When did a D.C. judicial clerk's job search require exclusion from a prospective employer's cases?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1991. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The D.C. courts' Joint Committee asked for guidelines on a judicial law clerk's future employment with a party, counsel, or amicus appearing before the court. The opinion's definition of clerk included student interns. It recognized both the clerk's influence on chambers work and the burden of excluding clerks from many cases involving the District's frequent institutional litigators.
The guidelines said a mere application or request for written information did not trigger notification or exclusion. The trigger was an interview invitation the clerk had not declined or an employment offer the clerk had not rejected. The clerk then had to notify the judge of a prospective employer that had or might have a matter pending before that judge.
As a general rule, the clerk was excluded from matters in which that employer was a party, counsel, or amicus. The guidelines created a narrow exception for the D.C. U.S. Attorney, Corporation Counsel, and Public Defender Service. In those cases, the judge could permit the clerk to continue working only with close supervision and scrutiny of the clerk's work for possible bias.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1991 under the judicial Code then in force. The D.C. Courts' Opinion No. 5 records a revised Code effective June 1, 1995, and Opinion No. 12 records another effective January 1, 2012. Treat these guidelines as historical context and verify current clerkship policies before relying on a particular trigger or exception.
Common questions
Q: Did submitting a job application alone trigger exclusion?
A: No. The guidelines said an application alone did not require notice or precautionary measures.
Q: What event normally triggered the guidelines?
A: An interview invitation that the clerk had not declined, or a job offer that the clerk had not rejected, triggered the stated duties.
Q: What was the ordinary consequence for a prospective employer's case?
A: The clerk was excluded from work on a pending matter in which that employer was a party, counsel, or amicus.
Q: Which employers received the supervised exception?
A: The guidelines named only the D.C. U.S. Attorney, Corporation Counsel, and Public Defender Service; the judge had to closely supervise and review the clerk's work.
Background and rules framework
The Committee cited then-applicable Canon 3C(1)'s impartiality principle for judges and considered its application to law clerks. The appended guidelines set out the specific notice, exclusion, and supervised-exception rules. The opinion contrasted those rules with federal judicial ethics committee opinions addressing prospective clerk employment.
Citations and references
Judicial conduct provisions cited in the opinion:
- Canon 3C(1), judicial disqualification when impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Other opinions cited:
- Federal Judicial Conference Advisory Opinion No. 74, offers of clerk employment.
- Federal Judicial Conference Advisory Opinion No. 81, a clerk's prospective employment with the U.S. Attorney.
See also
Source
- Landing page: D.C. Code of Judicial Conduct and advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion No. 1
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1991. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace