{"id":136647,"date":"2025-11-10T14:27:56","date_gmt":"2025-11-10T22:27:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/11\/10\/law-schools-are-lying-to-students-about-judicial-clerkships\/"},"modified":"2025-11-10T14:27:56","modified_gmt":"2025-11-10T22:27:56","slug":"law-schools-are-lying-to-students-about-judicial-clerkships","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/11\/10\/law-schools-are-lying-to-students-about-judicial-clerkships\/","title":{"rendered":"Law Schools Are Lying To Students About Judicial Clerkships"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
(Image via Getty)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Law school career services offices have historically been clerkship gatekeepers and facilitators<\/a> \u2014 hoarding information, providing incomplete resources, and hosting one-sided programming to facilitate clerkship opportunities for students. Yet schools\u2019 overwhelmingly positive and misleading messaging<\/a> provides a dangerously rosy and overly optimistic picture of clerking.\u00a0Biased advising fail to highlight potential downsides, let alone negative experiences<\/a> that are all too common<\/a> in hierarchical, unregulated<\/a> work environments. By creating unrealistic expectations, schools set students up for failure: if clerks are mistreated, they self-internalize criticism and assume they\u2019re to blame. So, they keep their heads down and stay silent, perpetuating the problem by failing to warn others.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Beyond this, law schools have misaligned incentives<\/a>: they don\u2019t always have students\u2019 best interests at heart. They\u2019re far more interested in placing as many students as possible into prestigious clerkships, and maintaining relationships with judges (even abusive ones). They care about prestige over positive experience: clerks\u2019 well-being barely makes the priority list.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In April 2024, The Legal Accountability Project<\/a> (LAP) upended the clerkship system by launching \u201cGlassdoor for Judges<\/a>\u201d to correct informational asymmetries and warn students about abusive judges. LAP\u2019s nationwide Clerkships Database democratizes clerkships<\/a>: clerks review judges as managers<\/a>, and students take agency over their careers by paying a small annual fee to access exponentially more information<\/a> than they otherwise could. Students are no longer beholden to schools that historically withheld information from them. It\u2019s a testament to schools\u2019 inadequate resources<\/a> that LAP already served over 3,000<\/em> students and recent graduates<\/a> in just 18 months<\/em> \u2014 helping them identify positive work environments and avoid abusive judges and bad bosses.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Seeing their students flock to LAP\u2019s Database, some schools tried to prevent them from accessing it, fearing it would dissuade them from clerking for abusive and prestigious judges. Yale Law School (YLS) and Maryland Law barred student organizations<\/a> from subscribing to the Database on behalf of members using student organization funds. This backfired, galvanizing eight donors to cover Database subscriptions for students at YLS<\/a> and seven other schools<\/a>, and inspiring more law journals to subscribe. LAP\u2019s Database has only grown in popularity since then: students saw through these nakedly malicious efforts and were undeterred from subscribing.\u00a0<\/p>\n

How common are the negative experiences<\/a> schools worked so hard to prevent students from learning about? According to LAP\u2019s data \u2014 nearly 2,000 surveys about more than 1,200 judges \u2014 around 30%<\/em> of experiences are negative. And more than 100 out of around 1,700 currently serving federal judges are \u201cdo not clerk for\u201d jurists. That means federal clerkship applicants have around a 1 in 17 chance of being mistreated while clerking<\/em> \u2014 perhaps the most dangerous white-collar workplace in America<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Many 2Ls don\u2019t realize schools \u2014 even highly ranked ones \u2014 provide incomplete and misleading information. Unless students can name all 100 federal judges to avoid, they need LAP\u2019s Database. And even if they can, they should probably still research them, rather than gamble their futures on someone\u2019s word.\u00a0<\/p>\n

A handful of primarily T14 schools maintain internal clerkship databases<\/a> containing post-interview and post-clerkship surveys. Even under the best circumstances, no school has information about all the judges students will apply to. New judges are appointed and elected each year. Schools\u2019 information is restricted by whom alumni have clerked for and clerks\u2019 willingness to share it \u2014 in contrast to LAP\u2019s Database, which is constantly growing<\/a>, thanks to clerks\u2019 trust in LAP\u2019s safeguards and security protocols, which far exceed schools\u2019.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Out of several hundred post-clerkship surveys populating the most robust school databases, typically fewer than 10<\/em> are negative \u2014 not<\/em> reflective of clerks\u2019 actual experiences. Where are the negative surveys? Clerks are instructed, including by their schools<\/em>, not to say anything negative about judges \u2014 certainly not in writing. And at most schools, unlike LAP\u2019s Database, clerks cannot submit anonymously: mistreated clerks fear retaliation by judges and career repercussions. School databases also contain misleading positive surveys<\/em> about known abusive judges. Schools either know or should<\/em> know the contents of their databases, since they signal to students that theirs is a school-approved resource while LAP\u2019s is not. Schools should be held accountable if students end up in abusive clerkships after relying on their school\u2019s database.\u00a0<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t expect schools to know about all<\/em> the judges. But they\u2019re not working very hard to inform themselves. On the contrary, they seem to be working hard not<\/em> to obtain any negative information<\/a> about judges, so they won\u2019t have to confront the cognitive dissonance of knowing judges mistreat their clerks while failing to warn students.\u00a0<\/p>\n

To the extent schools have some negative information about judges, they withhold it from students who need it. Schools could<\/em> maintain internal \u201cdo not clerk\u201d lists. They could<\/em> actively warn students not to apply when reviewing students\u2019 judge lists. Clerkship advisors refuse: they tell students \u201cwe\u2019ve heard mixed things\u201d to cover their butts, disclaim responsibility, and perpetuate a status quo that benefits them. Schools could also<\/em> note in their databases to \u201ccontact us before applying to this judge.\u201d Yet I\u2019ve only heard of one instance like that, in a database with no other warnings. Schools\u2019 misbehavior is particularly outrageous, since they benefit<\/em> from clerks\u2019 negative experiences \u2014 the number of clerkship placements they announce annually improves their ranking, reputation, and applicant recruitment.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not complicated, though some claim it is: the status quo is just wrong<\/em>. Advisors know far more about judges than students who don\u2019t subscribe to LAP\u2019s Database. Students rely on them for information: not warning students is malpractice, given the information asymmetry and enormous pressure to clerk. Law schools have a duty of care to students: they\u2019ve failed.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Some schools also maintain historical alumni clerk lists. But while schools instruct students to research judges<\/a> before applying, they don\u2019t equip them with sufficient tools. It\u2019s too onerous for applicants to email dozens of clerks and schedule calls with each before applying. Students don\u2019t. They apply indiscriminately to as many as 100 judges and only contact former clerks if they\u2019re invited to interview. Several top schools make things even harder, gatekeeping lists and making introductions themselves only after students get interviews. But by then it\u2019s often too late.\u00a0<\/p>\n

When students can\u2019t research judges before applying, they may find themselves in dangerous bird-in-the-hand situations. Upon receiving an interview, clerks warn them about the judge. But it\u2019s their only interview. Do they turn it down, leaving them with no clerkship at all, in this<\/em> tough job market? Or do they decide they can handle it? Every mistreated clerk I\u2019ve spoken with said they wished they\u2019d turned the clerkship down.<\/em><\/p>\n

Students applying via OSCAR\u2019s Law Clerk Hiring Plan<\/a> may receive interview offers with as little as 48 hours\u2019 notice, without time to speak with clerks. Importantly, many mistreated clerks are untruthful when students reach out, fearing career repercussions for speaking ill of a powerful judge. The frequently offered, tone-deaf advice, \u201ctalk to clerks before applying\u201d fails to recognize that students don\u2019t have access to those networks, nor bandwidth for voluminous outreach before applying \u2014 and that mistreated clerks may not be truthful<\/em> when contacted.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Many schools instruct students never to turn down a clerkship interview, let alone an offer<\/em>. It\u2019s not just friendly advice: they won\u2019t assist further. Some schools even intervene in students\u2019 bar applications as retribution for turning down clerkship offers.\u00a0<\/p>\n

And, of course, only a few schools maintain such resources. Most students are on their own: since it\u2019s more difficult to get a clerkship, especially a federal clerkship, if you attended a less prestigious school, these students may be even more vulnerable to abuse and willing to endure it to obtain this coveted credential.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s be clear: law schools, who\u2019ve fought hard to ensure clerkships were their<\/em> express purview, and insisted they didn\u2019t need LAP\u2019s Database, punish<\/em> students for turning down clerkship offers but refuse<\/em> to provide information to help them avoid those clerkships in the first place. It\u2019s quite a conundrum \u2014 telling students to \u201cdo their research<\/a>\u201d while not empowering them with tools to do it; and instructing students never to turn down an offer without providing information to decide whether to apply. These practices benefit two groups \u2014 abusive judges, who benefit from applicants not knowing about their misconduct until it\u2019s too late; and law schools obsessed with prestige over positive experiences.\u00a0<\/p>\n

LAP\u2019s Database<\/a> solves all these problems. Clerks can submit surveys anonymously<\/a> (they\u2019re not<\/em> anonymous to LAP, but they\u2019re anonymous to users reading reviews), ensuring honest reviews. Hundreds of clerks say they\u2019ve never had a platform to share candidly and warn applicants. Importantly, students can start their research now<\/em>, long before applying, so they\u2019re confident every judge they apply to is a good boss. And the nationwide scope of LAP\u2019s Database makes it far superior to any school\u2019s limited information. That\u2019s why LAP hoped some schools would want to broaden their information by subscribing.<\/p>\n

Students who choose not to subscribe to LAP\u2019s Database before applying, or who read negative reviews and pursue those clerkships anyway, may not realize how treacherous<\/a> some clerkships are. I receive at least weekly outreach from incoming clerks trying to withdraw from clerkships they subsequently learned are abusive; or from mistreated clerks who\u2019ve quit, been fired, or need to extract themselves from hostile work environments. You shouldn\u2019t need therapy after your clerkship<\/em>: yet whole generations of young lawyers are traumatized by abusive, imperious judges. They take that trauma to their next jobs \u2014 afraid to ask for extensions, for example, because the judge they clerked for berated them for asking; or paranoid that turning in an assignment automatically means being called into an office and excoriated, because that\u2019s how the judge conducted themselves. Traumatized clerks make bad lawyers, or become abusive managers themselves, because hurt people, hurt people.\u00a0<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a difficult time for law students. Government jobs vanished<\/a>, the rug pulled out from under aspiring public servants. But at a time when students are even more desperate to clerk, given the lack of federal jobs (last year was a particularly competitive clerkship application cycle), it\u2019s even more <\/em>important to be informed decision-makers and avoid career- and life-altering experiences<\/a>. Law students must take responsibility for their careers: seek out candid clerkship information and pay to access it. Frankly, the $50 they\u2019ll spend to subscribe per school year<\/a> is a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of dollars (or more) they\u2019ll spend on wardrobe, travel, and lodging for clerkship interviews, let alone the massive pay cut to clerk. They\u2019ll uproot their entire lives, take out a one-year lease, and move somewhere random \u2014 only to risk having their lives and careers destroyed by abusive clerkships and retaliatory judges.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Thousands of students and recent graduates apply for clerkships annually: if everyone subscribed to LAP\u2019s Database, far fewer would be mistreated. Law schools steering students toward their incomplete and misleading resources rather than to LAP\u2019s, and funneling students into clerkships with little regard for the quality of the work environment, should be ashamed of themselves: it costs them nothing to direct students to truthful information. Instead, they\u2019re perpetuating a significant civil rights abuse \u2014 harassment, discrimination, and retaliation<\/a> committed by federal judges who interpret our anti-discrimination laws while exempt from those same laws<\/a>.\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 Law Schools Are Lying To Students About Judicial Clerkships<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
(Image via Getty)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Law school career services offices have historically been clerkship gatekeepers and facilitators<\/a> \u2014 hoarding information, providing incomplete resources, and hosting one-sided programming to facilitate clerkship opportunities for students. Yet schools\u2019 overwhelmingly positive and misleading messaging<\/a> provides a dangerously rosy and overly optimistic picture of clerking.\u00a0Biased advising fail to highlight potential downsides, let alone negative experiences<\/a> that are all too common<\/a> in hierarchical, unregulated<\/a> work environments. By creating unrealistic expectations, schools set students up for failure: if clerks are mistreated, they self-internalize criticism and assume they\u2019re to blame. So, they keep their heads down and stay silent, perpetuating the problem by failing to warn others.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Beyond this, law schools have misaligned incentives<\/a>: they don\u2019t always have students\u2019 best interests at heart. They\u2019re far more interested in placing as many students as possible into prestigious clerkships, and maintaining relationships with judges (even abusive ones). They care about prestige over positive experience: clerks\u2019 well-being barely makes the priority list.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In April 2024, The Legal Accountability Project<\/a> (LAP) upended the clerkship system by launching \u201cGlassdoor for Judges<\/a>\u201d to correct informational asymmetries and warn students about abusive judges. LAP\u2019s nationwide Clerkships Database democratizes clerkships<\/a>: clerks review judges as managers<\/a>, and students take agency over their careers by paying a small annual fee to access exponentially more information<\/a> than they otherwise could. Students are no longer beholden to schools that historically withheld information from them. It\u2019s a testament to schools\u2019 inadequate resources<\/a> that LAP already served over 3,000<\/em> students and recent graduates<\/a> in just 18 months<\/em> \u2014 helping them identify positive work environments and avoid abusive judges and bad bosses.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Seeing their students flock to LAP\u2019s Database, some schools tried to prevent them from accessing it, fearing it would dissuade them from clerking for abusive and prestigious judges. Yale Law School (YLS) and Maryland Law barred student organizations<\/a> from subscribing to the Database on behalf of members using student organization funds. This backfired, galvanizing eight donors to cover Database subscriptions for students at YLS<\/a> and seven other schools<\/a>, and inspiring more law journals to subscribe. LAP\u2019s Database has only grown in popularity since then: students saw through these nakedly malicious efforts and were undeterred from subscribing.\u00a0<\/p>\n

How common are the negative experiences<\/a> schools worked so hard to prevent students from learning about? According to LAP\u2019s data \u2014 nearly 2,000 surveys about more than 1,200 judges \u2014 around 30%<\/em> of experiences are negative. And more than 100 out of around 1,700 currently serving federal judges are \u201cdo not clerk for\u201d jurists. That means federal clerkship applicants have around a 1 in 17 chance of being mistreated while clerking<\/em> \u2014 perhaps the most dangerous white-collar workplace in America<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Many 2Ls don\u2019t realize schools \u2014 even highly ranked ones \u2014 provide incomplete and misleading information. Unless students can name all 100 federal judges to avoid, they need LAP\u2019s Database. And even if they can, they should probably still research them, rather than gamble their futures on someone\u2019s word.\u00a0<\/p>\n

A handful of primarily T14 schools maintain internal clerkship databases<\/a> containing post-interview and post-clerkship surveys. Even under the best circumstances, no school has information about all the judges students will apply to. New judges are appointed and elected each year. Schools\u2019 information is restricted by whom alumni have clerked for and clerks\u2019 willingness to share it \u2014 in contrast to LAP\u2019s Database, which is constantly growing<\/a>, thanks to clerks\u2019 trust in LAP\u2019s safeguards and security protocols, which far exceed schools\u2019.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Out of several hundred post-clerkship surveys populating the most robust school databases, typically fewer than 10<\/em> are negative \u2014 not<\/em> reflective of clerks\u2019 actual experiences. Where are the negative surveys? Clerks are instructed, including by their schools<\/em>, not to say anything negative about judges \u2014 certainly not in writing. And at most schools, unlike LAP\u2019s Database, clerks cannot submit anonymously: mistreated clerks fear retaliation by judges and career repercussions. School databases also contain misleading positive surveys<\/em> about known abusive judges. Schools either know or should<\/em> know the contents of their databases, since they signal to students that theirs is a school-approved resource while LAP\u2019s is not. Schools should be held accountable if students end up in abusive clerkships after relying on their school\u2019s database.\u00a0<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t expect schools to know about all<\/em> the judges. But they\u2019re not working very hard to inform themselves. On the contrary, they seem to be working hard not<\/em> to obtain any negative information<\/a> about judges, so they won\u2019t have to confront the cognitive dissonance of knowing judges mistreat their clerks while failing to warn students.\u00a0<\/p>\n

To the extent schools have some negative information about judges, they withhold it from students who need it. Schools could<\/em> maintain internal \u201cdo not clerk\u201d lists. They could<\/em> actively warn students not to apply when reviewing students\u2019 judge lists. Clerkship advisors refuse: they tell students \u201cwe\u2019ve heard mixed things\u201d to cover their butts, disclaim responsibility, and perpetuate a status quo that benefits them. Schools could also<\/em> note in their databases to \u201ccontact us before applying to this judge.\u201d Yet I\u2019ve only heard of one instance like that, in a database with no other warnings. Schools\u2019 misbehavior is particularly outrageous, since they benefit<\/em> from clerks\u2019 negative experiences \u2014 the number of clerkship placements they announce annually improves their ranking, reputation, and applicant recruitment.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not complicated, though some claim it is: the status quo is just wrong<\/em>. Advisors know far more about judges than students who don\u2019t subscribe to LAP\u2019s Database. Students rely on them for information: not warning students is malpractice, given the information asymmetry and enormous pressure to clerk. Law schools have a duty of care to students: they\u2019ve failed.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Some schools also maintain historical alumni clerk lists. But while schools instruct students to research judges<\/a> before applying, they don\u2019t equip them with sufficient tools. It\u2019s too onerous for applicants to email dozens of clerks and schedule calls with each before applying. Students don\u2019t. They apply indiscriminately to as many as 100 judges and only contact former clerks if they\u2019re invited to interview. Several top schools make things even harder, gatekeeping lists and making introductions themselves only after students get interviews. But by then it\u2019s often too late.\u00a0<\/p>\n

When students can\u2019t research judges before applying, they may find themselves in dangerous bird-in-the-hand situations. Upon receiving an interview, clerks warn them about the judge. But it\u2019s their only interview. Do they turn it down, leaving them with no clerkship at all, in this<\/em> tough job market? Or do they decide they can handle it? Every mistreated clerk I\u2019ve spoken with said they wished they\u2019d turned the clerkship down.<\/em><\/p>\n

Students applying via OSCAR\u2019s Law Clerk Hiring Plan<\/a> may receive interview offers with as little as 48 hours\u2019 notice, without time to speak with clerks. Importantly, many mistreated clerks are untruthful when students reach out, fearing career repercussions for speaking ill of a powerful judge. The frequently offered, tone-deaf advice, \u201ctalk to clerks before applying\u201d fails to recognize that students don\u2019t have access to those networks, nor bandwidth for voluminous outreach before applying \u2014 and that mistreated clerks may not be truthful<\/em> when contacted.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Many schools instruct students never to turn down a clerkship interview, let alone an offer<\/em>. It\u2019s not just friendly advice: they won\u2019t assist further. Some schools even intervene in students\u2019 bar applications as retribution for turning down clerkship offers.\u00a0<\/p>\n

And, of course, only a few schools maintain such resources. Most students are on their own: since it\u2019s more difficult to get a clerkship, especially a federal clerkship, if you attended a less prestigious school, these students may be even more vulnerable to abuse and willing to endure it to obtain this coveted credential.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s be clear: law schools, who\u2019ve fought hard to ensure clerkships were their<\/em> express purview, and insisted they didn\u2019t need LAP\u2019s Database, punish<\/em> students for turning down clerkship offers but refuse<\/em> to provide information to help them avoid those clerkships in the first place. It\u2019s quite a conundrum \u2014 telling students to \u201cdo their research<\/a>\u201d while not empowering them with tools to do it; and instructing students never to turn down an offer without providing information to decide whether to apply. These practices benefit two groups \u2014 abusive judges, who benefit from applicants not knowing about their misconduct until it\u2019s too late; and law schools obsessed with prestige over positive experiences.\u00a0<\/p>\n

LAP\u2019s Database<\/a> solves all these problems. Clerks can submit surveys anonymously<\/a> (they\u2019re not<\/em> anonymous to LAP, but they\u2019re anonymous to users reading reviews), ensuring honest reviews. Hundreds of clerks say they\u2019ve never had a platform to share candidly and warn applicants. Importantly, students can start their research now<\/em>, long before applying, so they\u2019re confident every judge they apply to is a good boss. And the nationwide scope of LAP\u2019s Database makes it far superior to any school\u2019s limited information. That\u2019s why LAP hoped some schools would want to broaden their information by subscribing.<\/p>\n

Students who choose not to subscribe to LAP\u2019s Database before applying, or who read negative reviews and pursue those clerkships anyway, may not realize how treacherous<\/a> some clerkships are. I receive at least weekly outreach from incoming clerks trying to withdraw from clerkships they subsequently learned are abusive; or from mistreated clerks who\u2019ve quit, been fired, or need to extract themselves from hostile work environments. You shouldn\u2019t need therapy after your clerkship<\/em>: yet whole generations of young lawyers are traumatized by abusive, imperious judges. They take that trauma to their next jobs \u2014 afraid to ask for extensions, for example, because the judge they clerked for berated them for asking; or paranoid that turning in an assignment automatically means being called into an office and excoriated, because that\u2019s how the judge conducted themselves. Traumatized clerks make bad lawyers, or become abusive managers themselves, because hurt people, hurt people.\u00a0<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a difficult time for law students. Government jobs vanished<\/a>, the rug pulled out from under aspiring public servants. But at a time when students are even more desperate to clerk, given the lack of federal jobs (last year was a particularly competitive clerkship application cycle), it\u2019s even more <\/em>important to be informed decision-makers and avoid career- and life-altering experiences<\/a>. Law students must take responsibility for their careers: seek out candid clerkship information and pay to access it. Frankly, the $50 they\u2019ll spend to subscribe per school year<\/a> is a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of dollars (or more) they\u2019ll spend on wardrobe, travel, and lodging for clerkship interviews, let alone the massive pay cut to clerk. They\u2019ll uproot their entire lives, take out a one-year lease, and move somewhere random \u2014 only to risk having their lives and careers destroyed by abusive clerkships and retaliatory judges.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Thousands of students and recent graduates apply for clerkships annually: if everyone subscribed to LAP\u2019s Database, far fewer would be mistreated. Law schools steering students toward their incomplete and misleading resources rather than to LAP\u2019s, and funneling students into clerkships with little regard for the quality of the work environment, should be ashamed of themselves: it costs them nothing to direct students to truthful information. Instead, they\u2019re perpetuating a significant civil rights abuse \u2014 harassment, discrimination, and retaliation<\/a> committed by federal judges who interpret our anti-discrimination laws while exempt from those same laws<\/a>.\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>[email\u00a0protected]<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and follow her on Twitter @AlizaShatzman.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Image via Getty) Law school career services offices have historically been clerkship gatekeepers and facilitators \u2014 hoarding information, providing incomplete resources, and hosting one-sided programming to facilitate clerkship opportunities for students. Yet schools\u2019 overwhelmingly positive and misleading messaging provides a dangerously rosy and overly optimistic picture of clerking.\u00a0Biased advising fail to highlight potential downsides, let […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":136635,"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-136647","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/GettyImages-492223002-KWeKOy-scaled.jpg?fit=2560%2C1707&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136647","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=136647"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136647\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/136635"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136647"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136647"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136647"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}