So, you want to clerk? How will you avoid judges who harass their clerks?
For two years, I posed this question at dozens of The Legal Accountability Project’s (LAP) law school events across the country. Then, in April 2024 — two years ago this month — that answer changed forever. LAP launched our first-of-its-kind Clerkships Database (“Glassdoor for Judges”), a nationally recognized, award-winning platform now containing over 2,000 candid clerkship reviews about more than 1,200 federal and state court judges nationwide. It’s the largest independent repository of clerkship information in the U.S. — several times the size of the largest law school databases — and the only source of honest feedback, particularly about judges to avoid.
I recently returned from a LAP event at Yale Law School (YLS) — known for funneling students into prestigious clerkships but perhaps not for ensuring positive experiences for graduates. In fact, last school year, YLS prohibited students from using student organization funds to subscribe to LAP’s Database on behalf of members — perhaps intending to dissuade students from accessing LAP’s information. It sparked outraged, inspired more than 10 donors to cover Database costs for students, including at YLS — and over 160 YLS students subscribed last year.
At YLS, I shared my personal experience, because it’s the first time many students hear about a negative clerkship experience. Legal academia and the legal industry still lionize judges, acting as if they can do no wrong. It may shake eager students’ worldviews to learn their legal heroes — the liberal lion or conservative crusader writing the bombshell opinions they just read in class — are adjudicating litigants’ misconduct in front of the bench, while committing misconduct behind the bench. Students’ eyes bug out when I share that I was fired over the phone during the COVID-19 pandemic by a judge who told me I made him “uncomfortable” and “lacked respect” for him. I hear audible gasps when I discuss the judge’s negative reference to the DC U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) a year later that caused the USAO to deny me a security clearance and revoke my job offer. I emphasize my experience is not rare — I hear regularly from clerks — but it’s rarely shared publicly, due to the culture of silence and fear surrounding the judiciary.
During audience questions, a student recounted searching for judges in the YLS internal database, which requires clerks to put their names on their surveys (dissuading those who were mistreated from disclosing). The only information about certain judges was “contact me” — a euphemism for mistreatment. (I cautioned students that some mistreated clerks are untruthful even when contacted, thereby misleading students into bad clerkships — which is why a platform like LAP’s, which replaces individual conversations, is so important.) But, when the student searched for the same judges in LAP’s Database, clerks actually described the mistreatment.
Many students understand schools’ misaligned clerkship incentives. Schools benefit when more students clerk: they rarely dissuade students from clerking for judges they know mistreat clerks, especially when schools have relationships with judges or they’re alumni. This necessitates a third-party, independent information source.
LAP’s Database is the resource I wish existed when I was applying for clerkships a decade ago. This student- and clerk-centric platform is heavily informed by what students want to know before clerking, and what clerks wish they’d known before clerking. Because I conceptualized it and oversee its daily operations, students’ and clerks’ needs remain front and center. As someone whose law school misled me into a career-ending clerkship; who endured mistreatment until I was fired because no support or resources like LAP existed; and was subsequently retaliated against by the judge I worked for, I am particularly sensitive to the need to balance clerks’ privacy and data security with transparency and candor.
Anyone who clerked can submit a survey to LAP’s Database — anonymously if they choose. Anonymity vastly increases the candor of submissions, yet inexplicably, some law schools won’t allow clerks to submit anonymously to their internal databases. Clerks aren’t anonymous to me, of course — they register with all their information. Importantly, only students and recent graduates can subscribe to read reviews — no judges — to prevent retaliation.
For just $50 per school year, students can avoid career- and life-altering negative experiences like mine. LAP’s Database offers exponentially more information than students could otherwise access when applying for clerkships. While a handful of top schools maintain internal databases where students can search for judges by name, state, and court, none enable students to search by judges’ race, gender, law school, or appointing president. Beyond LAP’s unique search filters and user-friendly interface, we ask candid questions about judges as managers, clerk treatment, and workplace conduct. And, because clerks can submit anonymously, we receive honest responses. Clerks also rate both the judge as a manager and the clerkship experience, and LAP posts those ratings on judges’ profiles. And while every law school’s information is restricted by who alumni clerked for and clerks’ willingness to share information, LAP is not: the Database compiles reviews from clerks nationwide from every law school, state, and court. Nothing else like it exists.
I couldn’t in good conscience encourage anyone to clerk without subscribing to LAP’s Database and heeding its warnings. Working for a judge who treats clerks with respect could be the difference between a successful career in law and none at all. I’ve seen everything: clerks traumatized and in therapy years later, blackballed from dream jobs and whole industries, shells of their former selves, or driven from the law entirely after investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in their legal educations and taking out crushing loans to pay for it. LAP’s Database is the only way to avoid this.
Hundreds of mistreated clerks tell me they would not have accepted their clerkships if they knew how abusive they’d be. And yet, students desperate to clerk may read negative information in LAP’s Database and pursue the clerkships anyway — believing it won’t happen to them or they can handle it — only to reach out to me a year later after they’ve quit or been fired. Frustratingly, many mistreated clerks who’ve reached out recently seeking assistance are 2025 graduates — meaning the Database was accessible when they applied, or at least before they started clerking — yet they chose not to subscribe or disregarded its warnings. Students must take agency over their lives and careers. Even if you’ve accepted a clerkship, it’s not too late to subscribe, inform yourself, and potentially withdraw. Many have — LAP helped — and you should.
LAP’s Database has already served over 4,000 law students and recent graduates in just two years. Many more are preparing to apply “On Plan” via OSCAR this June. I worry where those who haven’t subscribed get their information, if not from LAP — either not at all, or from school advisors who mislead students.
LAP’s Database is accountability through transparency: there’s nothing abusive judges hate more than negative feedback they cannot see or retaliate against clerks for sharing. LAP’s Database exists because the judiciary refuses to implement guardrails, hold colleagues accountable, discipline abusive judges, or provide meaningful redress to mistreated employees. Over time, as abusive judges struggle to hire and retain clerks — since applicants can now avoid bad bosses — judges may change their behavior or, preferably, retire. It’s difficult to get abusive judges off the bench, but as long as some young lawyers willingly endure abuse, they perpetuate the problem. As long as these judges can hire clerks and conduct chambers business, the judiciary has no incentive to discipline or remove them. But a struggling judge, or one who can’t hold onto clerks — they’re a liability.
“Will I be harassed, discriminated against, or retaliated against during my clerkship?” was never a question I thought to ask when I was applying. But now, thanks to LAP, applicants do. And, having heard my experience, they’re attuned to the risks, and better able to avoid them. My “birthday wish” on LAP’s Database’s second birthday is that every clerkship applicant will subscribe and heed its warnings, so no clerk willingly subjects themselves to abuse.
I think a lot about long-term solutions — disciplining and removing abusive judges; ensuring presidents and chief executives appoint judges who aren’t just good jurists, but also good bosses; and finally extending legal protections against discrimination, harassment, and retaliation to court employees. LAP’s Database is a front-end, “right now” solution. We don’t wait on anyone — not the judiciary, not Congress, and not law schools — to make the change that’s urgently necessary. Because thousands of students and recent graduates can’t wait. Tens of thousands of judiciary employees can’t wait. Society can’t wait.
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 ‘Glassdoor for Judges’ Celebrates Its Second Birthday appeared first on Above the Law.