Is it hard to be an AUSA in California? Forum

[Anonymous User]

So, at NDCA there are 2 main groups of people who get hired.

1) Biglaw/clerkships. These guys have borderline SCOTUS level credentials. Some actually clerked for SCOTUS. Just off the top of my head there are currently former Kleinfeld, Fletcher, O'Scannlain, Boudin, and RBG clerks. Even for them, a call from a former AUSA is mandatory to get the app looked at.

2) Former DAs. Less well credentialed, come from UC Hastings and similar schools, and then put in about 5 years at Contra Costa or similar DAs offices. Note that this is a much smaller group.

Also, top 1/3 at a T20 is not competitive for 9th Circuit anywhere or any time. Not Kleinfeld in Fairbanks. Not even the random dude in Pocatello, Idaho.

I don't think this is accurate. A quick search on linkedin demonstrates that many of the former biglaw associates turned AUSAs have no where near SCOTUS level credentials. Some are even from law schools further down than the OP. While some AUSAs have SCOTUS level credentials, they are hardly prerequisites at ANY office in the country.

Additionally, for another reference point, I did not have a former or current AUSA call on my behalf and got an interview (which I declined), so the notion that an applicant has to have an AUSA call on their behalf to even have the app looked at is, in my experience, false. OP certainly has a tough climb, but making it seem impossible by inflating the credentials needed to get looked at is ridiculous. OP has a solid shot if he gets a clerkship and gets good experience. Of course, nothing is guaranteed as people from YLS often have trouble securing AUSA positions.

Just another thing to keep in mind: Who knows who the next President appoints to the USAO - - that person's hiring criteria may focus less on elite law schools, and more on substantive experience, so the notion that OP should give up now when he'll looking to make the move years from now is crazy.

OP: What I did notice is that virtually everyone who was listed as starting in the last couple of years had a clerkship. So, you should get a clerkship. Also, many of the former biglaw hires came from main justice or other AUSA offices, so you might view a stint at main justice, or another USAO, as a way to get credible experience to leverage in an application to NDCA or CDCA.

I wasn't inflating the credentials. The list of clerkships I provided are for people I worked with directly at the NDCA USAO. Borderline SCOTUS may have been a slight exaggeration, but everyone I worked with clerked on the circuit level, could have done so, or entered the office via the ADA path.

I am not disputing your personal knowledge. All I'm saying is that it is a fallacy to extrapolate the credentials from the people you work with at NDCA and then to generalize that OP needs those same credentials to get the job. And as I mentioned, unless the profiles on linkedin are fake, there are many people at NDCA who did not clerk on the circuit court (or have an district court clerkship in a sexy district) and still made it to AUSA via the biglaw path. Also, I'm sure you'd concede that qualifications for any USAO can change with administrations, so what is needed today is not necessarily what is needed in a new administration with a new USA.

[Anonymous User]

Yes the hiring preferences can certainly change with the new USA. Definitely agree with that. Not sure what Brian Stretch's current preferences are, but he's likely just steadying the ship since he's only acting.

The last thing I want to say on this is that NDCA usually hires about 8 people per year. So I'll concede that maybe it's possible as an average biglaw refugee with no prior commitment to public service or sterling credentials, but it seems exceedingly unlikely to me.

[Anonymous User]

Yes the hiring preferences can certainly change with the new USA. Definitely agree with that. Not sure what Brian Stretch's current preferences are, but he's likely just steadying the ship since he's only acting.

The last thing I want to say on this is that NDCA usually hires about 8 people per year. So I'll concede that maybe it's possible as an average biglaw refugee with no prior commitment to public service or sterling credentials, but it seems exceedingly unlikely to me.

As a current clerk within the circuit and clerking next year in a different circuit with t14, cum laude, 4 years v50 (non-"elite") white collar practice who singularly wants to from clerking to AUSA (not necessarily CA...any major city) this entire post has been super depressing. However--and again, not calling into question personal knowledge--I do know someone who was at least in the running for LA AUSA with a CA district court clerkship and not much else outlined above. I'm sure his judge called and I suppose he had a public interest background but not prosecution based and he was very close. Just a data point. And trying not to bum myself out. Moving all over the place to clerk just for AUSA and finding out it's impossible is super sad on a Saturday.

[Emma.]

NDCal requires a minimum of 3 years post grad WE, but don't expect to get hired if you are at that ninimum. I know a SCOTUS clerk with trial experience who had to apply multiple times before getting the job.

[ArtistOfManliness]

Yes the hiring preferences can certainly change with the new USA. Definitely agree with that. Not sure what Brian Stretch's current preferences are, but he's likely just steadying the ship since he's only acting.

The last thing I want to say on this is that NDCA usually hires about 8 people per year. So I'll concede that maybe it's possible as an average biglaw refugee with no prior commitment to public service or sterling credentials, but it seems exceedingly unlikely to me.

As a current clerk within the circuit and clerking next year in a different circuit with t14, cum laude, 4 years v50 (non-"elite") white collar practice who singularly wants to from clerking to AUSA (not necessarily CA...any major city) this entire post has been super depressing. However--and again, not calling into question personal knowledge--I do know someone who was at least in the running for LA AUSA with a CA district court clerkship and not much else outlined above. I'm sure his judge called and I suppose he had a public interest background but not prosecution based and he was very close. Just a data point. And trying not to bum myself out. Moving all over the place to clerk just for AUSA and finding out it's impossible is super sad on a Saturday.

At least it's a Saturday and you can drink your woes away?

[Anonymous User]

Yes the hiring preferences can certainly change with the new USA. Definitely agree with that. Not sure what Brian Stretch's current preferences are, but he's likely just steadying the ship since he's only acting.

The last thing I want to say on this is that NDCA usually hires about 8 people per year. So I'll concede that maybe it's possible as an average biglaw refugee with no prior commitment to public service or sterling credentials, but it seems exceedingly unlikely to me.

As a current clerk within the circuit and clerking next year in a different circuit with t14, cum laude, 4 years v50 (non-"elite") white collar practice who singularly wants to from clerking to AUSA (not necessarily CA...any major city) this entire post has been super depressing. However--and again, not calling into question personal knowledge--I do know someone who was at least in the running for LA AUSA with a CA district court clerkship and not much else outlined above. I'm sure his judge called and I suppose he had a public interest background but not prosecution based and he was very close. Just a data point. And trying not to bum myself out. Moving all over the place to clerk just for AUSA and finding out it's impossible is super sad on a Saturday.

FWIW, if you're not wedded to NDCA or CDCA I don't think it's quite that bad. Those are particularly competitive districts.

[redsoxfan1989]

you should also try to get some IP litigation experience.

Is this ND Cal specific advice or does it apply to other jurisdictions?

[Anonymous User]

A good acquaintance had 3 years of white collar defense work and clerkship under his belt. He also did litigation work for about 3 years before the WC work. He was also really involved in networking. He got the ASUA position in a major city.

His background seems cut out for ASUA

[Anonymous User]

you should also try to get some IP litigation experience.

Is this ND Cal specific advice or does it apply to other jurisdictions?

Pretty sure this is ND Cal specific, because of the tech industry there. IP lit is not relevant at all in my office (not in CA).

[Anonymous User]

Yes the hiring preferences can certainly change with the new USA. Definitely agree with that. Not sure what Brian Stretch's current preferences are, but he's likely just steadying the ship since he's only acting.

The last thing I want to say on this is that NDCA usually hires about 8 people per year. So I'll concede that maybe it's possible as an average biglaw refugee with no prior commitment to public service or sterling credentials, but it seems exceedingly unlikely to me.

As a current clerk within the circuit and clerking next year in a different circuit with t14, cum laude, 4 years v50 (non-"elite") white collar practice who singularly wants to from clerking to AUSA (not necessarily CA...any major city) this entire post has been super depressing. However--and again, not calling into question personal knowledge--I do know someone who was at least in the running for LA AUSA with a CA district court clerkship and not much else outlined above. I'm sure his judge called and I suppose he had a public interest background but not prosecution based and he was very close. Just a data point. And trying not to bum myself out. Moving all over the place to clerk just for AUSA and finding out it's impossible is super sad on a Saturday.

FWIW, if you're not wedded to NDCA or CDCA I don't think it's quite that bad. Those are particularly competitive districts.

One thing to think about, though, is whether you would actually be happy working as an AUSA outside the most competitive districts. As much as OP's selectivity in only wanting ND Cal. or CD Cal. reduces his chances of getting an AUSA gig, it's the right attitude to take if you're only interested in doing sophisticated work. A lot of people seem to recognize that variation exists among the work that you'll see across districts, but I think they still underestimate how big that variation is. The attitude of "AUSA or bust," even to the the extent of "I'm willing to work as an AUSA in any 'major city,'" runs a big risk of making you very unhappy even in the event that you achieve your goal. Even a lot of "major cities" handle mostly unsophisticated cases.

For context, I'm an AUSA in a relatively large city -- it may not be "major" in absolute terms, but it's the second largest city in the state. Most people would look at my job and think that it fits more squarely within the common understanding of an ADA position rather than the common understanding of an AUSA position. We mostly handle low-level drug and firearm cases. To the extent that we do anything distinctly federal, they're unsophisticated immigration cases. After going to the NAC and talking with a bunch of AUSAs in other similar districts, my experience is more common than not. Don't get me wrong, I like my job. But I also didn't have the "AUSA or bust" mentality. I would have been perfectly happy working as an ADA, and I applied to ADA positions just as broadly. I only preferred an AUSA job because of the familiarity given that my law school/clerkship experience were in federal court. A person married to the idea of doing prestigious and sophisticated prosecutions, though, would be very, very unhappy in my job.

So, anyway, looking at everybody's comments about OP's chances in two very competitive districts may be frightening for someone who wants to be an AUSA. And if you think to yourself, after looking at those grim chances, "it's ok, I'm planning to apply more broadly because I just really really want to be an AUSA," you should think twice about what you want from the job. The super competitive districts are super competitive for a reason -- they're the only districts that do the prestigious and sophisticated work that most outsiders associate with being an AUSA.

[Anonymous User]

^The above is probably largely true, but unsophisticated cases are great for getting the kind of experience being a trial attorney and running investigations that can make you more competitive for a bigger/more sophisticated office. And I think there's probably a bit more of a spectrum (from unsophisticated to NCDA) rather than just a binary (either/or).

But it is probably worth thinking about whether you want to be an AUSA because you want to try cases but in the federal system (usually more resources/time to devote to cases than in state court, for instance), or because you want to prosecute high-level terrorists or complex white collar fraud or the like. In many places being an AUSA is not actually that fancy a job. (Speaking as someone in a non-sophisticated district.)

[Anonymous User]

^The above is probably largely true, but unsophisticated cases are great for getting the kind of experience being a trial attorney and running investigations that can make you more competitive for a bigger/more sophisticated office. And I think there's probably a bit more of a spectrum (from unsophisticated to NCDA) rather than just a binary (either/or).

But it is probably worth thinking about whether you want to be an AUSA because you want to try cases but in the federal system (usually more resources/time to devote to cases than in state court, for instance), or because you want to prosecute high-level terrorists or complex white collar fraud or the like. In many places being an AUSA is not actually that fancy a job. (Speaking as someone in a non-sophisticated district.)

Not op but grad who posted and is clerkig right now. I'm curious as to what the consensus would be on "major city" then, at least in terms of sophisticated work. I'm not super elitist about it (though I would rather not do immigration all day or whatever) but figured Boston, LA, DC, SF, Chicago, NYC, San Diego, Seattle, philly, Denver, and the like would all get fair share.

[jbagelboy]

T20. top 1/3, cum laude (barely made it), EIC of secondary. Current v50 1st year associate in DC. I want to be an AUSA in SF or LA (where I have family). No clerkship exp.

Do I have a shot in 2 or 3 years? If not, what can I do to become more competitive?

Not sure if serious. You have almost zero chance. To maximize chances, work in the white collar group under a big time former AUSA for a few years and crush it.

Yeah. And it should be a white collar group in SF or LA. But you also basically have no chance to lateral to a white collar group in one of those cities. This sounds harsh, but I suggest picking a more realistic dream goal.

But if they got DC biglaw with weak credentials once, it seems like there's something special going on here already. I'd try two years at the firm and apply for central and southern district clerkships, and use that as a spring board--try to get on as many trial teams as you can, since real trial experience is the only way you'll be able to market yourself (since you're not in NY, your office might actually have low enough leverage to make that a realistic possibility). Whatever magic sauce the OP worked for his or her current job they would have to work again.

[rpupkin]

T20. top 1/3, cum laude (barely made it), EIC of secondary. Current v50 1st year associate in DC. I want to be an AUSA in SF or LA (where I have family). No clerkship exp.

Do I have a shot in 2 or 3 years? If not, what can I do to become more competitive?

Not sure if serious. You have almost zero chance. To maximize chances, work in the white collar group under a big time former AUSA for a few years and crush it.

Yeah. And it should be a white collar group in SF or LA. But you also basically have no chance to lateral to a white collar group in one of those cities. This sounds harsh, but I suggest picking a more realistic dream goal.

But if they got DC biglaw with weak credentials once, it seems like there's something special going on here already.

Eh. There is sort of a mythology on TLS about how hard it is to get DC big law. You run into T20, top 1/3rd types at DC firms all the time. It's really not surprising that OP is at a V50 in DC.

But lateraling—as a first-year associate—into a white-collar group in LA or SF is a different kettle of fish. There just isn't that much white collar work in those cities, and the few associates who work in white collar are generally former clerks.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah I summered at one of the leading white collar firms in SF (and a major USAO feeder) this summer. The vast majority of us had clerkships lined up (NDCA/CDCA/CA9 etc.) lined up. I really doubt they're looking for random laterals.

[Anonymous User]

^The above is probably largely true, but unsophisticated cases are great for getting the kind of experience being a trial attorney and running investigations that can make you more competitive for a bigger/more sophisticated office. And I think there's probably a bit more of a spectrum (from unsophisticated to NCDA) rather than just a binary (either/or).

But it is probably worth thinking about whether you want to be an AUSA because you want to try cases but in the federal system (usually more resources/time to devote to cases than in state court, for instance), or because you want to prosecute high-level terrorists or complex white collar fraud or the like. In many places being an AUSA is not actually that fancy a job. (Speaking as someone in a non-sophisticated district.)

Not op but grad who posted and is clerkig right now. I'm curious as to what the consensus would be on "major city" then, at least in terms of sophisticated work. I'm not super elitist about it (though I would rather not do immigration all day or whatever) but figured Boston, LA, DC, SF, Chicago, NYC, San Diego, Seattle, philly, Denver, and the like would all get fair share.

First AUSA above. Boston, SF, Chicago, and NYC are probably the only offices where you'll do a fair amount of sophisticated work. My understanding is that the DC USAO is actually just a DA's office given that they're in charge of prosecuting all local crimes. San Diego is a border district with a military base, so enjoy your hefty caseload of illegal reentries and government contractor theft. I know people in Philly and Denver, and they mostly do drug trafficking and violent crime. No idea about Seattle.

[Anonymous User]

Other small(er) town AUSA here... as a counter, if you're new to litigation, running your own case from inception to trial is plenty to deal with even if the law isn't that complex. There's a lot to be said for "unsophisticated" work for training to be a trial attorney.

[andythefir]

First AUSA above. Boston, SF, Chicago, and NYC are probably the only offices where you'll do a fair amount of sophisticated work. My understanding is that the DC USAO is actually just a DA's office given that they're in charge of prosecuting all local crimes. San Diego is a border district with a military base, so enjoy your hefty caseload of illegal reentries and government contractor theft. I know people in Philly and Denver, and they mostly do drug trafficking and violent crime. No idea about Seattle.

Very specific definition of sophisticated here. Even in a rural state DAs office you can encounter a moderate amount of sophistication in criminal enterprises. To me one of the perks of the USAO is doing a fun job (DA) in a much more sophisticated way, with better judges, better LEO, and so on.

To answer the original question, I don't know firsthand, but I would bet it's stunningly difficult to get into the USAO in California. A friend applied to a snail mail paper position advertised in rural Maine, and they got >100 applications of people willing to pound out the application, print it, and mail it. Attorneys tend to be snobs re where they live, so I would bet California gets a crazy number of applications, many of whom have incredible qualifications. I would also bet that there are a lot of people who apply to other much smaller offices who then try to transfer to California-which is probably your best strategy, too.

On the other hand, California also probably sees more big firm>AUSA>big firm, so there may be more turnover than other offices.

[FascinatedWanderer]

I'm pretty sure LA sees a lot of very sophisticated cases also.

[Anonymous User]

Other small(er) town AUSA here... as a counter, if you're new to litigation, running your own case from inception to trial is plenty to deal with even if the law isn't that complex. There's a lot to be said for "unsophisticated" work for training to be a trial attorney.

For sure. I just wanted to point out that some biglaw refugees may not be happy with that kind of work if they're used to doing BET THE COMPANY litigation and if they're relying on the common misconception that USAOs are categorically super prestigious.

[Anonymous User]

I'm pretty sure LA sees a lot of very sophisticated cases also.

Sorry. I glossed over the fact that the poster listed LA.

[Anonymous User]

Other small(er) town AUSA here... as a counter, if you're new to litigation, running your own case from inception to trial is plenty to deal with even if the law isn't that complex. There's a lot to be said for "unsophisticated" work for training to be a trial attorney.

For sure. I just wanted to point out that some biglaw refugees may not be happy with that kind of work if they're used to doing BET THE COMPANY litigation and if they're relying on the common misconception that USAOs are categorically super prestigious.

Yeah, totally agree that the work is often a lot less glamorous than people expect.

[Yukos]

Someone mentioned again getting into the civil side is easier than crim. Any thoughts on 1) if that's true and 2) why that's true? While I guess it's not as prestigious as putting away mafiosi and insider traders, the civil side seems to provide a lot of the same advantages -- decent pay, better-than-biglaw hours, public service, some amount of prestige.

[Anonymous User]

Someone mentioned again getting into the civil side is easier than crim. Any thoughts on 1) if that's true and 2) why that's true? While I guess it's not as prestigious as putting away mafiosi and insider traders, the civil side seems to provide a lot of the same advantages -- decent pay, better-than-biglaw hours, public service, some amount of prestige.

I think it's mostly true, although usually (I think) civil sections are smaller than criminal ones. I think mostly it's that the work isn't that different from what you can do in the private sector - at heart, a LOT of what a civil AUSA does is protect the government from being sucked dry by torts/employment discrimination/social security claims, which is kind of like defending any other big corporation, so I think a lot of people feel you might as well get a private sector salary for it (even if the hours are worse). That is, you don't *have* to go to the government to do that work the way you do for criminal (you don't get the public service element in the private sector, but it may not be the most public-service-y feeling public service, if that makes sense).

This is also probably another major city=sophisticated work thing - you probably get more interesting affirmative civil work in SF/LA/NYC etc., but not in the (many) smaller offices.

[Yukos]

Someone mentioned again getting into the civil side is easier than crim. Any thoughts on 1) if that's true and 2) why that's true? While I guess it's not as prestigious as putting away mafiosi and insider traders, the civil side seems to provide a lot of the same advantages -- decent pay, better-than-biglaw hours, public service, some amount of prestige.

I think it's mostly true, although usually (I think) civil sections are smaller than criminal ones. I think mostly it's that the work isn't that different from what you can do in the private sector - at heart, a LOT of what a civil AUSA does is protect the government from being sucked dry by torts/employment discrimination/social security claims, which is kind of like defending any other big corporation, so I think a lot of people feel you might as well get a private sector salary for it (even if the hours are worse). That is, you don't *have* to go to the government to do that work the way you do for criminal (you don't get the public service element in the private sector, but it may not be the most public-service-y feeling public service, if that makes sense).

This is also probably another major city=sophisticated work thing - you probably get more interesting affirmative civil work in SF/LA/NYC etc., but not in the (many) smaller offices.

This makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the response.