Law school career services have long been the gatekeepers of judicial clerkships, often painting an overly rosy picture of these prestigious positions. However, recent investigations and reports suggest that these institutions may be misleading students about the realities of clerking, potentially setting them up for negative experiences in unregulated and sometimes abusive work environments.

Despite the prestige associated with judicial clerkships, the advising provided by law schools often omits critical details about the potential downsides, including hierarchical pressures and mistreatment by judges. This biased information can lead clerks to internalize criticism and remain silent about their experiences, thus perpetuating the cycle of misinformation.

The misalignment of incentives is stark, as law schools prioritize the placement of students in these roles over the actual quality of the experience, sometimes maintaining relationships with judges known for poor treatment of clerks. This focus on prestige comes at the cost of the clerks' well-being, which seldom makes the priority list at these educational institutions.

In a groundbreaking move to democratize information about clerkships, The Legal Accountability Project (LAP) launched the "Glassdoor for Judges" initiative. This platform enables former clerks to anonymously review judges, providing prospective clerks with a more comprehensive view of potential work environments. Since its inception, over 3,000 students and graduates have used the LAP database to steer clear of abusive judges and seek out positive work environments.

Despite the availability of this new resource, some law schools have attempted to block access to the LAP's database, fearing it could deter students from pursuing clerkships under prestigious but abusive judges. This has led to external donors stepping in to fund subscriptions for students, ensuring that they have the necessary information to make informed decisions about their career paths.

The data from LAP paints a concerning picture, with nearly 30% of clerkship experiences reported as negative. With over 100 federal judges flagged as problematic, applicants face significant risks when entering these roles without proper research.

While some top law schools maintain internal databases with feedback from former clerks, these often lack comprehensive and honest reviews, particularly of negative experiences. Fear of retaliation and career repercussions discourage clerks from submitting truthful negative feedback, which results in a skewed and overly positive portrayal of clerking roles.

The challenge is compounded by the rapid turnover of judges and the secretive nature of the information held by law schools, which often fail to warn students about known problematic judges. This lack of transparency and the continued misleading practices of law schools not only endanger the careers of young lawyers but also perpetuate a cycle of abuse within the judiciary.

As the judicial clerkship application process becomes increasingly competitive, especially in a tough job market, it is more important than ever for law students to arm themselves with comprehensive, honest information about potential judges. The LAP's database offers a crucial resource in this regard, ensuring that law students can embark on clerkships with a clear understanding of their prospective work environments.

In conclusion, while law schools continue to emphasize the prestige of judicial clerkships, it is vital for students to look beyond the surface and seek out reliable sources like LAP's database. This will enable them to avoid detrimental experiences and foster a healthier, more transparent judicial clerkship system.