After graduating at the top of your class from one of the most prestigious law schools in the nation with a killer rsum, $63,335 a year does not seem like fair compensation, considering how much successful lawyers earn. Unless the job paying that wage is a clerkship for one of the United States nine Supreme Court justices, of course.

There is a staggering difference in this year’s class of clerks: only seven of 37 are women. While the most important thing is that our Supreme Court has the most qualified and intelligent clerks working for them, they should aim for equality in employment practices.

The New York Times reported on this disparity last week, and it has been a hot issue all summer in legal communities. There have been at least 10 woman clerks every year since 1995, and last year, 16 of the 43 clerks were females, reported the Times.

A Supreme Court clerkship is more than just the most prestigious post-law school position available, it also has extraordinary benefits.

‘It is almost a gateway to anything you want to do next,’ said Leslie Bender, professor of law at the Syracuse University College of Law.

Achieving a position of this magnitude requires both exemplary credentials and a network of connections reaching as high as the federal appeals courts. The competition is fierce and many times those selected take a leave of absence from their law firm to clerk for the high court.

Bender was once a legal clerk for the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals and understands the opportunities created by clerkships. She believes this situation should set off an alarm for professional women and especially women lawyers. Bender hopes this will remind young women entering the field that the battle for equal opportunities is not over.

Minority clerks are also severely under-represented in this year’s class of clerks. According to the website Law.com, only three minority clerks have been hired this year. The highest total of minority clerks came in 2002 when nine were hired, says the Web site.

Only Justices David Souter and Stephen Breyer offered an explanation to the Times, and their reasoning was statistical: ‘(R)andom variation in the application pool.’

Yet Bender finds this line of argument ‘not convincing.’ She believes it can be attributed to a biased law culture, not random events.

‘(The Supreme Court) is not making any effort to reach out to communities they are not used to having around,’ said Bender. She went on to cite the severe under-representation of minority clerks.

The power of a clerk may be overstated by some in the news media. The majority of their work is preparing memos and briefs for the justices. Yet they do have the ear of their justice, giving them a chance to voice their opinions to one of the nine most accomplished judges in the country.

While neither Bender nor I believe there was a conscious discrimination effort made by the justices, the fact remains that the situation reflects poorly on the prestigious institution. Next hiring season, the sex of applicants may factor a little more with the judges. If the hiring patterns return to the norms of years past, the issue will be forgotten. As long as the top law graduates continue to serve in these positions, the Supreme Court will continue to uphold justice.

Matt Reilly is a sophomore political science and public relations major whose columns appear Mondays in The Daily Orange. You can email him at msreilly@syr.edu.

Published on September 10, 2006 at 12:00 pm