Judge Aileen Cannon has appeared in recent headlines for two distinctly different reasons. Not only is she the presiding judge in one of the cases against former president Donald Trump, but several of her term clerks have quit within the past year (reported by David Lat in his newsletter, Original Jurisdiction).
The abrupt departure of law clerks is a peculiar scenario considering the prestige associated with the position, the effect on the clerk’s future employability, and the possibility of eliciting the judge’s wrath and risking retaliation—a substantial risk due to federal clerks lacking whistleblower or retaliation protections.
Clerks’ premature exits also pose questions on whether they have any implications on the ongoing Trump case. District judges usually maintain two clerks for each term. A bustling district like the Southern District of Florida would entail a plethora of work; when fully staffed, the work is divided amongst the clerks. When clerks resign, this escalates the workload on the remaining in-house staff and obliges the judge to promptly hire and train a replacement.
“Why would anyone quit a clerkship?” is a reasonable question to ask when considering the perks that come with clerkships such as potential professional connections and career success in private practice, public service, and academia. However, the issues faced by clerks are seldom discussed. Perhaps such publicity will encourage judges to introspect and alter their behavior.
It is, in fact, more common than assumed for law clerks to quit their jobs, largely due to the myriad challenges they face. Many of these challenges stem from gaps in the federal judiciary’s understanding. There is a historical failure to collect and report data on law clerk hiring, workplace culture, or the prevalence of mistreatment.
Clerks often continue in their roles, facing mistreatment, because they are advised to do so. They understand the potential professional repercussions of an early departure from a clerkship, such as the absence of a favorable reference and the necessity to explain their action to a future employer, as well as the possible conflict with a powerful judge.
We frequently hear about inappropriate behavior in the chambers. Judges might overwork their clerks, fail to deliver constructive feedback, or even yell or throw objects. Some judges have been known to dismiss clerks and even retaliate against them, which can lead to adverse effects on their future job prospects.
This is where the Legal Accountability Project comes in. This initiative is helping to bring these issues to light and is actively working toward better workplace experiences for law clerks. The Federal Judiciary ought to collect and record data on clerk mistreatment, and this has to be a prerequisite for educational institutions seeking accreditation from the ABA, the American Bar Association.
The legal profession as a whole needs to step up and support its clerks. Organizations should not refrain from hiring former clerks and should stop dismissing any clerkship reviews that are less than glowing. In doing so, they contribute to a dependance on favorable references from judges and ignore the fallibility of these same judges.
In light of this situation, the Legal Accountability Project’s Centralized Clerkships Database is presenting an opportunity for a revolutionary change in the field. It seeks to promote transparency and accountability by providing an open platform for current and former clerks to share their clerkship experiences. This tool, democratizing information about judges and clerkships, will be a significant help to students applying for clerkships in the future.
The legal profession must strive for an open conversation about clerkships and their experiences. Such honesty will help prospective clerks choose better placements and avoid judges known for their mistreatment of clerks. The need is to normalize quitting a clerkship due to mistreatment and to be open about this exit.