The problem is not that Rao is just telling some "bad boss" stories, it's that she's trying to cash in on those stories after having been put in a position of trust. She seems to have little integrity, and I'd imagine that would give most potential future employers pause.

1:33 PM Actually third.

Wonder why one of those clerks don't scare her really, really bad? Her old heart couldn't be that strong :0)

I mean... if they dislike her so much...that is...

Isn't every employee in a position of trust vis a vis her employer?

1:36(2),

I don't think so, at least not in the way that a law clerk is with his judge. And not everyone is writing a juicy tell-all about it, even in thinly-veiled "novel" form.

who the heck refers to the washington post as "WaPo?" ..only people who've not spent very much time there..

1:40: Are you kidding? "WaPo" is actually very inside-the-Beltway (even if annoying).

Hey mister ATL, when are you going to start a forum? Then we can discuss whatever we want (not just comment on what you post.)

Jesus Christ, is ATL getting part of the proceeds from this book? Stop promoting it like you were her publisher. Its gotten horrible reviews and as a former clerk, I think Ms. Rao's behavior is disgusting. I clerked for a totally insane federal judge. He treated the courthouse as his own kingdom. He was difficult to work with and at times, just plain mean. However, the only time I ever discuss this is with his other former clerks. There is a certain sense of duty and loyalty as a clerk that Ms. Rao clearly doesn't have. She gave it up for what? Making a buck because she coudn't hack it at Cleary?

Hi Judge Sloviter!

1:44 / Old Guy, just go to Infirmation or AutoAdmit. You can start your own topics over there.

WaPo is routinely used inside the beltway, you twit.

I totally agree with 1:53.

Even if your judge is completely bonkers or just a tool, she thought enough of you to select you for a prestigious federal clerkship. That in and of itself merits keeping quiet about perceived or real social problems your judge may have. And spare me the line about how you could have gotten that ACLU gig without the clerkship on your resume. Let me give you a hint: you couldn't have.

If your judge is, say, running an illegal meth lab out of her basement, taking bribes from mobsters, or looking at kiddy porn in the robing room, maybe you should tell someone. But "she's rude?" Quit your moaning, take your "year of hell," and keep your mouth shut. And at the end of it all, get down on your knees and thank your judge, who has undoubtedly given you what is at best an incredible life-changing experience, at worst an incredibly helpful line on your resume that will get you in doors that were previously closed to you (See, e.g., the ACLU).

Also, way to make interviews for all Sloviter clerks super-awkward going forward:

Partner: "So why did you work for a huge bitch?"
SlovClerk: "uhhhhh....."

1:53 - "There is a certain sense of duty and loyalty as a clerk that Ms. Rao clearly doesn't have."

But why the need for this "sense of duty and loyalty?" Who is served by a code of silence among former clerks? Who is disserved when stories are shared about tyranical bosses who happen to wear robes? As a public figure, the judge should be fair game.

I rilly, rilly liked the book. Some of it hit too close to home, and my judge wasn't even that bad. But a clerkship is a wild ride and it was nice to know that others had similar experiences. Nice on the resume, but never again.

This inane book doesn't have anything to do with blowing the lid off the third branch. Tawdry gossip and public humiliation have their place. Both can be fun. But don't pretend that this cynical opportunist is performing a public service or is some kind of whistleblower. If anything, Lazarus's project had merit because it was about something that mattered -- this is someone trying to humiliate someone who took a chance on her. Plus, there's a kind of misogynist undertone to all of this.

Hi, Judge Sloviter's clerks!

Lat and Rao are "friends" on Friendster, as was pointed out in the original post.

Personal bias is also the only explanation for defending such a shitty book.

Rao claims to be doing some kind of service, but she attacks the judge with quasi-fiction when she has nothing to lose by it and everything to gain. If she wanted to do the world a service, she could write to Columbia or other schools, or she could publish a candid description of her clerkship that was careful to leave out things like case deliberations.

Instead, she waits several years, writes a shitty book, and because it's "fiction" no one can be totally sure how reliable it is, so it's not helpful to prospective clerkship applicants, but it does effectively trash her judge's reputation. She hasn't done anyone a service but herself, and her pretenses otherwise are the worst part.

The fact that the book is poorly written is the second-worst part.

Rao says: "I understand why law clerks can't talk about case deliberations," she said. "But why can't law clerks talk about the personalities, the cultural aspects, of being a clerk?"

The short answer is (1) because you knew this going in, and you accepted it, and (2) the book is not limited to talking "about the personalities, the cultural aspects, of being a clerk."

Everybody knows there's a big difference between "Friendster Friends" (or "Facebook Friends") and REAL friends...

IMHO, I think its a violation of trust. Clerking is not your typical job, and the judge-clerk relationship is not your typical employer-employee relationship. And its not just limited to Art. III. I think this applies similarly to inner-circle employees of Art. I and II office holders. Look at the Bushies -- they'll risk contempt to protect his corrupt ass. If not explicit, it is at least implicitly a trust position between the clerk and the judge. With my judge it was explicit.

I actually know a former Sloviter clerk who took a lot of punishment from her (she said Sloviter picks one clerk in particular to abuse, usually a female). But she didn't go write a book about it. She just called the firm she was scheduled to start at post-clerkship, explained her situation, and asked to start early. They were cool with it, so she said adios to Sloviter. So this idea that the clerk is a slave to the judge and can't escape for a year is false. If you can't hack it, leave. The really bad judges have enough of a reputation that most firms will understand.

That doesn't mean judges are totally off limits. Those outside the inner circle (i.e., clerks of other judges or even staff attorneys) have no duty of loyalty.

If David Lat is friends is with Saira Rao and that's why he's pimping this book, he should make that clear in EVERY post about this. If he's going to toss out "highly entertaining" and "buzz generating", then he needs to state clearly upfront that he's friends with the author and his opinion has gone against nearly every review of this book.

Regardless of what this book is about it is horribly written and a waste of time to read.

This is a blog, not the New York Times. It is only natural to assume that EVERY post reflects Lat's biases, personal views, etc.

If you want bias-free reporting on the legal profession, go read the WSJ Law Blog or the Legal Times. There are many fine options out there.

For a while Lat was doing these disclaimers like "I know this person," "I'm friends with this person," and "I worked with this person."

These disclosures were annoying, distracting, and self-aggrandizing. I do not want them back.

I'm starting to actually feel bad for Dolly. At every sitting, she's going to have colleagues, clerks, litigants scrutinizing her, pondering what a holy terror she must be. This whole thing's turning into a pile-on.

"And at the end of it all, get down on your knees and thank your judge, who has undoubtedly given you what is at best an incredible life-changing experience, at worst an incredibly helpful line on your resume that will get you in doors that were previously closed to you (See, e.g., the ACLU)."

jesus. it's not like the judge is doing you a favor by hiring you. they need clerks even more than law students need them. should you bow and scrape before your law school that they "gave" you good grades? no; you earned them; it's a symbiotic relationship; there were no favors exchanged; you both got what you came for and there is no further obligation.

yes, it's a relationship of trust, but that cutsboth ways -- the law student trusts the judge not to be a huge bitch, and to some extent has to take it on faith since all her former clerks feel bound to this idiotic code of silence about their former boss. if the judge betrays the clerk's trust, i see no continuing moral obligation for the clerk to honor the judge's.

Why are people mad at Rao for capitalizing on her clerkship in this way? Others do it by going on to fabulous jobs...she chose to write a tell-all "fictional" book.

Both options are an effort to make the most of a past experience. Certainly one is less widely accepted than the other, but no less legitimate.

There was a time when staff and the press wouldn't disclose outrageous behavior by members of Congress (that hasn't changed entirely). What was gained by suppressing that knowledge, other than the public not knowing some were unfit for the office they held? Why is the judiciary any different?

relationship of trust aside, ultimately, it's downright mean to bring in aspects of a judge's personal life -- like a spouse dying, into a "fictional" account. whether she is a terror to work for or not, gossiping about a tragedy in the judge's life is nothing more than a gratuitous and undignified shot below the belt.

3:24 gets it exactly right. I'm not sure there's anything more to say

"Why are people mad at Rao for capitalizing on her clerkship in this way? Others do it by going on to fabulous jobs...she chose to write a tell-all "fictional" book. Both options are an effort to make the most of a past experience"

Going to a law firm doesn't necessarily involve breaching confidences or profiting by trashing another person's reputation.

I don't think anyone's saying that no one should benefit in any way from the experience of being a clerk.

No one's mad at Osama bin Laden for using his CIA training. It's the particular way he used it that people find distasteful.

The arguments in defense of this book are pathetic.

Why is giving someone an "incredible life opportunity" license to treat them like dirt? Just because it's a great resume entry doesn't mean Rao should be yelling thank-you-ma'am-may-I-have-another.

Relationships of trust have to be predicated on more than the coolness of the job. There's a difference between revealing personal information in confidence, and trusting someone not to tell the world how awful you are to work for.

And people wonder why lawyers have such bad reputations for cultivating hostile personalities...

"it's not like the judge is doing you a favor by hiring you. they need clerks even more than law students need them. "

This varies by judge. I doubt that this is true of Frank Easterbrook, for example.

No one's saying that it's right to treat clerks badly. The disagreement is about whether an appropriate response is to write a book.

If I were a judge and had a clerk who wrote as badly as Ms. Rao, I'd probably be inclined to pelt her with books too.

This book is a highly entertaining read, one of the best books I've read this year (or in any year). It was a life changing experience for me. I suggest everyone read it now!

3:45: no federal judge could do his job without clerks. frank easterbrook needs clerks. if your point is that he is well-known enough to choose between many applicants, that is true -- but it is also true that the applicants he chooses were themselves imprressive enough to choose between many judges. there is no philanthropy built into the clerkship system; each side needs the other and selects the other in a purely self-interested way.

The clerkship isn't exactly a partnership of equals here. The judge has earned the right to basically tell the clerk what to do, and the clerk knows this going in. So although those who get clerkships have in some sense "earned" them, they are in another, very real sense, very fortunate to have gotten them, and are definitely indebted to their judges. That sense of indebtedness should extend to not airing the judges' dirty laundry or trashing their reputations.

It's "underling," not "underlying."

4:13: "So although those who get clerkships have in some sense "earned" them, they are in another, very real sense, very fortunate to have gotten them, and are definitely indebted to their judges."

no. i'm not going to let you get away with this. the judge picked the candidate because he was the best candidate available to her. the candidate picked the judge because she was the best judge available to him. both sides equally "earned" the honor; both sides were equally "fortunate."

4:13: the judge has the right to be the boss, not to be a huge dehumanizing bitch.

4:27-- generally speaking, the benefits flowing to the clerks are greater than those received by the judge. The judge gets some bench memos, maybe some half-way decent draft opinions. The clerk gets an inside look at the judiciary, an invaluable learning experience (probably more valuable than 3 years of law school), and probably the most valuable entry on his/her resume.

Also, although the clerks are all generally very qualified, there are many qualified would-be clerks who don't land clerkships. So yes, most clerks consider themselves fortunate to get the gig. The judge is also fortunate when he gets competent clerks. But its the clerk who gets the more enduring benefits out of the clerkship. The judge has to keep getting new clerks every year or two.

I am 100% anti-Rao. Stabbing someone who gives you opportunity in the back is despicable. I would rather be a tier 2 student than be Ms. Rao.

4:29,

I detest the fascination with rights ideology. Why doesn't the judge have a "right" to be a huge dehumanizing bitch? I think she probably does. Being a law clerk is an amazingly sweet gig that sets you up for almost any legal career. Why should the law clerk have "rights?"

4:27,

You don't have to let me get away with anything. The numbers speak for themselves. How many eminently qualified candidates don't get that federal clerkship they so highly desire each year? Thousands. And do you know why they didn't get those clerkships? Because they couldn't get a foot in the door, or they didn't shake the judge's hand firmly enough, or whatever. Most judges don't have the time or motivation to sift through the hundreds or even thousands of clerkship applications they get each year with a fine-tooth comb, so they have their own sorting techniques that emphasize who-knows-what. So the ones who get the clerkships need to realize that they are fortunate--that they got hooked up.

"3:45: no federal judge could do his job without clerks"

I disagree. Many judges find their clerks useful, but at least a few of them could do their jobs without clerks. Some of them would write slightly shorter opinions than they do now, and some would work less quickly, but the very best federal judges are smart and efficient enough that they don't need clerks.

4:46 -- clerks are NECESSARY for the judge. they aren't like a hazlenut latte every morning that the judge gets because she kind of feels like it. they aren't like dollars the judge tosses at homeless people on the way out of the coffee shop. if the judge has no clerks, she will be unable to perform her duties.

both parties are important to the other. neither party is doing the other any favors. i cannot for the life of me understand how this is so difficult for you.

"But its the clerk who gets the more enduring benefits out of the clerkship. The judge has to keep getting new clerks every year or two."

so what? how does this possibly weigh into the moral calculus of the judge being a huge dehumanizing bitch? by your logic, every admission officer at a decent law school is a god to all us law students, since they have to accept more students next cycle, but we get an enduring benefit from the degree.

I agree with everyone who thinks Rao is a backstabbing bitch. My judge was a total psychopath who often treated me poorly, yet I would never reveal her secrets to the general public because that's just the right thing to do. It's called loyalty. Judges should be able to trust their clerks not to go blabbing to everyone else about intimate parts of their personalities. A judge's chambers should be a black box in my opinion. That's a big reason why the public has high regard for judges and the federal judiciary; because the lives of judges and the inner workings of the judiciary are not out on display in the tabloids or in the news (except in this blog, which I love, but which only lawyers read), taken out of context and twisted for the personal gain of others.

The anger and indignance in this thread is laughable, and is just another manifestation of how silly and self-important lawyers can act. It's ridiculous to see former clerks whine about how tough they had it, and about how there's some kind of "code of loyalty" that makes a book like this a no-no. Human beings swap stories. We enjoy making fun of our bosses. We enjoy hearing about the tribulations of others. There is no difference between this book and "The Devil Wears Prada," except personal assistants don't have any stick-up-the-ass delusions about their place in the world.

I clerked for Judge Sloviter in the mid-1990s, and yes, she had her moody days but I don't think she deserves this. Even leaving aside her excellent judicial mind and work toward justice (her politics were all the right place as far as I was concerned), what about the extraordinary amount of time she took working with law clerks to improve their research and writing skills? Yes, I would sweat buckets when going over a draft opinion (she would have you print it out triple spaced on the top half of the page, with the bottom half blank, all to allow for insertions and corrections). She'd sit with you and go over the opinion word by word and ask you to support each statement. That skill has helped me immeasurably in the many years since then. One other point: what about all the crazy law partners, crazy law professors out there? I'm sure there are lots of tales to be told but no one would be interested - this law clerk is capitalizing on the prominence of Judge Sloviter to make a quick buck and sling some mud at her. Shame on her, hope it comes back to bite her in the butt some day. (Or maybe it already has: bravo Cleary!)

I'm going to be releasing a novel loosely based on my summer work experience. It's going to be a profile of the incorrigible janitor that supervised my toilet-scrubbing duties.

I'm calling it "Chamber Pot."

6:39--
I guess you can always make your point by making flawed analogies and by changing the argument. But boy, you really beat the crap outta that straw man.

As one commentator has already pointed out, the issue is not the "moral calculus of the judge being a huge dehumanizing bitch." It is whether it is an appropriate response to publish a book trashing your judge just because you had a bad experience.

And the law school analogy is well off the mark. Anybody can get into law school. But, as 4:13/5:54 pointed out, the trash can of a federal judge is filled with applications coming from law students of Harvard, NYU, Columbia, etc. There are far more qualified applicants than there are positions. Thus, even for the most qualified applicants, fortune (or inside connection) plays a role.

Can we all agree on a few points?

First, Rao did this for the bucks not because of some grand injusitice that is being done by a "cone of silence" by the thousands of law clerks out there (ps. its not a grand conspiracy, its just that most of us understand the duties of being a clerk both during and after the clerkship). I'm not saying she doesn't have a right to make a quick buck anyway she wants but let's all agree that Rao is not doing this for some grand moral reason.

Second, can we agree that her boss doesn't deserve this? I don't know this judge and frankly I don't care. We all have bosses that can be bitchy. I work for a few insane partners everyday. However, a 70-year old judge that lost her husband isn't exactly someone I think who deserves this kind of publicity no matter how much of a crank she was. You want to skewer OJ, go for it. But, an old, widowed judge? Because, she was mean to you? C'mon.

Third, I think its basic knowledge that the reviews of this book (as far as I know) have't been positive. Some, including Lat, have a personal stake in this so they hype it. Others have given it fairly good reviews but a lot of media have simply said its rather trashy and from what I understand, Rao's main character is just as bitchy as her boss. However, I haven't read the book.

All this leads to one conclusion: the book and Rao don't deserve much respect or admiration.

I know Sloviter through Temple Law's clerkship program.

Here's how I remember her: as part of that program, the students gave presentations on various aspects of the Federal Courts system. At these presentations, Sloviter
(who oversees it) frequently chimed in, as did whichever Judge was present then.

When I gave my presentation, Sloviter jumped in more than normal and spoke at length on a number of the issues. I didn't think anything of it; I wasn't doing too bad a job, and she was talking more than normal, but, frankly, she knew the issues better than I did and everyone got a lot out of it, including me.

The next day I received a written apology from her for being rude by interrupting my presentation so much.

When's the last time your superior *apologized* to you for talking during a relaxed, small group presentation? I was a freaking law student. Most junior associates would have interrupted me and told me to say thank you; a partner would have threatened to fire me for daring to speak when he/she was thinking about speaking.
Sloviter apologized, and not in a phony C-Y-A unprovable way, but in a dignified personal letter.

I guess if your sense of entitlement is so big that you expect a Federal Appellate Judge to treat you with deference just because their chambers are your ticket to a $50k bonus for the brainless corporate law that you'll burn out of anyway and write a whiny book, then she'd get on your nerves, because you're a spoiled brat.

I don't give a damn about whether or not Rao sold out her clerk or violated the clerk 'code of silence' or whatever. The only thing I care about is that she has written one of the crappiest books I've ever read. Her book is rambling and lazy, and the 'main character' (a cipher for Rao) has such contempt for everyone around her that it makes you want to reach into the pages and strangle her. More upsetting than Rao's transgressions against Sloviter is the fact that this book was published at all and is now being optioned by movie producers.

I also clerked for Judge Sloviter in the mid-1990s and agree with what "Jessica" says above. As for ATL's statement that the book's depiction of Judge Sloviter is consistent with "what her former clerks typically say," I disagree. In 2004, to honor Judge Sloviter's 25th anniversary on the bench, a large group of her former law clerks chipped in to purchase a gift that we donated to the National Constitutional Center in her honor. Many former clerks also traveled to Philadelphia to celebrate the judge’s 25th anniversary dinner. Hardly the sort of behavior one would expect if the depictions in Rao’s book were accurate.

"My experience as a clerk for Judge Dolores Sloviter of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was especially valuable because I was fortunate enough to work for an experienced, highly intelligent, hard-working, and skilled judge who takes her job very seriously. Additionally, I liked the judge a lot, learned a great deal from her, and found myself agreeing with her on most issues. I also got to work closely with intelligent and friendly coclerks: together we had a productive, educational, and pleasant year. "

Ed Stein, Prof at Cardozo
http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/life/fall2002/clerkship/