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 Aliza.Shatzman@legalaccountabilityproject.org and follow her on Twitter @AlizaShatzman.
The post Creating Judicial Accountability Where Before There Was None appeared first on Above the Law.