Judicial Accountability: What Does it Mean? – Aliza Shatzman – S6E15

00:08 Rob Hanna:

Welcome to the Legally Speaking Podcast. You are now listening to Season 6 of the show. I’m your host Rob Hanna. This week I’m delighted to be joined by the wonderful Aliza Shatzman. Aliza is the President and Co-Founder of The Legal Accountability Project. She previously served as a law clerk in the Superior Court of the District of Colombia. Aliza has experience as a legal intern at the US Department of Justice and the US Attorneys’ Office, the US Senate and US House of Representatives. She is a passionate advocate, bringing awareness about harassment in the judiciary. So a very, very warm welcome Aliza.

00:53 Aliza Shatzman:

Thanks for having me on the podcast.

00:55 Rob Hanna:

It’s an absolute pleasure to have you on the show. And before we go into all your amazing projects, experiences, and what you’re up to thus far, we have a customary icebreaker question here on the Legally Speaking Podcast, which is on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being very real, what would you rate the hit TV series Suits in terms of its reality?

01:15 Aliza Shatzman:

So I was expecting the question, I’ve never seen the show, so I’m gonna pass on it.

01:22 Rob Hanna:

Based on that, we’re gonna give it a 0 and move swiftly on to talk all about you. So would you mind telling our listeners a little bit about your background and journey?

01:32 Aliza Shatzman:

Sure. So I graduated from Williams College in 2013, in Williamstown, Massachusetts. I was a political science and psychology major and a golfer. Took a couple years between college and law school, interned and worked on the hill. I graduated from Washington University School of Law or WashU in St. Louis, Missouri in 2019. During law school, I kind of got the prosecutor bug, decided that I wanted to be a homicide prosecutor in the DC US Attorney’s Office. So I did 4 different internships in the Justice Department to kind of get a breadth of experience. And then after graduating from WashU, I clerked in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or DC Superior Court during the 2019 to 2020 term.

02:12 Rob Hanna:

Yeah. And you’ve been so successful in what you’ve achieved to date. But I’m curious to know sort of where it all started, because you mentioned you completed your your Bachelors of Arts at William College before obtaining your JD at Washington University. What inspired you to pursue a career in legal?

02:27 Aliza Shatzman:

Yes, I always had a strong interest in justice and probably a sense of moral outrage about issues of injustice, particularly issues affecting women. So I actually interned at Planned Parenthood during undergrad at Williams, thought I wanted to be a reproductive rights litigator. So that was my initial focus going into law school. Then I did a couple interesting internships in different components of the Justice Department, realised that I wanted to be a trial attorney, and then I wanted to be in court and that reproductive rights litigators aren’t in court all that much, although based on the recent Dobbs ruling, I think the landscape might be a little bit different going forward. But yeah, I mean I always knew that I wanted to practice law. I think I just had an evolution during law school in terms of the type of law that I wanted to practice.

03:09 Rob Hanna:

Yeah. And you touched on it there nicely, actually, because you’ve had some incredible experiences, particularly interning at the Department of Justice, you know, the US Attorney’s Office, US Senate, House of Representatives, you know, list could go on and on. You know, what were your experiences as a legal intern, and what were some of the most memorable for you?

03:26 Aliza Shatzman:

Yeah, so I spent my 2L springs, so 4^th semester of law school, interning in the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Illinois in the criminal division. And that was a fabulous experience. They basically treated me like 1 of the prosecutors, I have my own office, I have my own caseload, I got to stand up in court and argue a supervised release revocation hearing, which is basically revoking someone’s parole when they violate their parole. And I got to stand up in court and say, Aliza Shatzman Your Honour for the United States. And it was just such a surreal experience. And the judge accepted my sentencing recommendation. And it was just such positive affirmation of the type of law that I wanted to practice.

04:06 Rob Hanna:

That’s so cool. I’d love to have the opportunity to be able to say that and you’ve had many other opportunities obviously, whilst along your journey as well. I think, you know, you interned at the Office of Vaccine Litigation. So what responsibilities were you given there?

04:19 Aliza Shatzman:

Sure. So the Office of Vaccine Litigation is, it’s an, it’s an aspect of the torts division in the Department of Justice. So basically, they receive claims for financial reimbursement for folks who’ve been legitimately injured by vaccines. And what the office does, I mean, they litigate claims when folks claim they’ve been injured by a vaccine and are seeking monetary compensation to determine whether they have merit or not. So I had a lot of responsibility, and this was my 1^st internship at the Department of Justice. So, going through litigants motions, writing responses, doing a lot of legal research, actually assisting with a case that went to trial in August of that summer, so that was fantastic. There is a vaccine injury compensation fund that many folks don’t know about in the Department of Justice for individuals who are legitimately injured by vaccines. And the point of that compensation fund is really to ensure that people are getting the necessary vaccines with the understanding that if you are harmed, you can seek monetary compensation. So it was a really, it’s a really interesting, and I think, you know, undersold aspect of what the Department of Justice does, though.

05:21 Rob Hanna:

Yeah, no, and thanks for educating on that. And I was quite curious to learn more, so thanks for giving some extra extra insights around that. And as we’ve already heard, you know, you’ve been very successful in securing experiences and internships, and maybe for others who might be struggling right now or looking to try and acquire some experience, you know, can you explain how you went about getting those opportunities? And you know, what wisdom would you share to others who might be trying to seek to do the same thing?

05:46 Aliza Shatzman:

Yeah, so I was very focused from early in law school and public interest law. So I knew that I either wanted to work in a nonprofit or work at the Justice Department. I was very focused on securing those opportunities. I think law schools in the US are very focused on big law, if you want to go to a firm, there are a million resources for them to help you do it. And law schools bring various law firms to campus for OCI, which is the on-campus interview process to help students do that. If you want to do public interest, the resources are much more decentralised, which I mean, I know we’re going to talk later about some of the stuff that my new nonprofit is doing, but ultimately we do help to centralise some of those resources, increase the number of law students who go into public interest, so prosecutors, public defenders, nonprofit trial attorneys. What I did was basically the Department of Justice compiles some resources on its websites, you can go through the internships and apply to different offices. I mean, it’s a lengthy and challenging process. And for folks who want to go into public interest, which I strongly, strongly support and wish more students did, it’s really just about the hustle. It’s about applying and following up and applying broadly. And it’s challenging, because if you are a public interest attorney, you will not have your post grad job until you graduate from law school. You’ll see your friends going into big law, getting their offers after their 1L summer, 2L fall and that can be challenging, but you really just need to persevere. I think, I mean I never wanted to go to a law firm. I went to law school thinking I want to do public interest work and so WashU opened a lot of doors.

07:18 Rob Hanna:

Yeah, no, absolutely. Thanks again, because I think there’s 2 really positive messages that I gained from that, you know, fortune is in the follow up and be persistent and don’t give up. And I love that. So thank you so much for for sharing those pieces of wisdom for how it went for you. And you touched on it lightly there. But I mentioned in the introduction, you are the President and Co-Founder of The Legal Accountability Project. So can you tell us more about this project?

07:42 Aliza Shatzman:

Sure. So The Legal Accountability Project is a new nonprofit that I launched in June of 2022. We seek to ensure that as many law clerks as possible have a positive clerkship experience while extending support and resources to those who don’t. It’s basically aimed at ensuring that law clerks are not facing mistreatment in the workplace. And it’s also about holding misbehaving judges accountable for misconduct. So I became engaged on this issue based on my personal experience with harassment and retaliation by a former DC Judge. I participated in a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing about the Judiciary Accountability Act, which is legislation that would extend Title VII protections to judiciary employees, including law clerks. I’ve just participated in that hearing in March of 2022 and then in the weeks following that, I was received a very positive response to my story, began speaking with my friend and now our Co-founder, Matt Goodman, about ways to further this advocacy work and eventually the nonprofit was born. So, we are working on a bunch of initiatives over the next few years, but the 2 that are receiving the most attention that we’re going to be launching in fall 2022 are a centralised clerkships reporting database and a workplace assessment of the federal and state judiciaries.

08:54 Rob Hanna:

Yeah, and I’m I just want to dig a little bit deep.

08:56 Aliza Shatzman:

I should probably also.

08:57 Rob Hanna:

Yeah go for it, I was gonna say tell us a little bit more detail about that.

08:59 Aliza Shatzman:

So I think I should probably back up here and talk a little bit about clerkships, because it’s, so the clerkship application process in the US is shrouded in secrecy. From the time that law students decide they want to clerk to the time that they are actually submitting those applications, and at every step along the way, there’s just a lack of transparency that I’m trying to combat. So law students can spend a year or 2 working for and learning from a judge following their law school graduation. Increasingly, US judges are looking for law clerks with some work experience, but it’s basically young attorneys who accept a pay cut to spend a year or 2 learning from a judge. And in the best of circumstances this can create a really strong mentorship relationship between judge and clerk, where the judge will help the law clerk secure future job opportunities and career advancements. Law clerks hone their writing and research skills. They go to court with the judge, they learn from the attorneys who appear before the court, they assist with judicial decision making. But in the worst of circumstances it can be cut. It’s a workplace, it’s particularly conducive to harassment, because it’s small and secluded, and there are enormous power disparities between often times life-tenured federal judges and fresh out of law school clerks making it enormously difficult for law clerks to speak out against mistreatment and making it very dangerous because law clerks are now protected by Title VII, and these judicial workplaces also do not have any basic workplace protections. And so the issue here is that law clerks do not have any protections. And that’s 1 of the issues I’m trying to raise awareness of, in terms of our 2 initiatives that we’re launching in fall 2022. So the centralised clerkships database will enable law clerks to make reports about their clerkships, both good or bad, and every law student at every institution that participates will be able to read the reports. It’s a way to look out for misbehaving judges. It’s also a way to know which judges are good to apply to, because the other issue with clerkships is there really is no way in advance of securing your clerkship to learn about judges. What law schools do is they encourage their current students to reach out to alumni from their law schools who clerked for the judge. That’s challenging because law clerks, there’s an enormous culture of secrecy and silence in the legal profession at large that discourages law clerks from providing accurate information about these judges to prospective clerks, if they’ve had a negative clerkship experience. We’re trying to combat these really troubling whisper networks and silo effects that really silo off information to a few schools who warn their students, but even if law schools have information about misbehaving judges, in my work I found that they don’t always share that with students. And even if they share it with their own students, it does nothing for the 1000s of other applicants and other institutions who are just unwittingly walking into hostile work environments. So that is a centralised clerkships database. And then the other initiative we’re working on that we’re very excited about and that stakeholders in the legal community are excited about, is a workplace assessment of the federal and state judiciaries. The judiciary has been notoriously unwilling to collect and report any data about misconduct in the judiciary, about the types of law clerks facing harassment and other mistreatment, and about the actual availability and accessibility of resources in courthouses. So we will be sending that assessment out in the fall of 2022, due to the past 10 to 20 years worth of law clerk alumni, at various institutions, and we are working with law schools on both of these initiatives because I think, law schools have historically been part of the problem, kind of funnelling students into clerkships with known misbehaving judges and really not taking any responsibility for ensuring the law clerks are having a positive experience and not just getting a prestigious clerkship. But I really think they are, they can be part of the solution and they are definitely the best vector for change, because what we know is judicial clerkships are unique for many reasons, but 1 of which is they’re so intrinsically tied to law schools. Law clerk alumni, law school alumni will come back to their law school even 5, 10 years later, if they’re looking for a clerkship or assistance from the clerkships department, for resources and for references from professors. And so we think they are a great vector for change.

13:09 Rob Hanna:

Absolutely. And I love what you’re doing and just the passion, you know, it’s very clear that you’re a passionate advocate. Time for short break from the show. Are you looking for a way to get your firm working more efficiently and profitably, while ensuring a better work life balance for your team? Well, if you haven’t considered our sponsor Clio, I’m here to strongly recommend that you do. I absolutely love working with Clio. Not only is it the world’s leading legal practice management and legal client relationship management software, it also has a really solid core mission, to transform the legal experience for all. Something I personally support. What sets Clio apart for me, it’s their dedication to customer success and support. There are lots of legal software’s out there, but I know from talking to Clio users that their support offering is miles ahead of the rest with their 24-5 availability by email, in app chat and over the phone. Yes, you can actually call in and speak to someone. Clio is also the G2 Crowd leader in legal practice management in comparison to 130 legal practice management software’s and has been for the last 14 consecutive quarters. G2 Crowd is the world’s leading business solutions review website. You can check Clio’s full list of features and pricing at www dot Clio dot com forward slash Legally dash Speaking. That’s www dot C L I O dot forward slash Legally dash Speaking. Now back to the show. And, you know, I want to talk a little bit more, you touched on some of the points there but you know, you’ve done great work and in your journal article, ‘Untouchable Judges? What I’ve Learn about Harassment in the Judiciary, and What We Can Do to Stop it’ you argue “harassment in the judiciary is persuasive, due to both enormous power disparities between judges and law clerks”. You know what power disparities are apparent? And what do you believe needs to be done to amend this matter, just to sort of go into it further?

15:21 Aliza Shatzman:

Yes. So the issue of enormous power disparities is so important, and especially when I’m talking to folks who haven’t clerked, or people outside the legal profession, it is so important to highlight this. Loss, law clerks are either fresh out of law school, or they’ve been working for 1 or 2 years. They are totally dependent on judges for references, for career advancement. And a negative or even a lukewarm reference from your judge can destroy your career and make you unemployable in the legal community. Judges either, federal judges have life tenure, Article 3 judges, Article 1 judges have 10 or 15 year terms and state court judges typically serve for 10 year terms, at which time they are subject to reappointment or reelection. But even folks who don’t have life tenure perceive themselves to. These unfortunately a lot of judges act as if they are above the law, believe that they are above the law, and currently they are not subject to anti-discrimination laws. So it makes it enormously difficult for law clerks to speak out against mistreatment and even in just circumstances where it’s not legally harassment, that, judges are just exerting enormous influence over their clerks. They are, their, law clerks are very restricted in their activities, it’s a very hierarchical workplace. And another thing I like to explain about a judicial chambers is that it is 1 or 2 law clerks, perhaps a judicial assistant and a very, very powerful judge, working long hours in stressful circumstances behind locked doors. And there is no oversight over these judges by a chief judge, by any sort of overarching structure in their day-to-day dealings with clerks. Judges are the most powerful folks in our profession, and they should be acting as if they are above reproach in their day-to-day dealings with clerks and some of the issues I raised in my law journal articles some are specific to the DC courts, which is where I clerked and which are particularly unregulated work environment. But the larger issue is that there is a bill right now before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees called the Judiciary Accountability Act. And that bill would extend Title VII protections to judiciary employees, including law clerks and federal public defenders. So Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is our landmark anti-discrimination law. It protects folks from gender discrimination, harassment, retaliation in the workplace. It enables them to sue their harassers and seek damages for harm done to their lives, careers, future earning potential. In 1964, when that law was passed, it exempted all 3 branches of the federal government. Then in 1995, Congress subjected both itself and the executive branch and 2 different laws to Title VII, is literally only the federal judiciary that remains exempt from this law, and judiciary leadership is just notoriously unwilling to be regulated, which I think is an enormous red flag. So I think the Judiciary Accountability Act.

18:08 Rob Hanna:

No, I think it’s such a it’s such a good point. And yeah, just just finish on what you were saying, because I think passing the act is so important, right?

18:15 Aliza Shatzman:

It’s so important, but I think it is the floor and not the ceiling for workplace protections, for anti-discrimination laws and for judicial accountability legislation. So currently the landscape for federal law clerks and I, it’s a little bit different for state court clerks, they have a few more protections, but not too many. And we should not forget about all the state court clerks. But federal clerks, if you are harassed by the judge you are clerking for, you can file an internal employee dispute resolution or EDR complaint. That’s basically how law clerks can seek to be reassigned, but this process is notoriously not impartial and not confidential because judges in the courthouse where the misbehaving judge and the mystery law clerk work, are the ones presiding over these cases. And they just historically, the comments during the EDR process by judges who run it are like, oh, I think your judge didn’t mean it. He’s such a nice guy. Like that’s, that’s not helpful. I mean, these are the judges who are presiding over anti-discrimination cases every day, and yet they are not subject to anti-discrimination laws. And the other thing a law clerk can do is file a formal judicial complaint under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, that faces the same challenges as EDR, because judges preside over this process, it is notoriously not impartial, not confidential. And those complaints are historically dismissed in the rare instances when law clerks file them, which I think is a red flag that the process is not working effectively.

19:38 Rob Hanna:

Absolutely. And again, thank you for for for shining light on this and giving us a sort of you know, behind the scenes of the reality because I think it’s so important that we understand you know, the reality of the situation. I just want to go back to the same article that you were referencing because you did discuss you know, “institutional barriers you know, pituitary misconduct and discourage reporting”. So you know, you talked about you know, the power that they hold, but you know, why do you think this really is? Is it the fear that people have about what their future holds? Or is it even bigger issue than that?

20:08 Aliza Shatzman:

So it’s a couple of things. It is definitely fear. There’s a lot of fear among law clerks, even the former clerks who reach out to me every day. There is enormous fear about reputational harm in the legal community and retaliation by judges. It is also a larger issue in the legal community of deifying judges and also disbelieving law clerks in the formal complaint process. We have been taught as attorneys since law school that judges deserve absolute respect and total deference and that they can do no wrong. And I think that is such a dangerous myth that we continue to purvey, that attorneys continue to purvey. And I think larger cultural change in the legal community is necessary. The Judiciary Accountability Act and other workplace protections are important, but they will not fix the problem. It’s really about believing and affirming law clerks, it’s about encouraging everyone to bring their full selves to work, even to a judicial chambers. And it’s about saying that no one, regardless of their personality, or identity ever deserves to be harassed or mistreated in the workplace. And I think it’s about, when I think of judges and when I think of judicial appointments going forward, it’s really about treating judges as employers first and foremost. I don’t have a partisan political stake in the game. For me, it is really about protecting the next generation of law clerks. And you know, I think when judges are appointed, and when we think about them, we think about their judicial philosophy and their rulings, but they are running little workplaces, little notoriously unregulated, dangerous workplaces, and we should be questioning how they treat their clerks in their day-to-day dealings with them. And I think how judges treat their clerks, especially behind locked doors, when no one is watching, speaks to who they really are.

21:45 Rob Hanna:

Yeah, what, well said, and I guess, you know, why is this, you know, in modern 2022? You know, why is this still such an under addressed issue?

21:54 Aliza Shatzman:

Judges have enormous power over our profession, over attorneys in the profession. And I think as we allow the next generation of law clerks to continue to go into these hostile work environments, and face mistreatment, and tell them it’s not bother, don’t bother speaking out, because nothing will be done, the judge will not be disciplined. I think we are creating in some instances, cycles of abuse, where a law clerk see, you know, judges deserve absolute respect and total deference, they aspire to become judges, and they engage in the same cycles of abuse, where they expect to be treated with absolute respect and total deference. And today’s law clerks are tomorrow’s big law partners, US attorneys, federal defenders, and judges. And so we need to be changing the culture now. I just, I’m so troubled as I continue to see the legal community deifying these judges. I think it’s an enormous problem. They’re just people. Some of them are good people. Some of them are bad people, but they should be subject to anti-discrimination laws. And they should be, you know, overseen and critiqued for their mistreatment of clerks, because my nonprofit is going to be collecting and reporting some data on the issues of judicial misconduct, and really kind of shining a spotlight on what I believe is a pervasive problem, judicial misconduct, but it’s something we need to talk about. There are more judges right now on the bench, admitting misconduct, mistreating their clerks, then the legal profession cares to admit, and I think at this point any attorney who is not engaged on this issue and who is not concerned is really part of the problem.

23:29 Rob Hanna:

And again, it’s really proactive what you’re you’re doing because you’re you’re trying to fight the change for good, which is absolutely things that we support here on the, on the Legally Speaking Podcast. So taking it a step further than for maybe advice for individuals, what advice would you give to an individual who may be a federal judiciary employee and experiencing any form of harassment right now?

23:53 Aliza Shatzman:

So I am a big believer in reporting. And it’s hard because as I talk about the work that I’m doing, and as I encourage people to file complaints and stand up for themselves, I also know that I’m sharing a story about harassment and retaliation and talking about all the terrible things that happened to me. And on the 1 hand, law clerks might and I think do feel empowered hearing my story, but they might also feel very fearful and wonder, is it worth filing complaint? Is it worth speaking up? Will my career be destroyed? And I mean, will the judge be disciplined because historically they have not been. So with that being said, I’m a big believer in filing a complaint, making a report. If you are a law clerk or judiciary employee currently facing mistreatment, I would give you several pieces of advice. First of all, document things, for emails, keep notes, confide in other folks in your courthouse or in other places and keep track of who you’ve confided in. I mean, I would absolutely file an employee dispute resolution or EDR complaints and I would absolutely file a formal judicial complaint under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. Right now those processes are stacked against law clerks, but I hope they won’t always be. And I’m advocating for changes to both those processes to make them more fair to complainants, to give them the same due process rights that litigants receive in courtrooms where judges are presiding over those cases. But I really think it’s about speaking out standing up for ourselves. I receive messages from law clerks every day sharing their stories, confiding in me, and then telling me they will never speak publicly. And while I’m happy to share my story, and emphasise to people that my story is not rare, it’s really about shining a spotlight on these stories and on these issues.

25:34 Rob Hanna:

Yeah, and again, it’s important that you, you do get a chance to shine the, have the spotlight shone on you because, you know, we need to, sort of create a safer work environment and more professional environment. And finally, you know, what advice would you give to individuals who might be starting out their clerkships and maybe worried about harassment?

25:54 Aliza Shatzman:

Yeah, I mean, that’s a great question. I mean, if you are, if you’ve not yet started your clerkship and you hear something concerning about your judge, it is not too late to turn down the clerkship. And I know that sounds scary, but ultimately it is about protecting the next generation of clerks. So if you start your clerkship and you are concerned, I mean, I would give new clerks the same advice that we give clerks currently facing mistreatment is to document everything, confide in folks, file a complaint if you need to. I mean, there is nothing wrong with leaving your clerkship early. I should say that. I think there is this, for law clerks currently facing mistreatment there is this like troubling belief that you must stay at your clerkship, you must continue to experience the harassment for the entire year. That is not true. You should look for a new job, quit your job if you need to. I mean, I hope that ultimately The Legal Accountability Project will be centralising resources for current and former clerks either facing mistreatment or wanting to file a complaint. But I mean, I also hope that people will reach out to me and share their stories.

26:54 Rob Hanna:

No, no, I hope they do. And that leads nicely to if our listeners did want to learn more about The Legal Accountability Project, what would be the best way for them to contact you? Feel free to shout out any of your social media or web links, and we’ll also make sure we share them with this episode for you too.

27:11 Aliza Shatzman:

Yeah, so our website is Legal Accountability Project dot org. And folks can go on there and read about our resources and sign up for our newsletter and for updates. I’m pretty active on social media Aliza dot Shatzman at Legal Accountability Project dot org is my work address. That’s, I have Twitter and LinkedIn and people reach out to me a lot and I appreciate that.

27:30 Rob Hanna:

Well, thank you so much Aliza, for taking the time to really come on, be open, authentic and also come with a solution to something that you feel and deeply passionate about, and we support here on the Legally Speaking Podcast for creating that change. So it’s been an absolute pleasure having you on the show, but from all of us on the Legally Speaking Podcast, wishing you lots of continued success with your career and pursuits but for now, over and out. Thank you for listening to this week’s episode. If you like the content here, why not check out our world leading content and collaboration hub The Legally Speaking Club over on Discord. Go to our website www dot Legally Speaking Podcast dot com for the link to join our community there. Over and out.