• Is this the end of paper applications?

No, judges still may choose to receive clerkship applications in paper form. They may use the new version of OSCAR simply to advertise their clerkship positions and specify that they wish to receive applications in paper rather than electronic form. Even judges who will not have clerkship positions open are encouraged to use OSCAR to communicate that fact so that they avoid receiving unwanted applications. The goal of the merger is simply to consolidate information and staffing.

• Will every federal judge be included?

All federal judges will be listed initially at least by court and name, but they will retain the freedom to decide whether or not to post clerkship information. For those judges who do not post clerkship information, a notation of “no information available” will be displayed. Law schools should please encourage eligible judges to post information in the system. Because of different administrative structures, the U.S. Tax Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and the U.S. Supreme Court never have been included in the FLCIS or OSCAR, and that will not change in the immediate future.

• When will the merger take effect?

With the launch of the next version of OSCAR, currently scheduled for Monday, May 5. Judges will receive their annual prompt to enter their information. The big difference this year will be that all the judges – including those who do not wish to receive applications at all, those who wish to receive applications in paper form, and those who wish to receive applications electronically – will have a place in OSCAR to post clerkship information. Another difference is that all categories of users – judges, law school administrators, applicants, and recommenders – will be able to access the new version of OSCAR simultaneously on the launch date of Monday, May 5, without significant downtime for the transition. Consequently, law school administrators and applicants should not consider postings they see on May 5 to be comprehensive, as judges may need several days or even weeks thereafter to post their information.

• What happens to the FLCIS in the meantime – will it be shut down before the new version of OSCAR is launched?

Notice of the upcoming transition will be posted on the FLCIS soon. On Friday, May 2, the FLCIS will be shut down, and the FLCIS web address automatically will redirect users to the OSCAR web address.

• Will clerkship postings existing in the FLCIS get transferred automatically into OSCAR or will judges have to reenter their information manually (such that some information could be lost)?

Because information in the two systems will have slightly different technical structures, automatic transfer is not possible. Judges who previously entered information in the FLCIS will need to enter that information again in the new version of OSCAR. However, the OSCAR program staff will try to capture data in the FLCIS immediately before the effective date of the merger, compare it to data subsequently entered in the new version of OSCAR, and offer assistance to judges who are identified as missing information in OSCAR.

• Aside from the specific clerkship listings, will the general information on the FLCIS (such as “About the U.S. Courts,” “Qualifications, Salaries, and Benefits,” etc.) be included in the new version of OSCAR?

Yes, that is the current intent. If you feel strongly that any of this general information should or should not be included in the new version of OSCAR, please share your thoughts with any of the NALP OSCAR work group members listed below.

• Will the new OSCAR continue to allow schools secure access to judges’ addresses in a downloadable format, for importing into their own internal databases?

Yes. We hope that the format will not even change. If the format does need to change, schools will receive as much advance notice as possible so that they can reconfigure their internal databases as needed. Due to security concerns, OSCAR will not provide judges’ addresses in a downloadable format to applicants directly.