Read on Twitter
This 
identifies many ways in which clerking (and post-grad hiring more generally) could be improved but it’s conclusion that clerking should be abolished is deeply wrong. Abolishing a single credential won’t fix most of the problems identified & may make some worse. A https://twitter.com/_vectorist/status/1335246480454639617
identifies many ways in which clerking (and post-grad hiring more generally) could be improved but it’s conclusion that clerking should be abolished is deeply wrong. Abolishing a single credential won’t fix most of the problems identified & may make some worse. A https://twitter.com/_vectorist/status/1335246480454639617
The inequalities of who can afford to clerk/move to clerk/ learn about clerking in time to clerk exist with almost all credentials. I’m 1gen, I’m keenly aware of how much it sucks to be on the wrong end of these inequalities. There are two paths to fix these inequalities:
1) leveling up. Reforming the cost of ed and financial aid so more students have options post grad. Licensing reform-type efforts & WFH make if easier for families to move. Will this work for everyone? No, but there are ways to make it better. 2) leveling down—ending clerkships.
Leveling down has the benefit of being universal, but it has big costs. I’m not going to cover all of them, but a few are below. A) Clerks provide judges with essential labor. This need will persist despite abolishing term clerks. Career clerks will fill the void. Some balance of
Term and career clerks is probably good, but I doubt that the law is improved if chambers go decades without new voices. Judges don’t get much pushback on their non-headline-generating opinions. Clerks are some of the only pushback they do get. Career clerks arguably have less
Power to push back since they don’t have an exit coming up quickly. There are a lot of stories out there about individual clerks mitigating the harm their judge was about to do.
B) Abolishing clerking won’t end credential-focused hiring. The focus will move to other credentials—grades, journal, law school etc—that are influenced by the same inequalities. Anything that makes recs more influential is probably going to create even more inequality.
Law school with no competitive activities, no grades, no curve, no rank etc isn’t actually better for 1gen students. It renders learning into a personality contest that the wealthier students are going to win. The same is true for post-grad employment.
There’s a lot of things that law schools can do to make their clerkship pipeline: meet with affinity groups each fall to start talking about how students can become fancy on paper early so that the process isn’t mysterious to anyone. Programming for all 1Ls isn’t enough.
Students need time and space to ask questions and work out the details (like $$$) with people they trust, which may or may not include faculty. Leadership needs to remind faculty to about the inequalities in clerking and nudge them to tap promising students who might otherwise
fall through the cracks. This means reaching out to, getting to know, and writing letters for students who do great in class, but not on the exam etc. Clerkship advisors need to talk to clinical faculty to find the rock stars there who may not clicked with podium faculty
In sum, clerking is flawed, but so is working generally. Given the baseline, I think its invaluable experience and a great potential stepping-stone for 1gen students. No one is going to be better off if less privileged & progressive students abandon it. Fin.
