Yale Law School Bars Students From Accessing Information About Abusive Judges
It appears YLS does not want students to access negative information about clerkships, fearing it might dissuade students from clerking for certain prestigious -- and abusive -- judges.
Yale Law School — no stranger to clerkship controversies — has stooped to new lows in its quest to funnel as many students as possible into judicial clerkships, with little regard for the quality of the work environment. YLS barred the use of student organization funds to subscribe to The Legal Accountability Project’s (LAP) Centralized Clerkships Database (“Glassdoor for Judges”) in a feeble attempt to restrict students’ access to candid outside information about clerkships.
LAP, a nonpartisan, independent counterweight to law schools’ near uniformly positive and misleading clerkship messaging and advising, runs an award-winning national clerkships database, a repository of nearly 1,500 candid post-clerkship surveys submitted by former judicial law clerks nationwide about more than 1,000 federal and state judges. This is the largest independent repository of clerkship information in the U.S., and it’s more than twice the size of the YLS internal database. But more important than its size is the breadth and candor of information LAP provides. It’s the only source of candid, unbiased information — about both abusive judges and poor managers to avoid, and judges who excel as managers.
While LAP initially hoped law schools would pay a nominal $5 per student per year in subscription fees to give all students access to this valuable resource, many schools are skeptical — and even hostile. Entrenched school administrators are risk-averse: they benefit from captive audiences — law students (mis)led to believe they depend on their schools for advice. And, because schools go to great lengths to keep clerkship resources secret, students may not know that other schools do things differently, or that LAP provides a significantly better resource than any law school.
Accordingly, LAP took our Centralized Clerkships Database directly to our customers — law students, who pay $40 per year to access more information than their schools could ever provide, since anyone who clerked, anywhere, can submit a survey to LAP’s database. To ensure accessibility, LAP offers a steep discount to law journals and student organizations subscribing in bulk: $5 per user, the same rate their schools would pay.
This year, in addition to four top law reviews, Yale Law Women (“YLW+”) agreed to subscribe on behalf of its 2L members. According to its website, YLW+ “works to advance the status of women and typically underrepresented gender identities at Yale Law School and in the legal profession at large. To realize this mission and advocate on behalf of our membership, [YLW+] create[s] programming, resources, and mentorship opportunities to bolster women’s and underrepresented gender identities’ pursuit of their professional and personal goals.” Since LAP’s database empowers diverse students to access clerkship opportunities, as well as avoid abusive judges and gender-based discrimination and harassment, LAP’s and YLW+’s interests align.
So, LAP was disheartened to learn in November that the YLS administration prohibited YLW+ from using YLW+’s own funds to subscribe to LAP’s database on behalf of its members.
Sponsored
Legal Department Financial Management Tools Decrease Legal Spend
AI Presents Both Opportunities And Risks For Lawyers. Are You Prepared?
AI Presents Both Opportunities And Risks For Lawyers. Are You Prepared?
In fact, the money YLS restricted is not its school-administered student organization budget: rather, it’s privately raised money from law firms. Do these firms know about the unjust restrictions placed on their funds? This funding restriction is neither transparently delineated in YLS’s login-access-only Student Handbook, nor in any of its many robust public policies on its website.
Yet there is no similar restriction, for example, on gender equity organizations subscribing to magazines or newsletters on behalf of, or purchasing reading materials for, members about gender law. And what is LAP’s database, if not important online reading material — and an investment in students’ well-being and on-the-job success?
Why would YLS bar the use of student funds to subscribe to LAP’s database? You should ask yourself why anyone would be opposed to students having more information about judicial clerkships, considering their outsized significance in the legal profession and the risks inherent in these unregulated, hierarchical work environments.
Here are the pretextual reasons YLS gave in an email to student leaders alerting them of this prohibition:
- LAP’s database allegedly “creates a reporting channel separate from Title IX.”
- Privacy and security concerns.
- Several of YLS’s peer schools allegedly agree with them.
Sponsored
Generative AI at Work: Boosting e-Discovery Efficiency for Corporate Legal Teams
Happy Lawyers, Better Results The Key To Thriving In Tough Times
Frankly, schools like Yale — professing a commitment to “free expression,” freedom of thought, and robust debate — should not be in the business of restricting what student organizations can spend their funds on, based on whether or not the administration agrees with the organization’s activities and speech. This is analogous to telling the Law School Republicans or Law School Democrats that they cannot use their funds to attend the Republican National Convention or Democratic National Convention, respectively; that a liberal or conservative organization cannot use their funds to host a speaker the administration finds objectionable (which YLS is loath to do); or like telling YLW+ they cannot use their funds to attend the Women’s March on Washington. This restriction on YLW+’s freedom of expression is no different, and arguably has even greater impact on members’ well-being. YLS’s actions should be met with at least equal disdain.
It is antithetical to YLS’s stated commitment to free expression, to put their thumb on the scales and suppress an organization’s activities and right to self-expression. Of course, student organizations are not fully autonomous: they receive a budget and space to organize. But why charter affinity organizations at all, if you won’t let them act in accordance with their missions — especially with funds they raised privately, not allotted by the school? YLW+’s planned actions harmed no one, and would have helped 77 women law students avoid abusive clerkships.
LAP’s Centralized Clerkships Database, which empowers diverse students to avoid abusive judges and unsafe judicial work environments, is completely aligned with YLW+’s mission of “advancing the status of women and underrepresented identities” by providing “resources … to bolster women’s and underrepresented gender identities’ pursuit of their professional and personal goals.” And ensuring that members avoid abusive work environments is a top priority for YLW+. So, YLS, by intervening and restricting YLW+’s activities, actively hinders YLW+’s mission and harms its diverse members.
Women are both particularly vulnerable to workplace sexual harassment and are significantly underrepresented among judicial clerks. By restricting access, YLS ensures more YLW+ members will be harassed during clerkships or will struggle to access clerkship opportunities — antithetical to their alleged goal of encouraging more students to clerk.
In an effort to diplomatically reach a beneficial resolution, despite YLS’s affront to basic human values and students’ fundamental rights, LAP requested a meeting with YLW+ and the administration to 1) clarify their arguments and 2) advocate for a change in position.
Sadly, YLS deans declined to meet with me, stating that the administration is “unable to meet with product vendors.”
This intentional mischaracterization grossly undervalues the many services LAP provides to students and clerks. In fact, countless YLS students and alumni — including the many mistreated YLS clerks I’ve counseled over the past few years — would consider LAP much more than a “product vendor.” LAP has become the ad hoc clerkships advisor for many in the YLS community. But LAP doesn’t just support aspiring — and mistreated — clerks: we sparked a nationwide advocacy movement that YLS students and clerks are excited to support — one the YLS administration would probably prefer did not exist.
YLS hostility to LAP’s goal — sharing candid information about judicial clerkships with students — should not give the YLS community confidence in their administration’s ability or desire to respond to student needs. More than 90 YLS students and recent graduates subscribed to LAP’s database last year (nearly one tenth of LAP’s database subscribers were from YLS). And, we’re on track to double that number this year. There’s clearly an unmet need — one the administration is unwilling to address.
Before digging into the actual reasons LAP believes YLS is restricting students’ access to LAP’s database, I’ll dismantle YLS’s pretextual arguments — which I would have done in a private meeting, had they been willing to meet with me.
1. Title IX: As Yale’s own website makes clear, Title IX protects students (including law students) against sexual harassment on campus. Specifically,
“[T]his policy applies to students, faculty, and staff, as well as to conduct by third parties (i.e., individuals who are not students, faculty, or staff, including but not limited to guests and consultants) directed toward University students, faculty, or staff members while on campus or participating in Yale programs or activities. [Emphasis added]
Title IX is inapplicable here, since clerks who submit surveys into LAP’s database are alumni, not students.
You’d think YLS would a craft better pretextual argument, considering the overlap between the boards of YLW+ and the Title IX student advocacy group. And YLW+ understands Title IX, since they released a 2020 report about sexual harassment and Title IX reporting.
At a meeting with the administration, I would have asked what YLS considers their “Title IX reporting obligations” to be. Do they believe they have a duty to warn clerkship applicants about abusive judges? To report information about abusive conduct to the federal courts? To encourage mistreated clerks to report misconduct to the federal judiciary? Doubtful.
Some would argue there is potential legal liability for schools that fail to warn students about abusive judges. But YLS would rather not engage with those arguments, as they threaten the Law School’s clerkship project.
Students: knowing YLS believes they have “Title IX reporting obligations,” I’d encourage you to ask administrators which judges to avoid. And, if you’re a YLS alumnus who was mistreated by a judge who YLS misled you to clerk for by withholding information, consider holding them legally accountable.
2. Privacy and Security: LAP provides some information about privacy and security on our website. We’ve been advised by counsel to provide more robust information to individual schools, which we have, including to Yale’s clerkship director. LAP has also met privately with nearly 100 law schools, has conducted product demonstrations for many (including YLS), and has exhaustively explained our robust privacy and security protocols to those willing to hear us out.
LAP is proud of the robust privacy and security measures we’ve implemented. In contrast, Yale’s database, like every other school’s, uses a username/password login system. Students can share login information with friends at other schools. Anyone well-versed in the current clerkship system knows this login-sharing happens, as students frantically search for any information about judges when their school does not provide it.
Instead, LAP’s database is tied to a user’s email account. Whenever they log in, a security link is sent to their email. You might share your login information, but you wouldn’t share access to your email account.
Beyond that, LAP’s database has disabled right-click, copy/paste, print, and save features to limit users’ ability to download and share information. We also have a CONFIDENTIAL watermark on every page with a time-stamp that includes the user’s name and email.
And tracking software allows us to monitor users’ activities. Furthermore, my human eyeballs review every user who registers for database access, and every clerk who submits a survey.
And while clerks who submit surveys to Yale’s database must put their names on them — chilling responses when experiences are negative, because clerks fear reputational harm or retaliation — LAP protects clerks’ privacy by empowering them to submit surveys anonymously, vastly increasing the breadth and candor of submissions. As a former clerk who personally experienced retaliation, I take clerks’ concerns seriously and am attuned to them, because I lived them.
3. Peer Schools: As far as I’m aware, YLS’s actions represent the most significant restriction to date. In fact, at several of YLS’s “peer schools,” the flagship law reviews subscribe to LAP’s database, and their clerkship advisors are fully aware that they do so.
Frankly, it’s not just that YLS’s pretextual arguments are ridiculous and easily dismantled. The real problem is that they did this at all — and they did it because they’ve historically gotten away with this type of gaslighting, while enjoying a lack of pushback from either students or the public. YLS appears willing to do whatever it takes to protect their perceived clerkship prowess. No longer.
Undeterred, LAP offered individual YLW+ members a discounted rate. After all, it’s not their fault their administration is lying to them, though we hope they’ll now make their voices heard about YLS’s nefarious behavior, especially after comparing LAP’s candid database with their school’s misleading one.
Perhaps I should be flattered that YLS is so threatened by LAP’s fairly nascent Centralized Clerkships Database, that they’d go to such great lengths to oppose us. But frankly, I’m concerned for the students.
Some YLS students know their school is misleading them and withholding information about abusive judges. At LAP’s fall 2024 campus event, one student pointed out the law school’s “misaligned incentives,” which cut in favor of funneling students into abusive clerkships and protecting abusive judges (particularly abusive YLS alumni judges), rather than a duty of care to students.
Sadly, too many students do not know their school’s database is incomplete and misleading, and that LAP offers a better option. I imagine YLS would prefer students not know they barred the use of student funds: now, they’ll be forced to explain themselves.
For a school that professes (at least superficially on their website) a commitment to free expression; diversity, equity, and inclusion; and robust debate, these claims ring hollow when YLS is confronted with speech it does not like, or that does not jibe with its institutional interests.
Why suppress this particular free expression? It’s unwelcome when it threatens YLS’s clerkship machine — one that functions best (for the school) when students have as little information about judges as managers and workplace conduct as possible and cannot make truly informed clerkship decisions.
It appears YLS does not want students to access negative information about clerkships, fearing it might dissuade students from clerking for certain prestigious — and abusive — judges. Of course, YLS students will always get clerkships: they can afford to be choosy. And, frankly, it’s not “choosy” to decide not to subject yourself to abuse.
Some administrators and faculty fundamentally believe negative information about judges should never be put in writing and that LAP’s database — containing candid information about judicial work environments — should not exist. The status quo benefits them (though not their students). They value their relationships with prestigious judges and would prefer not to know if they are abusive. The clerkships “whisper network” worked just fine for them, so why change things?
Frankly, some faculty engage in revisionist thinking about their own negative clerkships. Perhaps they endured mistreatment themselves and believe others should suffer through it, too. It’s no surprise these views flourish at YLS, infamous for both inviting notorious Ninth Circuit harasser Alex Kozinski to campus, and funneling attractive female students to clerkships with Brett Kavanaugh.
In fact, YLS once signaled a commitment to reform — in 2020, around the time a former Reinhardt clerk testified before Congress about sexual harassment she experienced. YLS created a Committee on Judicial Misconduct and Reporting, in collaboration with YLW+. Unfortunately, that committee’s report and recommendations went nowhere. Should YLS want to renew their commitment to clerkship reform, they should start by subscribing to LAP’s database!
Perhaps some judges will leap to the defense of YLS, lauding them for trying to suppress access to a nationwide Centralized Clerkships Database they cannot control or even see. But those judges, like Yale’s administrators, are telling on themselves. Because only someone with something to hide about their own conduct would oppose an initiative designed to facilitate more transparent information about judicial clerkships and prevent workplace abuse, particularly for historically marginalized groups.
When pressed on the subject of abusive judges, YLS advisors will tell students they’ve “heard mixed things” so students should “do their research” before applying. But, of course, if the only resource students have access to is YLS’s database, containing fewer than 10 negative surveys out of hundreds, can students really do informed research? That’s insufficient “research” for a YLS legal research paper; it is certainly not sufficient as you contemplate one of your most important early career decisions — whether and for whom to clerk. There is only one way to know which judges to apply to, and which to avoid — LAP’s Centralized Clerkships Database.
Fortunately, YLS students and alumni no longer have to accept administration gaslighting. They should vote with their feet.
Students: register today for LAP’s Centralized Clerkships Database for just $40 for the real deal on clerking. You no longer have to rely on your administration’s lies. Then, make your voice heard. You are powerful. Your law school benefits from boasting about graduates’ prestigious clerkships, with little regard for whether those experiences are positive. Sometimes, the law school literally benefits off of graduates’ misery.
Law clerk alumni: Share your clerkship experiences in LAP’s database and contribute to this nationwide transparency effort. Do not share your experience in YLS database — not until they subscribe to LAP’s database and make information broadly available to students. Your clerkship experience is yours, not your school’s. And there is no better example that knowledge is power, than LAP’s database. Send a powerful message to the administration about demanding transparency, accountability, and equity in clerkship advising.
YLS counts on disempowering students from fighting back against injustice. They rely on students’ silence. What they didn’t bargain for, I imagine, is an organization like LAP: not afraid, not beholden to anyone, and certainly not staying silent in the face of injustice.
If students rise up and demand change, the administration cannot look away. You do not need YLS to facilitate your clerkship research, especially when they’re harming rather than helping you.
Many in the legal industry will see YLS’s actions for what they are: a thinly veiled, pathetic attempt to ensure that the students who need LAP’s clerkship information the most, may not be able to access it, and will remain beholden to YLS for whatever crumbs of information are tossed their way. I worry about the students LAP has not reached, who may not understand their school is lying to them about clerkships. LAP is not. Students can compare for themselves.
Yale Law School has historically received a free pass in conversations about judicial accountability. Now, through clerkship transparency, the administration — as well as the abusive judges it protects and misleads students to clerk for — will be held accountable for their reprehensible practices.
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 [email protected] and follow her on Twitter @AlizaShatzman.
