{"id":126788,"date":"2025-07-15T12:48:55","date_gmt":"2025-07-15T20:48:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/15\/creating-judicial-accountability-where-before-there-was-none\/"},"modified":"2025-07-15T12:48:55","modified_gmt":"2025-07-15T20:48:55","slug":"creating-judicial-accountability-where-before-there-was-none","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/15\/creating-judicial-accountability-where-before-there-was-none\/","title":{"rendered":"Creating Judicial Accountability Where Before There Was None"},"content":{"rendered":"

Aspiring law clerks are applying and interviewing for clerkships right now. Before The Legal Accountability Project<\/a> (LAP) launched our nationwide Clerkships Database (aka \u201cGlassdoor for Judges<\/a>\u201d), clerkship applicants accessed information about judges, if it existed, from their law schools. But schools\u2019 clerkship resources<\/a> are insufficient at best and misleading at worst. No school knows about all the judges students will apply to, and schools\u2019 information is restricted by who alumni have clerked for in the past and clerks\u2019 willingness to share it. Importantly, schools suffer from misaligned incentives<\/a>: most are far more interested in funneling students into prestigious clerkships<\/a> than in ensuring positive work experiences for graduates.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Today\u2019s law students won\u2019t remember a time when clerkship hiring was less than transparent. It\u2019s the second application cycle where applicants benefit from LAP\u2019s Database<\/a>, a repository of over 1,700 candid<\/em> clerkship surveys about more than 1,100 judges that democratizes judicial clerkships. Clerks can submit reviews anonymously<\/a>, and students, irrespective of law school, can pay just $50 per year<\/em>, less than they spend annually on Netflix, Hulu, or New York Times subscriptions \u2014 for access to a treasure trove of never-before-seen insights.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Importantly, this is the only source of honest<\/em> feedback, particularly about judges to avoid. Disturbingly, surveys in schools\u2019 internal clerkships databases<\/a> are almost uniformly<\/em> positive<\/a>: out of hundreds of surveys, often fewer than 10 are negative. Considering the federal judiciary\u2019s workplace climate survey results<\/a> suggest around 80% of employees\u2019 experiences are positive, and LAP\u2019s data indicates this number is actually closer to 70%, less than 10 negative surveys<\/em> out of hundreds seems suspect.\u00a0<\/p>\n

That\u2019s why LAP\u2019s Database is so necessary. Clerks are dissuaded \u2014 including by their law schools<\/em><\/a> \u2014 from \u201ctalking bad\u201d 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<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

What\u2019s more disturbing than the absence of negative information is misleading positive surveys in schools\u2019 databases, with no \u201ccontact us before applying\u201d disclaimer to signal that advisors have additional insights to share. Yellers, throwers, judges whose 12-hour workdays are written in their law clerk manuals \u2014 work experiences where no clerkship at all, is better than that clerkship \u2014 you\u2019ll find positive reviews about them in schools\u2019 databases.\u00a0<\/p>\n

When all information in the school\u2019s database is positive, students should question the veracity<\/a> of all<\/em> surveys. Schools\u2019 resources are worthless for anyone trying to avoid a negative clerkship \u2014 which, according to LAP\u2019s surveys, 20% or more are.\u00a0<\/p>\n

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 \u2014 one my law school knew of and should have warned me about \u2014 because no transparency clearinghouse existed. And my law school, like too many, doesn\u2019t care about its graduates\u2019 well-being. Because if they did, more schools already would have embraced LAP\u2019s Database.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Fortunately, more than 2,000 subscribers from law schools nationwide avoided more than 100 negatively reviewed federal judges this year \u2014 representing around one seventeenth of federal judges \u2014 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\u2019 regional interests. As one state supreme court justice remarked recently, clerkship applicants were particularly strong this year, and they suspect LAP\u2019s work had something to do with it.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve also noticed a welcome improvement in how lawyers talk about clerkships \u2014 no longer framed as an unadulterated good<\/a>. Perhaps they\u2019ve digested the increased media coverage of harassment in the judiciary \u2014 a lengthy NPR investigation<\/a>, several high-profile instances of litigation<\/a>, scandal<\/a>, judicial discipline<\/a>, and resignation<\/a>, and legislative efforts<\/a> on Capitol Hill. Clearly, there\u2019s a systemic misconduct problem, stemming from the lack of legal guardrails<\/a>, workplace protections<\/a>, outside oversight<\/a>, and the insular nature of the judiciary<\/a>. It\u2019s not that all judges are bad \u2014 but the bad ones are shielded by their colleagues from accountability.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Apparently, this was a particularly competitive clerkship hiring cycle, as students who would otherwise pursue careers with the Justice Department\u2019s Honors Program and throughout the federal government had offers revoked<\/a> 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n

LAP\u2019s Database creates accountability through transparency<\/a> \u2014 because there\u2019s 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<\/em>. Judges are forced to take a hard look inward and consider their workplace conduct \u2014 how they can be better managers \u2014 knowing their behavior is under scrutiny: reviewed by their clerks in LAP\u2019s Database and on display for thousands of applicants.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Judges historically benefited<\/a> from the lack of transparent information about them as managers, to get away with mistreating clerks year after year \u2014 because prospective clerks did not know until it was too late. No longer. This year, applicants will avoid abusive bosses entirely. I\u2019ve even spoken with incoming clerks about withdrawing from their clerkships because they learned negative information after they\u2019d accepted. Incoming clerks would never<\/em> 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n

LAP\u2019s Database doesn\u2019t replace formal reporting mechanisms<\/a>. I encourage every<\/em> clerk I correspond with to file a complaint<\/a>. Most will never report, though I\u2019ve assisted a few. Why not? According to the judiciary\u2019s own<\/em> survey<\/a>, only 42%<\/a> 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\u2019s a hard sell, since employees are not legally protected against retaliation \u2014 the entire federal judiciary is exempt from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act<\/a> and all other anti-discrimination laws \u2014 and the judiciary has done nothing<\/em><\/a> to give clerks confidence in existing processes.\u00a0<\/p>\n

It\u2019s hard not to get frustrated, knowing the judiciary seems to have succeeded in chilling complaints and stymying formal reporting. Dozens of currently serving judges<\/a> won\u2019t be held formally accountable for misconduct. Fortunately, LAP\u2019s Database contains honest insights: the hostility we\u2019ve 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\u2019s theory of accountability through transparency.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Law clerks nationwide are galvanized to share their experiences with LAP<\/a>, and with aspiring clerks. Because Glassdoor for Judges would have helped them when they were applying. Even those who weren\u2019t mistreated know someone who was, or understand that the structure of judicial chambers \u2014 hierarchical, isolated, lacking workplace protections and outside oversight \u2014 creates a risk of abusive conduct.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Thousands of clerks conclude their clerkships this summer, and all should contribute a survey<\/a>. Some clerks whose experiences were positive think their judges wouldn\u2019t want them to submit, or worse, are discouraged<\/em> 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 \u2014 if it was so great, why wouldn\u2019t<\/em> clerks submit? I discourage students from applying to clerk for judges who oppose transparency. So, it actually bolsters the judge\u2019s reputation for clerks to review them, and hurts their reputations when clerks don\u2019t.\u00a0<\/p>\n

For clerks who were mistreated, this is the best way to safely and anonymously warn applicants to avoid the mistreatment you endured. It\u2019s 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.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

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 \u2014 and the lawyers who protect them \u2014 to higher ethical standards. Our profession self-regulates<\/a>, yet many toss ethics aside when it comes to judges \u2014 which is particularly disturbing, since there are fewer<\/em> legal guardrails<\/a> in the federal judiciary than the rest of the legal industry.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

The solutions to judicial lawlessness<\/a> exist, if we\u2019re tenacious enough to fight for them. They won\u2019t come from this<\/em> Congress or judiciary. But the nationwide grassroots transparency movement<\/a> LAP sparked is holding the judiciary\u2019s feet to the fire like never before. We\u2019re not waiting on anyone to make the change we know is necessary.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

Aliza Shatzman is the President and Founder of\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>The Legal Accountability Project<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, 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\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Aliza.Shatzman@legalaccountabilityproject.org<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and follow her on Twitter @AlizaShatzman.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Creating Judicial Accountability Where Before There Was None<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Aspiring law clerks are applying and interviewing for clerkships right now. Before The Legal Accountability Project<\/a> (LAP) launched our nationwide Clerkships Database (aka \u201cGlassdoor for Judges<\/a>\u201d), clerkship applicants accessed information about judges, if it existed, from their law schools. But schools\u2019 clerkship resources<\/a> are insufficient at best and misleading at worst. No school knows about all the judges students will apply to, and schools\u2019 information is restricted by who alumni have clerked for in the past and clerks\u2019 willingness to share it. Importantly, schools suffer from misaligned incentives<\/a>: most are far more interested in funneling students into prestigious clerkships<\/a> than in ensuring positive work experiences for graduates.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Today\u2019s law students won\u2019t remember a time when clerkship hiring was less than transparent. It\u2019s the second application cycle where applicants benefit from LAP\u2019s Database<\/a>, a repository of over 1,700 candid<\/em> clerkship surveys about more than 1,100 judges that democratizes judicial clerkships. Clerks can submit reviews anonymously<\/a>, and students, irrespective of law school, can pay just $50 per year<\/em>, less than they spend annually on Netflix, Hulu, or New York Times subscriptions \u2014 for access to a treasure trove of never-before-seen insights.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Importantly, this is the only source of honest<\/em> feedback, particularly about judges to avoid. Disturbingly, surveys in schools\u2019 internal clerkships databases<\/a> are almost uniformly<\/em> positive<\/a>: out of hundreds of surveys, often fewer than 10 are negative. Considering the federal judiciary\u2019s workplace climate survey results<\/a> suggest around 80% of employees\u2019 experiences are positive, and LAP\u2019s data indicates this number is actually closer to 70%, less than 10 negative surveys<\/em> out of hundreds seems suspect.\u00a0<\/p>\n

That\u2019s why LAP\u2019s Database is so necessary. Clerks are dissuaded \u2014 including by their law schools<\/em><\/a> \u2014 from \u201ctalking bad\u201d 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<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

What\u2019s more disturbing than the absence of negative information is misleading positive surveys in schools\u2019 databases, with no \u201ccontact us before applying\u201d disclaimer to signal that advisors have additional insights to share. Yellers, throwers, judges whose 12-hour workdays are written in their law clerk manuals \u2014 work experiences where no clerkship at all, is better than that clerkship \u2014 you\u2019ll find positive reviews about them in schools\u2019 databases.\u00a0<\/p>\n

When all information in the school\u2019s database is positive, students should question the veracity<\/a> of all<\/em> surveys. Schools\u2019 resources are worthless for anyone trying to avoid a negative clerkship \u2014 which, according to LAP\u2019s surveys, 20% or more are.\u00a0<\/p>\n

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 \u2014 one my law school knew of and should have warned me about \u2014 because no transparency clearinghouse existed. And my law school, like too many, doesn\u2019t care about its graduates\u2019 well-being. Because if they did, more schools already would have embraced LAP\u2019s Database.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Fortunately, more than 2,000 subscribers from law schools nationwide avoided more than 100 negatively reviewed federal judges this year \u2014 representing around one seventeenth of federal judges \u2014 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\u2019 regional interests. As one state supreme court justice remarked recently, clerkship applicants were particularly strong this year, and they suspect LAP\u2019s work had something to do with it.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve also noticed a welcome improvement in how lawyers talk about clerkships \u2014 no longer framed as an unadulterated good<\/a>. Perhaps they\u2019ve digested the increased media coverage of harassment in the judiciary \u2014 a lengthy NPR investigation<\/a>, several high-profile instances of litigation<\/a>, scandal<\/a>, judicial discipline<\/a>, and resignation<\/a>, and legislative efforts<\/a> on Capitol Hill. Clearly, there\u2019s a systemic misconduct problem, stemming from the lack of legal guardrails<\/a>, workplace protections<\/a>, outside oversight<\/a>, and the insular nature of the judiciary<\/a>. It\u2019s not that all judges are bad \u2014 but the bad ones are shielded by their colleagues from accountability.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Apparently, this was a particularly competitive clerkship hiring cycle, as students who would otherwise pursue careers with the Justice Department\u2019s Honors Program and throughout the federal government had offers revoked<\/a> 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n

LAP\u2019s Database creates accountability through transparency<\/a> \u2014 because there\u2019s 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<\/em>. Judges are forced to take a hard look inward and consider their workplace conduct \u2014 how they can be better managers \u2014 knowing their behavior is under scrutiny: reviewed by their clerks in LAP\u2019s Database and on display for thousands of applicants.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Judges historically benefited<\/a> from the lack of transparent information about them as managers, to get away with mistreating clerks year after year \u2014 because prospective clerks did not know until it was too late. No longer. This year, applicants will avoid abusive bosses entirely. I\u2019ve even spoken with incoming clerks about withdrawing from their clerkships because they learned negative information after they\u2019d accepted. Incoming clerks would never<\/em> 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n

LAP\u2019s Database doesn\u2019t replace formal reporting mechanisms<\/a>. I encourage every<\/em> clerk I correspond with to file a complaint<\/a>. Most will never report, though I\u2019ve assisted a few. Why not? According to the judiciary\u2019s own<\/em> survey<\/a>, only 42%<\/a> 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\u2019s a hard sell, since employees are not legally protected against retaliation \u2014 the entire federal judiciary is exempt from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act<\/a> and all other anti-discrimination laws \u2014 and the judiciary has done nothing<\/em><\/a> to give clerks confidence in existing processes.\u00a0<\/p>\n

It\u2019s hard not to get frustrated, knowing the judiciary seems to have succeeded in chilling complaints and stymying formal reporting. Dozens of currently serving judges<\/a> won\u2019t be held formally accountable for misconduct. Fortunately, LAP\u2019s Database contains honest insights: the hostility we\u2019ve 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\u2019s theory of accountability through transparency.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Law clerks nationwide are galvanized to share their experiences with LAP<\/a>, and with aspiring clerks. Because Glassdoor for Judges would have helped them when they were applying. Even those who weren\u2019t mistreated know someone who was, or understand that the structure of judicial chambers \u2014 hierarchical, isolated, lacking workplace protections and outside oversight \u2014 creates a risk of abusive conduct.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Thousands of clerks conclude their clerkships this summer, and all should contribute a survey<\/a>. Some clerks whose experiences were positive think their judges wouldn\u2019t want them to submit, or worse, are discouraged<\/em> 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 \u2014 if it was so great, why wouldn\u2019t<\/em> clerks submit? I discourage students from applying to clerk for judges who oppose transparency. So, it actually bolsters the judge\u2019s reputation for clerks to review them, and hurts their reputations when clerks don\u2019t.\u00a0<\/p>\n

For clerks who were mistreated, this is the best way to safely and anonymously warn applicants to avoid the mistreatment you endured. It\u2019s 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.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

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 \u2014 and the lawyers who protect them \u2014 to higher ethical standards. Our profession self-regulates<\/a>, yet many toss ethics aside when it comes to judges \u2014 which is particularly disturbing, since there are fewer<\/em> legal guardrails<\/a> in the federal judiciary than the rest of the legal industry.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

The solutions to judicial lawlessness<\/a> exist, if we\u2019re tenacious enough to fight for them. They won\u2019t come from this<\/em> Congress or judiciary. But the nationwide grassroots transparency movement<\/a> LAP sparked is holding the judiciary\u2019s feet to the fire like never before. We\u2019re not waiting on anyone to make the change we know is necessary.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

Aliza Shatzman is the President and Founder of\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>The Legal Accountability Project<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, 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\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Aliza.Shatzman@legalaccountabilityproject.org<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and follow her on Twitter @AlizaShatzman.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Creating Judicial Accountability Where Before There Was None<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Aspiring law clerks are applying and interviewing for clerkships right now. Before The Legal Accountability Project (LAP) launched our nationwide Clerkships Database (aka \u201cGlassdoor for Judges\u201d), clerkship applicants accessed information about judges, if it existed, from their law schools. But schools\u2019 clerkship resources are insufficient at best and misleading at worst. No school knows about […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-126788","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126788","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=126788"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126788\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126788"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126788"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126788"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}