ADA to AUSA plan Forum

[nasra234]

*please don't quote*

The answer to the following questions might already have been addressed on other threads, and if so, feel free to post the links. But basically, my long term plan is to be an AUSA, and right now I'm thinking about how I can achieve that goal in the shortest amount of time possible, let's say anywhere from 3 to 7 years after spring 2019 when I graduate. To this end, is it recommended that I clerk at some point? Should I plan to spend some time in biglaw? My preference is not to do biglaw, in fact I turned down the SA offer I received, but if this is a necessary step I'm willing to do it. I wish to be an ADA next fall, but are some offices better than others for the purposes of getting me an AUSA position? In other words, is it possible to rank the prestige of prosecutor offices across the country? For example, Is it easier to get an AUSA position out of the Manhattan office than it is to get one out of, say, Cook County or one of the Boston-area offices like Suffolk or Middlesex? Also, does anyone recommend that I aim at securing an AAG position at some point, maybe after 2 or 3 years of being a county/district prosecutor? Many thanks for your help.

[Anonymous User]

First, yes, you should clerk.

Second, ADA —> AUSA is more about the hiring practices of a given USAO than about the prestige of the local ADA’s office. Basically, some offices (usually the most prestigious) very much prefer to hire out of biglaw, but other offices like to hire state prosecutors. IME, that breaks down roughly between the biggest major metros (they want biglaw) and everyone else (they like state prosecutors). For instance, I was at a national training recently, and I’d say a good 1/2-2/3 of the attendees had been state prosecutors - this was districts like Western District of North Carolina, District of South Carolina, Eastern District of Oklahoma, Western District of New York, District of Alaska, Middle District of Florida, Southern District of Indiana, District of Arizona, and so on. If your goal is SDNY, CDCA, EDVA, maybe NDIL, you are more likely to benefit from a biglaw background.

I don’t think which ADA office matters quite as much as the experience you get while there. Manhattan, Cook County, and Suffolk/Middlesex will all get you the kind of experience you need to be competitive, although one thing to consider is if there’s any kind of pipeline between the DA’s office and a given USAO (for instance I think USAO MA tends to like biglaw backgrounds but I know of Middlesex ADAs who’ve been hired there recently because they have pertinent experience with the local drug/gang cases USAO MA is targeting these days). Usually a district that likes to hire state prosecutors will hire out of their district because they want that local experience, though not invariably. But I don’t think offices that hire state prosecutors will generally think something like “we like candidate X better than candidate Y because X’s DA’s office is better than Y’s.” It will be more, “X has done more years of violent crime/has tried more jury trials/has supervised other attorneys in that office/has a better writing sample/interviewed better.”

I don’t think an AAG position is necessarily required but it will depend a little on how that state divides up criminal prosecutions and what you’d be doing as an AAG. Probably the biggest advantage would be working more complex economic crimes, as well as maybe the more advanced/complex drug/gang investigations. But plenty of people go to USAOs without doing a stint as an AAG.

Some of this is simply going to depend on who is doing the hiring and the department priorities at the time you apply. I think one of the reasons there are so many state prosecutors getting hired recently is the huge push to address violent crime and the opioid epidemic. Biglaw doesn’t provide any useful experience for those kinds of offenses. If a district has/prioritizes more complex white collar stuff (fraud/economic crimes) (as in, say, an SDNY kind of office), biglaw as a background makes more sense. Although I think some districts simply have a culture of preferring biglaw/traditionally elite backgrounds, and some don’t (because every USAO is going to have tons of cases where a state prosecution background will be more relevant than biglaw).

[Anonymous User]

First, I think it is important to step back and think what type of prosecutor you want to be. If you want to do complex fraud or cyber prosecutions at a USAO, then your best bet is to clerk, go to biglaw for a couple years and learn how handle complex document intensive cases, and then cycle to the USAO. If your goal is to do street crime, then I think ADA ----> AUSA makes sense. So the first question is figuring out what type of prosecutor you want to be and that's a step that I think is often missing in the analysis at TLS. People want to be prosecutors, but folks don't understand that a person's experience as a prosecutor is largely driven by what they prosecute. And different paths make sense depending on the type of cases you want to prosecute.

Second, budget constraints are real and impactful in USAOs. What that means is that the farther away from law school you are, the more expensive you will be to hire in a USAO. Management will balance what value you're likely to add against how expensive you are to bring in as an AUSA. Separately, against this backdrop, many offices prefer hires that a sufficiently junior as to be able to train them in the "right way" to prosecute crimes. That is to say, many offices are wary of hiring candidates that may have picked up bad habits at other institutions. As an ADA, I'd say the longer you've been out, the more attractive you'll be to offices that have significant street crime and ADAs that come from exceptional offices such as Manhattan can often transition to these offices despite being 5-7 years out. Conversely, if you stay fewer years and then transition, you can tout your courtroom experience, but you probably won't have the experience prosecuting more complex crime. Still, I've seen ADAs transition to AUSA after finishing their initial commitment (usually 3-4 years).

Third, as to your specific questions: (1) it is impossible to rank the offices based on likelihood of getting an AUSA position. My general belief is that if you stick at it long enough and apply broadly, you'll eventually make it to an AUSA. The more rigid you are, e.g., "I only want to be an AUSA at SDNY, EDNY, EDVA, etc" the less likely you are to get an AUSA position. If you want to guarantee getting into the most prestigious offices, become a Supreme Court clerk or a litigator at Wachtell. Short of that, its a crapshoot for just about everyone. So be prepared to apply broadly. (2) I don't think getting an AAG position would help you get an AUSA position. If you can't get an AUSA position from being an ADA, I don't think you'll be able to secure it by transitioning to as an AAG ----> AUSA. (3) federal clerkships always help and its a fun job. I would do it pre-ADA though. (4) biglaw is not necessary to be an AUSA. In bigger cities, the USAO typically hires from firms, but not exclusively. In other districts, ADAs are highly sought after as ideal candidates for AUSA positions.

Good luck.

[nasra234]

(3) federal clerkships always help and its a fun job. I would do it pre-ADA though.

I was actually considering working as an ADA for 2 - 4 years, and then clerking. Is there any particular reason why you think clerking first is the better option?

[bigcityattorney]

In the N.Dist.Ill., the most common background is a clerkship at the Dist.Ct. or even at a Cir.Ct. of Apps. Former biglaw associates are also common. Former ADA's are rare, although they do exist.