By Victor Li
October 14, 2026, 11:55 am CDT

For generations, ambitious law students navigating the rigorous and high-stakes process of securing a judicial clerkship have operated under a pervasive assumption. The conventional wisdom across many law school campuses has long held that politics and partisan alignment are the ultimate deciding factors in who gets hired to work inside a judge’s chambers. Students frequently worry that their ideological leanings, or a lack of explicit alignment with the prevailing political winds of a given bench, might automatically disqualify them from consideration.

However, a comprehensive new study reveals that this widespread belief is largely a misconception. According to extensive research based on detailed interviews with 194 federal and state judges, practical considerations, personal capability, and long-term compatibility heavily outweigh political ideology when judges evaluate prospective law clerks.

The findings were highlighted in a story published Monday by Reuters, shedding light on the behind-the-scenes realities of judicial hiring. Titled What Judges Want, the study was authored by a prominent team of legal scholars: Tracey George, a professor at the Vanderbilt University Law School; Mitu Gulati, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law; and Albert Yoon, a professor at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. Together, these researchers sought to demystify a process that often feels opaque and intimidating to aspiring lawyers.

Instead of focusing on partisan litmus tests, the judges surveyed by the research team placed their primary emphasis on finding candidates who possess the practical capacity to meet the demanding workload of the job, the interpersonal skills required to get along with everyone in a small and often isolated chambers, and the desire to stay connected long after the clerkship has concluded.

According to the study’s data, experience and maturity ranked among the top factors that judges look for when reviewing applications. In addition to professional maturity, judges heavily weigh recommendations and personal vouching from trusted sources, such as law professors who know the candidates well and other respected members of the judiciary whose judgment the hiring judge trusts.

Perhaps most striking to observers accustomed to the hyper-polarized nature of modern American politics, the study revealed that only 39% of the surveyed judges raised politics or ideology as a factor they considered during the hiring process. Furthermore, not a single judge surveyed stated that they hired clerks expressly for shared political views. In an era where political polarization frequently infiltrates nearly every major institution in the country, the judiciary appears to maintain a more pragmatic approach when selecting the individuals who will work intimately alongside them on complex legal matters.

The research also uncovered a notable nuance regarding ideological organizations on law school campuses. According to the study, no judge reported that they would exclusively hire members of right-leaning organizations, such as the Federalist Society, nor did any judge state they would exclusively hire members of left-leaning groups, such as the American Constitution Society. While involvement in these groups may occasionally intersect with a candidate’s broader network or background, they do not serve as absolute gates or mandatory prerequisites for employment in the vast majority of chambers.

Beyond politics, the study took a closer look at academic metrics, revealing that traditional law school grades do not always carry the supreme weight that many students imagine. For some judges, raw grade point averages and transcripts can actually be misleading or unreliable metrics when it comes to predicting who will excel in the day-to-day environment of a judicial chambers or who will build a strong, collaborative working relationship with the judge and fellow clerks.

Rather than simply stockpiling a roster of the highest-ranking students based strictly on GPA, the study found that a significant number of judges are actively looking for human qualities—individuals with whom they can develop deep, lifelong bonds. Because a clerkship typically involves long hours working in close proximity to the judge and a small staff, relational dynamics are paramount to the functional success of the office.

As the report noted, according to Reuters, judges are frequently looking for much more than temporary legal assistance. "In many cases, judges are choosing ‘confidants for life,’" the research highlighted, illustrating the deeply personal and enduring nature of the mentor-protege relationships that often emerge from a successful clerkship year.

For law students and recent graduates preparing to enter the competitive clerkship market, these findings offer both reassurance and a practical roadmap. Rather than obsessing over ideological positioning or attempting to reverse-engineer what a judge might think on specific political controversies, candidates would be better served by focusing on cultivating professional maturity, securing strong endorsements from trusted mentors, demonstrating their ability to handle rigorous legal work under pressure, and showing that they can work collaboratively within a tight-knit professional team.