I don’t know about your law schools, but where I went to school the notion of clerking for a federal magistrate judge seemed unthinkable. No one really explained what magistrate judges did, it was just widely known that the position wasn’t as prestigious as clerking for an Article III judge.
Personally, I disagree. Clerking for a magistrate judge is an incredibly worthwhile experience, both for your personal growth as well as your professional success. But first, let’s talk about the difference between magistrate and Article III judges.
An Article III judge is a federal judge appointed to the bench by the President upon the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s some fancy talk to mean that an Article III judgeship is a constitutionally appointed, lifetime position.
Magistrate judges, meanwhile, are hired for term positions by the Article III judges in that district. Personally, I am unaware of any magistrate judges for the circuit courts of appeals. To the best of my knowledge, there are only magistrate judges on the federal district court level.
So, what do magistrate judges do? Well, I can only speak to my own experience clerking for and litigating in the District of Colorado. Here, magistrate judges can do it all. In part, that’s because we implemented a pilot program that has since been adopted into our local practice standards allowing parties to consent to use a magistrate judge instead of an Article III judge on a case-by-case basis. Which essentially turns the magistrate judge into an Article III judge for purposes of your case.
That said, even when you do not consent to use a magistrate judge as your Article III, magistrate judges handle all of the pre-trial litigation and discovery disputes except for dispositive motions (motion to dismiss, motion for summary judgment). Even then, some Article III judges will refer dispositive motions to magistrate judges and review the order (technically called a “recommendation”) to see if they will adopt it, overrule it, or amend it in some way.
Here’s the benefit of clerking for a magistrate judge: you learn EVERYTHING about litigating a case in federal district court. You see how a scheduling conference runs, how discovery disputes are handled, how non-dispositive motions are ruled on, and so on and so forth. And that stuff is by far the meat of litigation.
I was lucky in that the Article III judge I clerked for actually handled almost all of these matters on his own. He was the only active Article III judge who handled his own scheduling conferences and discovery dispute calls when I clerked for him, and I believe that is still true. Being able to see and experience that process was invaluable.
The other thing that magistrate judges in the District of Colorado handle are settlement conferences. Which is essentially a mediation except it’s free and overseen by your magistrate judge – someone intimately familiar with your case – instead of a private mediator. Article III judges are not permitted to oversee settlement conferences because the parties need to be able to speak freely to a judge who is not the ultimate decisionmaker in their case.
Again, here’s another instance where I was very lucky. (To keep you on your toes, I actually don’t know of anyone else who has done this.) The judge I clerked for encouraged his clerks to soak up as many experiences as we could when we clerked. That meant watching as many trials – both his own and those overseen by other judges – as possible, watching oral argument and other hearings throughout the building, attending a naturalization ceremony, etc etc. And it meant taking part in settlement conferences (for cases that were not in front of us, of course).
The judge I clerked for encouraged me to reach out to one of the magistrate judges in our building known for his love of and incredible success rate with settlement conferences. So I did. (I’ve told many clerks since I left to do the same. I’m pretty sure none have. We’ll get to a post about putting yourself out there for opportunities later on.)
The magistrate judge was incredibly kind and happy to let me help. And for me, “helping” meant that I learned A TON. I had never seen a mediation or settlement conference before, and now I was going to numerous conferences of my choosing. So which ones did I pick? Civil rights and employment discrimination cases, of course. I saw some of the best (and some of the not-so-best) attorneys in our community in their negotiation element. And I was a brand new, baby attorney with no ties to the Denver legal community outside of my clerkship.
Guess what that also meant for me when I went to look for jobs. It meant I had two federal judges who knew me well, both of whom spoke highly of me to my future employer when the named partners called for references.
But I digress. Back to whether you should apply for clerkships with magistrate judges. In my opinion, that’s a hard yes. If you want to become a trial attorney, then having the skills you gain from clerking for a federal magistrate judge are unparalleled.
If your law school tells you the job isn’t fancy or prestigious enough, stop listening to them. That type of commentary has nothing to do with learning to be a great litigator.
Take every opportunity to learn. Having a prestigious position but limited skills will not help you in the long run. Trust me, I’ve seen it happen. Many people with fancy resumes (including federal district court clerkships) have not been able to cut it at the civil rights firms I know and love here in Colorado, whereas the attorneys with deep skill sets (and sometimes no clerkships) thrive.
Having a shiny resume may help get your foot in the door, but it won’t keep you there. Only your skills and legal acumen will.