It’s Clerkship Application Season, and the System Isn’t Fixed Yet

This month, law students will apply to as many as 50 or 100 judicial clerkships using an online application system. The effort during summer break will be worth it for many of those who land a coveted judicial clerkship. Clerkships can provide a glide path to the most sought-after jobs and will burnish an attorney’s resume throughout their career.

Unfortunately, due to the lack of transparency in the clerkship application process, law students will accept these positions without much information about judges as managers. Some will experience workplace mistreatment that drives them from their dream jobs or from the profession entirely.

These issues are personal to me. As I first shared publicly in written testimony before a House Judiciary subcommittee in March 2022, during my clerkship, I experienced gender discrimination and harassment by the now-former judge for whom I clerked.

I was fired during the Covid-19 pandemic. My courthouse’s human resources office told me there was nothing they could do because “HR doesn’t regulate judges,” and I, as a law clerk, should have known I was an “at-will employee.”

I reached out to my law school alma mater for support. I learned the judge had a history of misconduct that law school administrators knew at the time I accepted the clerkship. They decided not to share this with me because they wanted me to clerk.

I eventually secured my dream job in the Washington, DC US Attorney’s office. But two weeks into training, I received devastating news that altered my life. The judge I clerked for had made negative statements about me during my background investigation. I would not be able to obtain a security clearance. My job offer was revoked.

I filed a judicial complaint and participated in the investigation into the now-former judge. Pursuant to the terms of our private settlement agreement, the former judge issued a clarifying statement to the USAO, addressing some of his outrageous claims about me. It was too late. I was blackballed from what I thought was my dream job.

Now, in my role at the Legal Accountability Project, I often ask students interested in clerking how they avoid judges who mistreat their clerks. There is a dearth of information available. Law schools advise students to “do their research” about judges before applying, meaning reaching out to current and former clerks.

However, law clerks are dissuaded—including by their law schools—from saying anything negative about judges, fearing reputational harm in the legal community or retaliation by the judges who mistreated them.

Information about judges who mistreat their clerks travels through the backdoor, secretive, fear-infused clerkships “whisper network.”

Clerkship directors hesitate to share negative information about judges with students – worrying it will dissuade students from clerking or sour schools’ relationships with some judges. Even when schools know judges mistreat clerks, they worry these judges will blackball their students.

Still other law schools prioritize their relationships with the judiciary over their duty to students. Some clerkship directors do not have the bandwidth to survey their alumni. Others would rather not know about judicial misconduct.

For clerks who experience maltreatment in the workplace, there are limited avenues to seek redress. The federal judiciary is exempt from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, meaning law clerks can’t sue and seek damages—although the proposed Judiciary Accountability Act would correct this injustice for more than 30,000 judiciary employees. Judges can exert enormous power over their former clerks’ careers. A negative, or even a lukewarm, reference from a judge can derail an attorney’s career.

Policy changes are necessary. Title VII should be extended to judiciary employees, giving law clerks legal recourse if they are mistreated. The Employee Dispute Resolution Plan and the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act must be revised so judges are no longer tasked with investigating their colleagues. Attempts at judiciary self-policing lead to a lack of policing.

Furthermore, as the current controversy in the Federal Circuit surrounding 95-year-old Judge Pauline Newman—who is suing to avoid taking a cognitive test—exemplifies, we need better mechanisms than congressional impeachment to remove judges who can no longer serve.

Additionally, the federal judiciary should standardize the online clerkship application process. Relying on the old boys’ networks—friendly law professors recommending white male applicants from a handful of top law schools—has hindered efforts at diversifying clerkships.

Law schools should conduct and disseminate post-clerkship surveys of their alumni to compile information students need before clerking. Questions should include: How does the judge provide feedback? What is the judge’s relationship like with their current clerks? What type of writing and courtroom experience do clerks get? What are clerks’ hours?

This information is not accessible to students right now.

Many of these proposed legislative reforms will take time. Yet law schools can make changes right now to increase transparency in the clerkship application process.

Increasing transparency will empower more diverse students to clerk while also raising the bar on judiciary workplace civility. Some law schools’ close relationships with the judiciary may make them hesitant to change. These ties benefit deans and faculty, not students.

Considering the enormous premium the legal community places on clerkships and their outsized influence on attorneys’ future success, we owe it to the next generation of attorneys to ensure safe workplaces.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

Aliza Shatzman is president and founder of the Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit that aims to improve clerkship and extends support and resources.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines