing
to
LAP’s
Database
and
heeding
its
warnings.
Working
for
a
judge
who
treats
clerks
with
respect
could
be
the
difference
between
a
successful
career
in
law
and
none
at
all.
I’ve
seen
everything:
clerks
traumatized
and
in
therapy
years
later,
blackballed
from
dream
jobs
and
whole
industries,
shells
of
their
former
selves,
or
driven
from
the
law
entirely
after
investing
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
in
their
legal
educations
and
taking
out
crushing
loans
to
pay
for
it.
LAP’s
Database
is
the
only
way
to
avoid
this.
Hundreds
of
mistreated
clerks
tell
me
they
would
not
have
accepted
their
clerkships
if
they
knew
how
abusive
they’d
be.
And
yet,
students
desperate
to
clerk
may
read
negative
information
in
LAP’s
Database
and
pursue
the
clerkships
anyway
—
believing
it
won’t
happen
to
them
or
they
can
handle
it
—
only
to
reach
out
to
me
a
year
later
after
they’ve
quit
or
been
fired.
Frustratingly,
many
mistreated
clerks
who’ve
reached
out
recently
seeking
assistance
are
2025
graduates
—
meaning
the
Database
was
accessible
when
they
applied,
or
at
least
before
they
started
clerking
—
yet
they
chose
not
to
subscribe
or
disregarded
its
warnings.
Students
must
take
agency
over
their
lives
and
careers.
Even
if
you’ve
accepted
a
clerkship,
it’s
not
too
late
to
subscribe,
inform
yourself,
and
potentially
withdraw.
Many
have
—
LAP
helped
—
and
you
should.
LAP’s
Database
has
already
served
over
4,000
law
students
and
recent
graduates
in
just
two
years.
Many
more
are
preparing
to
apply
“On
Plan”
via
OSCAR
this
June.
I
worry
where
those
who
haven’t
subscribed
get
their
information,
if
not
from
LAP
—
either
not
at
all,
or
from
school
advisors
who
mislead
students.
LAP’s
Database
is
accountability
through
transparency:
there’s
nothing
abusive
judges
hate
more
than
negative
feedback
they
cannot
see
or
retaliate
against
clerks
for
sharing.
LAP’s
Database
exists
because
the
judiciary
refuses
to
implement
guardrails,
hold
colleagues
accountable,
discipline
abusive
judges,
or
provide
meaningful
redress
to
mistreated
employees.
Over
time,
as
abusive
judges
struggle
to
hire
and
retain
clerks
—
since
applicants
can
now
avoid
bad
bosses
—
judges
may
change
their
behavior
or,
preferably,
retire.
It’s
difficult
to
get
abusive
judges
off
the
bench,
but
as
long
as
some
young
lawyers
willingly
endure
abuse,
they
perpetuate
the
problem.
As
long
as
these
judges
can
hire
clerks
and
conduct
chambers
business,
the
judiciary
has
no
incentive
to
discipline
or
remove
them.
But
a
struggling
judge,
or
one
who
can’t
hold
onto
clerks
—
they’re
a
liability.
“Will
I
be
harassed,
discriminated
against,
or
retaliated
against
during
my
clerkship?”
was
never
a
question
I
thought
to
ask
when
I
was
applying.
But
now,
thanks
to
LAP,
applicants
do.
And,
having
heard
my
experience,
they’re
attuned
to
the
risks,
and
better
able
to
avoid
them.
My
“birthday
wish”
on
LAP’s
Database’s
second
birthday
is
that
every
clerkship
applicant
will
subscribe
and
heed
its
warnings,
so
no
clerk
willingly
subjects
themselves
to
abuse.
I
think
a
lot
about
long-term
solutions
—
disciplining
and
removing
abusive
judges;
ensuring
presidents
and
chief
executives
appoint
judges
who
aren’t
just
good
jurists,
but
also
good
bosses;
and
finally
extending
legal
protections
against
discrimination,
harassment,
and
retaliation
to
court
employees.
LAP’s
Database
is
a
front-end,
“right
now”
solution.
We
don’t
wait
on
anyone
—
not
the
judiciary,
not
Congress,
and
not
law
schools
—
to
make
the
change
that’s
urgently
necessary.
Because
thousands
of
students
and
recent
graduates
can’t
wait.
Tens
of
thousands
of
judiciary
employees
can’t
wait.
Society
can’t
wait.
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.