On
April
8,
2024,
judicial
clerkship
hiring
and
advising
changed
forever.
The
Legal
Accountability
Project
(LAP)
recently
launched
our
first-of-its-kind
Centralized
Clerkships
Database,
a
legal
technology
initiative
to
democratize
judicial
clerkship
information.
This
unprecedented
step
to
ensure
transparency,
equity,
and
accountability
in
judicial
clerkships
is
the
best
opportunity
in
a
generation
to
make
real
and
lasting
change
in
the
judiciary
—
an
opaque
area
of
the
legal
profession
that’s
historically
resisted
efforts
at
transparency,
oversight,
and
reform.
LAP’s
Centralized
Clerkships
Database
is
modeled
off
what
a
handful
of
law
schools
have
struggled
to
do
internally
—
survey
their
law
clerk
alumni
and
make
information
accessible
to
applicants.
Sadly,
law
schools
have
been
unable
(or
unwilling)
to
capture
candid
information
about
clerking
and
share
it
with
students.
Many
schools
are
uncomfortable
collecting
negative
information
about
judges:
they
share
information
selectively
with
students
or
water
down
clerks’
negative
experiences
in
order
to
protect
their
relationships
with
judges
and
maintain
their
clerkship
pipelines.
The
problems,
as
I’ve
written
and
spoken
about
extensively,
are
numerous.
Law
clerks
whose
experiences
were
negative
—
or
even
neutral
or
nuanced
—
have
never
had
a
platform
to
share
safely
and
candidly,
without
fear
of
retaliation
or
reputational
harm.
Law
school
surveys
ask
the
wrong
questions
—
not
intended
to
elucidate
candid
information
students
need
to
know
before
clerking
but,
rather,
focused
on
helping
students
get
clerkships.
That’s
only
half
the
battle,
if
you
lack
a
clear
understanding
of
the
work
environment
you’re
entering.
Under
the
best
circumstances,
no
school
knows
about
all
the
judges
which
students
will
apply
to,
considering
that
there
are
more
than
1,000
federal
and
more
than
30,000
state
court
judges.
Even
as
new
judges
are
appointed
and
elected
each
year,
law
school
pipelines
to
the
judiciary
typically
focus
on
a
small
number
who
repeatedly
hire
students
from
their
schools.
Yet
many
law
students
want
to
apply
to
judges
in
states
or
circuits
where
their
schools
have
never
sent
clerks.
Every
school
has
gaps
in
their
information:
LAP’s
database
fills
them.
Since
I
began
critiquing
law
schools’
internal
databases,
some
have
de-emphasized
them,
instead
boasting
of
their
alumni
networks.
Those,
too,
provide
insufficient
information.
Many
students
struggle
to
connect
with
alumni.
And
even
in
one-on-one
conversations
with
applicants,
clerks
do
not
always
share
candidly,
fearing
reputational
harm
in
the
legal
profession
or
retaliation
by
the
judges
who
mistreated
them
for
speaking
ill
of
their
powerful
bosses.
The
clerkship
application
process
is
overwhelming,
even
for
well-connected
students
at
well-resourced
schools.
And
historically
marginalized
groups
and
those
from
less
well-resourced
schools
often
fare
worse.
Students
spend
too
much
time
trying
to
connect
with
individual
clerks
to
discuss
individual
judges
—
the
most
inefficient
way
to
share
information.
This
inefficiency
is
by
design:
judges
who
don’t
want
their
chambers
culture
known
to
applicants
benefit,
as
do
some
law
schools
who
boast
their
high
clerkship
numbers,
with
little
regard
for
whether
alumni
experiences
are
positive.
I’ve
also
written
and
spoken
extensively
—
with
law
school
clerkship
directors,
deans,
and
faculty;
with
judges
and
court
administrators;
with
law
students
at
nearly
50
law
school
events;
with
countless
clerks;
and
with
Congress
—
about
blind
spots,
inequities,
and
miscarriages
of
justice
in
the
judiciary.
Law
schools
do
not
adequately
inform
students
about
the
downsides
of
clerking;
the
implications
of
this
small,
hierarchical,
isolated
work
environment;
and
the
lack
of
workplace
protections
and
support
for
mistreated
clerks.
Clerks
basically
have
no
rights
at
work.
The
federal
judiciary
is
exempt
from
Title
VII
of
the
Civil
Rights
Act
of
1964:
law
clerks
have
no
workplace
protections
and
no
legal
recourse
if
they’re
mistreated
by
the
most
powerful
members
of
the
profession.
The
internal
complaint
process
—
Employee
Dispute
Resolution
(EDR)
—
is
useless
and
rife
with
due
process
violations
and
inequities.
The
Judicial
Conduct
and
Disability
Act
—
the
federal
judicial
complaint
process
—
is
underutilized.
Judges
are
rarely
held
accountable
for
misconduct.
The
headwinds
against
reporting
are
enormous.
Law
clerks
are
typically
advised,
including
by
their
law
schools,
that
the
right
professional
decision
is
to
stay
silent
and
move
on,
despite
the
long-term
mental
health
and
career
repercussions
for
mistreated
clerks.
LAP’s
Centralized
Clerkships
Database
cannot
solve
all
these
problems.
But
it’s
a
transformative
step:
one
only
a
nimble
third
party
could
take.
We
are
the
only
source
of
candid
clerkship
information
for
students
—
whether
their
law
schools
maintain
robust
clerkship
resources
or
few.
How
does
it
work?
Since
April
2023,
law
clerks
nationwide
have
been
sharing
their
clerkship
experiences
with
LAP
through
our
online
portal,
anonymously
if
they
choose.
They’re
not
anonymous
to
LAP
—
users
register
with
their
full
names
and
law
school
affiliations
so
we
can
verify
their
identities
—
but
they
can
be
anonymous
to
database
users.
And
the
database
is
not
a
public
access
website:
no
judges
(not
even
the
judge
on
LAP’s
board
of
directors)
or
journalists
have
access.
These
assurances
vastly
increase
the
breadth
and
candor
of
survey
responses,
providing
richer
information
for
prospective
clerks.
For
many
clerks,
this
is
their
first
opportunity
to
share
—
or
share
candidly.
And
now,
students
and
young
lawyers
can
visit
the
platform
homepage
to
register
for
just
$20.
Users
are
logging
in
right
now
for
answers
to
important
questions
about
how
judges
provide
feedback;
clerks’
most
common
and
favorite
tasks;
and
what
type
of
applicant
would
be
the
best
fit
with
the
judge.
LAP’s
survey
asks
whether
the
clerkship
met
clerks’
expectations;
whether
they
left
early;
whether
they
were
mistreated
(and
we
define
several
types
of
mistreatment,
including
discrimination,
harassment,
bullying,
and
retaliation,
using
EEOC
definitions);
and
if
they’d
recommend
the
clerkship.
We
also
ask
applicants
to
rate
the
judge
as
a
manager
(positive,
neutral,
or
negative)
and
to
rate
the
overall
clerkship
experience
—
elucidating
important
nuance
between
the
judge
and
clerkship
ratings
and
follow-up
explanations,
leading
one
ATL
contributor
to
jokingly
refer
to
the
platform
as
“Rate
My
Jurist.”
LAP’s
survey
is
heavily
informed
by
what
students
say
they’d
like
to
know
before
clerking,
and
what
clerks
say
they
wish
they’d
known
before
clerking.
LAP
is
a
clerk-
and
student-centric
nonprofit,
the
only
one
in
this
space.
Our
database
contains
nearly
1,000
surveys
about
more
than
700
judges.
We’ve
already
registered
more
than
800
students
and
young
lawyers,
including
several
top
law
reviews
who’ve
subscribed
on
behalf
of
their
2L
e-boards.
We
are
the
largest
independent
repository
of
clerkship
information
in
the
United
States,
and
our
database
is
larger
than
most
top
law
schools’
databases.
LAP’s
initial
plan
was
to
collaborate
with
law
schools,
who’d
pay
$5
per
student
user
to
subscribe
on
behalf
of
all
their
students.
It’s
no
secret
that
some
schools
are
too
risk-averse;
others,
skeptical;
and
a
few,
including
my
alma
mater,
are
downright
hostile.
We
still
plan
to
work
with
law
schools
next
academic
year.
We’ll
soon
share
with
them
how
many
of
their
students
are
already
using
the
platform.
Some
of
the
schools
with
the
most
student
users
are
also
the
most
well-resourced
ones
that
maintain
internal
databases.
One
user
referred
to
the
database
as
“the
best
$20
investment
you’ll
ever
make.”
He
said
that,
after
reading
positive
reviews
in
LAP’s
database,
he
was
“even
more
motivated
to
apply.”
Law
students
are
the
primary
consumers
of
clerkship
information:
they
should
demand
better
from
their
administrations,
for
themselves,
and
their
peers.
If
students
urge
their
schools
to
subscribe
next
school
year,
they
won’t
have
to
pay
individually.
This
is
a
moral
imperative.
Law
schools
have
historically
contributed
to
the
problem,
sending
students
into
clerkships
without
adequate
information
about
the
work
environments
they’re
entering,
and
messaging
that
a
“challenging”
clerkship
(a
euphemism
for
mistreatment)
is
“worth
it”
for
the
prestige.
Law
schools
must
make
real
changes
to
their
clerkship
advising,
messaging,
and
resource
allocation
that
recognize
a
commitment
to
fixing
the
system.
Collaborating
with
LAP
signals
a
prioritization
of
student
and
alumni
well-being
over
blind
deference
to
the
judiciary.
Contrary
to
popular
belief,
many
judges
support
the
platform.
Some
have
circulated
our
survey
to
their
clerks.
Others
publicly
convey
support
or
privately
urge
law
schools
to
participate.
For
judges
who
treat
their
clerks
with
respect,
LAP’s
database
spotlights
them
as
good
managers
and
mentors,
helping
them
get
more
—
and
more
diverse
—
applicants.
The
database
is
an
accountability
tool
as
well.
Judges
who
mistreat
clerks
—
or
who
are
poor
managers
—
can
no
longer
hide
behind
the
opacity,
secrecy,
fear,
and
clerkship
whisper
network.
Judges
who
oppose
LAP’s
work
—
who
resist
transparency,
believe
they
are
above
being
reviewed,
and
do
not
want
their
chambers
culture
known
to
applicants
—
probably
have
something
to
hide.
Perhaps
they
should
look
inward.
LAP
is
raising
the
bar
on
clerkship
advising
in
legal
academia,
as
well
as
on
workplace
civility
in
the
judiciary.
We’ve
started
a
national
conversation
about
the
broken
clerkship
system
and
sparked
a
clerkship
transparency
movement.
This
year,
aspiring
clerks
nationwide
will
log
into
LAP’s
Centralized
Clerkships
Database
to
identify
a
beneficial
clerkship
experience
and
avoid
a
horrendous
experience
like
mine.
Change
may
not
be
as
rapid
as
I’d
like,
but
it’s
happening
right
now
on
law
school
campuses,
in
legal
workplaces,
and
in
courts
nationwide.
I’ve
never
been
more
optimistic
about
the
future
of
judicial
clerkships
and
the
judiciary.
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 Aliza.Shatzman@legalaccountabilityproject.org and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@AlizaShatzman.