Justice Melissa Hart spoke on Monday about what aspiring law clerks should consider when applying to work at the Colorado Supreme Court, including the ability to be involved in more than just screening appeals and drafting decisions.

“I think people would be surprised to know — and I don’t know how much this is true in other states — I would say 35-40% of our time is spent in Colorado on this administrative part of the job,” Hart said, referring to the Supreme Court’s rulemaking function for the legal system.

“We’re doing all of those things in addition to wearing our black robes and sitting on the bench,” she continued, “and we get our clerks more or less involved in those things. And I think the clerks love it when they get to get involved.”

Hart spoke alongside members of three other states’ supreme courts during a virtual event hosted by the Brennan Center for Justice’s “State Court Report.” The participants spoke about why law students should not focus exclusively on working for federal judges after graduating.

“When you get into practice, you realize that most of that law that is in the American legal system is at the state. That is evident from the caseloads,” said Justice Goodwin H. Liu of the California Supreme Court. “In California alone, we have on the order of 1,600 state court judges — which is almost twice the size of federal judiciary.”

During the last fiscal year, there were almost 600,000 cases filed in Colorado’s state trial courts, which has approximately 340 judges and justices. In contrast, Colorado’s federal trial court saw approximately 4,000 civil and criminal cases filed during all of 2023.

Hart said that her motivation for joining Colorado’s Supreme Court was to enhance access to justice for civil litigants. To that end, one of her clerks is her “access-to-justice law clerk.”

“I think that’s one of the reasons people apply to me to clerk. Because they know that’s my reputation, that it’s something I care about and work on,” she said.

She also noted that Colorado’s highest court generally has discretion in the cases it accepts, so clerks for the justices “have a unique experience of seeing cases that would be especially consequential” for the state that the court chooses to hear.

However, Justice Melissa A. Long of the Rhode Island Supreme Court said her state does not have an intermediate appeals court. Therefore, she hears cases that are both consequential for the state and for which litigants are simply asking for a second look. 

“That closeness or that sense of it really matters for these particular people is really consequential,” Long said, adding that her court, unlike Colorado’s, often has self-represented litigants appear before it.

Hart also spoke glowingly of the dynamics of the current Colorado Supreme Court, and said the camaraderie extends to the clerks, as well.

“It’s so great. We just really like each other. And we disagree with each other, but we disagree so well it’s really wonderful. And our clerks really like each other,” she said. “It’s fun because it’s intellectually engaging but it’s fun also because it’s fun.”

“My takeaway is I wish I were Justice Hart’s law clerk,” quipped Liu.

In describing who she prefers to hire, Hart, a former law professor, said she prioritizes a candidate’s legal writing grade, their connection to Colorado and anything that demonstrates a focus on public interest law. She also tends to hire two clerks who have just graduated from law school and one clerk who has some years of work experience.

Other participants agreed it is helpful to come to the job with experience beyond undergraduate and law school.

“I currently also have an intern who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and his greatest accomplishment is better than any I’ll ever have,” said Long, “and that is he brought all his troops home alive.”

Kasia Szymborski Wolfkot, who moderated the discussion for the Brennan Center, observed that state supreme courts are able to hear cases based on state constitutional provisions that, while similar to provisions in the U.S. Constitution, may provide greater protections than those recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“For example, state supreme courts, relying on state law, upheld marriage equality before SCOTUS did,” she said.

Judge Caitin J. Halligan of New York’s Court of Appeals — the highest court in New York — agreed state supreme courts generally have the last word on state law absent a federal issue.

“As Justice Hart said, we’re really trying to think about the downstream implications of our writings because those cases will govern the work of all of the courts in our respective states,” she said. “I think the clerks, it’s an opportunity for them to think with a little broader lens.”