New Clerkships Database Empowers Law Clerks To Review Their Bosses
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.
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.
AI’s Impact On Law Firms Of Every Size
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.
Sponsored
How Transactional Lawyers Can Better Serve (And Maintain) Their Clients
Generative AI In Legal Work — What’s Fact And What’s Fiction?
Law Firms Now Have A Choice In Their Document Comparison Software
Law Firms Now Have A Choice In Their Document Comparison Software
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.
Sponsored
AI’s Impact On Law Firms Of Every Size
The Business Case For AI At Your Law Firm
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.
