Top Law Schools

1L here ... Just interviewed with a branch of the ACLU in a major city, and I think there's a strong possibility they'll give me an offer in the next week. I also applied to 2 USAO's in the area and am in the process of scheduling an interview with one. Assuming I get an offer from the ACLU, should I accept it, or decline in the hopes of getting a USAO job? For what it's worth, I'm sure I would enjoy either experience, but since the hiring timetables are different, I may have to make a difficult choice before very long.

long term goals?

Bird in the hand.

Seriously, it's your 1L summer. It's a legal job you think you will enjoy. Take the ACLU if you get offered it. (Unless you have an interview with the USAO and think you can swing getting an offer before you need to get back to the ACLU.)

Anonymous User wrote:1L here ... Just interviewed with a branch of the ACLU in a major city, and I think there's a strong possibility they'll give me an offer in the next week. I also applied to 2 USAO's in the area and am in the process of scheduling an interview with one. Assuming I get an offer from the ACLU, should I accept it, or decline in the hopes of getting a USAO job? For what it's worth, I'm sure I would enjoy either experience, but since the hiring timetables are different, I may have to make a difficult choice before very long.

Take the offer thats on the table. I used to work in a USAO as litigation support staff and I was really close with the AUSA that was in charge of the summer class and I can tell you that it is EXTREMELY difficult to get a summer gig there. Since the recession the quality and number of applicants wanting to do unpaid work for USAOs is way up. All but a hand full from the last two years were from t14 schools and those that weren't were from the most prestigious state school.

In the case you get both you may be able to split. About half the summer class for my office was splitting between working for fed judges or firms.

Moral_Midgetry wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:1L here ... Just interviewed with a branch of the ACLU in a major city, and I think there's a strong possibility they'll give me an offer in the next week. I also applied to 2 USAO's in the area and am in the process of scheduling an interview with one. Assuming I get an offer from the ACLU, should I accept it, or decline in the hopes of getting a USAO job? For what it's worth, I'm sure I would enjoy either experience, but since the hiring timetables are different, I may have to make a difficult choice before very long.

Take the offer thats on the table. I used to work in a USAO as litigation support staff and I was really close with the AUSA that was in charge of the summer class and I can tell you that it is EXTREMELY difficult to get a summer gig there. Since the recession the quality and number of applicants wanting to do unpaid work for USAOs is way up. All but a hand full from the last two years were from t14 schools and those that weren't were from the most prestigious state school.

In the case you get both you may be able to split. About half the summer class for my office was splitting between working for fed judges or firms.

I probably should have added that I'm at Harvard. Splitting isn't allowed at this ACLU office, so that's not an option. I'm not sure what my long-term goals are yet, just that I want to do litigation in some capacity. Do USAO jobs look better on the resume? I didn't think it would be that hard to snag one since looking in our school's database I can see that dozens of 1L's got them last year.

I don't know which is more "prestigious," but I know that a lot of employers were impressed with having the ACLU on my resume during OCI. (That said, one or two conservative interviewers were somewhat hostile as a result of having the ACLU on my resume).

USAO offices look much more impressive on your resume. They also go a long way towards helping you eventually land a job there (because you will have recommendations from former USAOs AND you can show an interest in working there).

Oh, also? THEY ARE ALL FUCKING GUILTY. ALL OF THEM. They would not have been arrested by the Feds if they were innocent. Those guys don't screw around. Local police? Sure, I suppose a defendant might be innocent... maybe. But if an AUSA has gone so far as to begin a trial against you, then you fucking did it.

Voyager wrote:USAO offices look much more impressive on your resume. They also go a long way towards helping you eventually land a job there (because you will have recommendations from former USAOs AND you can show an interest in working there).

Oh, also? THEY ARE ALL FUCKING GUILTY. ALL OF THEM. They would not have been arrested by the Feds if they were innocent. Those guys don't screw around. Local police? Sure, I suppose a defendant might be innocent... maybe. But if an AUSA has gone so far as to begin a trial against you, then you fucking did it.

I have never met a more serious and prepared attorney than the AUSA's i've met. These guys do not mess around.

Voyager wrote:USAO offices look much more impressive on your resume. They also go a long way towards helping you eventually land a job there (because you will have recommendations from former USAOs AND you can show an interest in working there).

Oh, also? THEY ARE ALL FUCKING GUILTY. ALL OF THEM. They would not have been arrested by the Feds if they were innocent. Those guys don't screw around. Local police? Sure, I suppose a defendant might be innocent... maybe. But if an AUSA has gone so far as to begin a trial against you, then you fucking did it.

Eh. Myth. I've seen some pretty bizarrely laughable cases presented by the USAO.

Moral_Midgetry wrote: Take the offer thats on the table. I used to work in a USAO as litigation support staff and I was really close with the AUSA that was in charge of the summer class and I can tell you that it is EXTREMELY difficult to get a summer gig there. Since the recession the quality and number of applicants wanting to do unpaid work for USAOs is way up. All but a hand full from the last two years were from t14 schools and those that weren't were from the most prestigious state school.

In the case you get both you may be able to split. About half the summer class for my office was splitting between working for fed judges or firms.

What kind of numbers did you or other people have? I just applied to the USAO in my hometown (GA or FL) and I was wondering how high my grades need to come back to have a shot. I go to Emory-- only have legal writing back, but it was an A.

Tanicius wrote:

Voyager wrote:USAO offices look much more impressive on your resume. They also go a long way towards helping you eventually land a job there (because you will have recommendations from former USAOs AND you can show an interest in working there).

Oh, also? THEY ARE ALL FUCKING GUILTY. ALL OF THEM. They would not have been arrested by the Feds if they were innocent. Those guys don't screw around. Local police? Sure, I suppose a defendant might be innocent... maybe. But if an AUSA has gone so far as to begin a trial against you, then you fucking did it.

Eh. Myth. I've seen some pretty bizarrely laughable cases presented by the USAO.

I find that difficult, if not impossible, to believe based on my repeated stints with Federal prosecutors.

Voyager wrote:

Tanicius wrote:

Voyager wrote:USAO offices look much more impressive on your resume. They also go a long way towards helping you eventually land a job there (because you will have recommendations from former USAOs AND you can show an interest in working there).

Oh, also? THEY ARE ALL FUCKING GUILTY. ALL OF THEM. They would not have been arrested by the Feds if they were innocent. Those guys don't screw around. Local police? Sure, I suppose a defendant might be innocent... maybe. But if an AUSA has gone so far as to begin a trial against you, then you fucking did it.

Eh. Myth. I've seen some pretty bizarrely laughable cases presented by the USAO.

I find that difficult, if not impossible, to believe based on my repeated stints with Federal prosecutors.

I can only speak for what I've seen.

Voyager wrote:

Tanicius wrote:

Voyager wrote:USAO offices look much more impressive on your resume. They also go a long way towards helping you eventually land a job there (because you will have recommendations from former USAOs AND you can show an interest in working there).

Oh, also? THEY ARE ALL FUCKING GUILTY. ALL OF THEM. They would not have been arrested by the Feds if they were innocent. Those guys don't screw around. Local police? Sure, I suppose a defendant might be innocent... maybe. But if an AUSA has gone so far as to begin a trial against you, then you fucking did it.

Eh. Myth. I've seen some pretty bizarrely laughable cases presented by the USAO.

I find that difficult, if not impossible, to believe based on my repeated stints with Federal prosecutors.

Tanicius wrote:

Voyager wrote:

Tanicius wrote:

Voyager wrote:USAO offices look much more impressive on your resume. They also go a long way towards helping you eventually land a job there (because you will have recommendations from former USAOs AND you can show an interest in working there).

Oh, also? THEY ARE ALL FUCKING GUILTY. ALL OF THEM. They would not have been arrested by the Feds if they were innocent. Those guys don't screw around. Local police? Sure, I suppose a defendant might be innocent... maybe. But if an AUSA has gone so far as to begin a trial against you, then you fucking did it.

Eh. Myth. I've seen some pretty bizarrely laughable cases presented by the USAO.

I find that difficult, if not impossible, to believe based on my repeated stints with Federal prosecutors.

I can only speak for what I've seen.

I'm a big fan of the USAO's but they are absolutely not infallible. Consider the following:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... form_N.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... nity_N.htm#

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... utor_N.htm

Etc, etc. Part of a large series of articles that USA Today has been running.

Omerta wrote:

Moral_Midgetry wrote: Take the offer thats on the table. I used to work in a USAO as litigation support staff and I was really close with the AUSA that was in charge of the summer class and I can tell you that it is EXTREMELY difficult to get a summer gig there. Since the recession the quality and number of applicants wanting to do unpaid work for USAOs is way up. All but a hand full from the last two years were from t14 schools and those that weren't were from the most prestigious state school.

In the case you get both you may be able to split. About half the summer class for my office was splitting between working for fed judges or firms.

What kind of numbers did you or other people have? I just applied to the USAO in my hometown (GA or FL) and I was wondering how high my grades need to come back to have a shot. I go to Emory-- only have legal writing back, but it was an A.

I was just support staff when I worked there but it seemed most of the summers had 3.5+ GPAs and LR or someother Journal.

Tanicius wrote:

Voyager wrote:

Tanicius wrote:

Voyager wrote:USAO offices look much more impressive on your resume. They also go a long way towards helping you eventually land a job there (because you will have recommendations from former USAOs AND you can show an interest in working there).

Oh, also? THEY ARE ALL FUCKING GUILTY. ALL OF THEM. They would not have been arrested by the Feds if they were innocent. Those guys don't screw around. Local police? Sure, I suppose a defendant might be innocent... maybe. But if an AUSA has gone so far as to begin a trial against you, then you fucking did it.

Eh. Myth. I've seen some pretty bizarrely laughable cases presented by the USAO.

I find that difficult, if not impossible, to believe based on my repeated stints with Federal prosecutors.

I can only speak for what I've seen.

Voyager, I'm with you on this. From my experience if the USAO had you on their radar it most likely indicated you were guitly. Take this with a grain of salt but the office I worked for had a high 90s percent conviction rate.

Voyager wrote:USAO offices look much more impressive on your resume. They also go a long way towards helping you eventually land a job there (because you will have recommendations from former USAOs AND you can show an interest in working there).

Oh, also? THEY ARE ALL FUCKING GUILTY. ALL OF THEM. They would not have been arrested by the Feds if they were innocent. Those guys don't screw around. Local police? Sure, I suppose a defendant might be innocent... maybe. But if an AUSA has gone so far as to begin a trial against you, then you fucking did it.

Moral_Midgetry wrote:

Tanicius wrote:

Voyager wrote:

Tanicius wrote:
Eh. Myth. I've seen some pretty bizarrely laughable cases presented by the USAO.

I find that difficult, if not impossible, to believe based on my repeated stints with Federal prosecutors.

I can only speak for what I've seen.

Voyager, I'm with you on this. From my experience if the USAO had you on their radar it most likely indicated you were guitly. Take this with a grain of salt but the office I worked for had a high 90s percent conviction rate.

"Most likely guilty," eh? Well that's surely the same thing as "THEY ARE ALL FUCKING GUILTY. ALL OF THEM."

Moral_Midgetry wrote: Voyager, I'm with you on this. From my experience if the USAO had you on their radar it most likely indicated you were guitly. Take this with a grain of salt but the office I worked for had a high 90s percent conviction rate.

High convictions rates can also be because of the heavy structural advantage that federal prosecutors have.

Look, the vast majority of federal prosecutors are great and extremely smart, caring and dedicated. However, it's unreasonable and dangerous to assume that everyone that is prosecuted is guilty. There's a reason that we have an adversarial system.

Again, look at the USA Today series above.

vamedic03 wrote:

Moral_Midgetry wrote: Voyager, I'm with you on this. From my experience if the USAO had you on their radar it most likely indicated you were guitly. Take this with a grain of salt but the office I worked for had a high 90s percent conviction rate.

High convictions rates can also be because of the heavy structural advantage that federal prosecutors have.

Look, the vast majority of federal prosecutors are great and extremely smart, caring and dedicated. However, it's unreasonable and dangerous to assume that everyone that is prosecuted is guilty. There's a reason that we have an adversarial system.

Again, look at the USA Today series above.

Meh, i'm sure Voyager was using a bit of hyperbole because he didn't expect to get attacked. I'm sure he know that they aren't 100% of the time guilty. But, IMO, the vast majority of the time, once you are in a federal trial, you are almost always guilty. Cut the guy a little bit of slack.

Patriot1208 wrote:

vamedic03 wrote:

Moral_Midgetry wrote: Voyager, I'm with you on this. From my experience if the USAO had you on their radar it most likely indicated you were guitly. Take this with a grain of salt but the office I worked for had a high 90s percent conviction rate.

High convictions rates can also be because of the heavy structural advantage that federal prosecutors have.

Look, the vast majority of federal prosecutors are great and extremely smart, caring and dedicated. However, it's unreasonable and dangerous to assume that everyone that is prosecuted is guilty. There's a reason that we have an adversarial system.

Again, look at the USA Today series above.

Meh, i'm sure Voyager was using a bit of hyperbole because he didn't expect to get attacked. I'm sure he know that they aren't 100% of the time guilty. But, IMO, the vast majority of the time, once you are in a federal trial, you are almost always guilty. Cut the guy a little bit of slack.

Look, it's troubling when someone suggests that either side is infallible. And, it's important for people to be aware of the fact that federal prosecutors make mistakes just like local prosecutors.

vamedic03 wrote:Look, it's troubling when someone suggests that either side is infallible. And, it's important for people to be aware of the fact that federal prosecutors make mistakes just like local prosecutors.

Only an idiot actually thinks that any person or organization is infallible.

vamedic03 wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:

vamedic03 wrote:

Moral_Midgetry wrote: Voyager, I'm with you on this. From my experience if the USAO had you on their radar it most likely indicated you were guitly. Take this with a grain of salt but the office I worked for had a high 90s percent conviction rate.

High convictions rates can also be because of the heavy structural advantage that federal prosecutors have.

Look, the vast majority of federal prosecutors are great and extremely smart, caring and dedicated. However, it's unreasonable and dangerous to assume that everyone that is prosecuted is guilty. There's a reason that we have an adversarial system.

Again, look at the USA Today series above.

Meh, i'm sure Voyager was using a bit of hyperbole because he didn't expect to get attacked. I'm sure he know that they aren't 100% of the time guilty. But, IMO, the vast majority of the time, once you are in a federal trial, you are almost always guilty. Cut the guy a little bit of slack.

Look, it's troubling when someone suggests that either side is infallible. And, it's important for people to be aware of the fact that federal prosecutors make mistakes just like local prosecutors.

My point is that i'm sure he doesn't actually believe this. He was exaggerating for effect. And, no one on this board is going to get duped by it. Exaggeration is something we are all prone to on TLS, so, fighting over the semantics from 100% to 97% is pretty silly.

PRISON FOR THE LOT OF THEM.

Yeah, but seriously... while there may be the odd exception, the steps the Federal system takes leading up to actually putting you in a court room are rather intensive and rigorous. Much more so than at the state level.

This is one of the main reasons why the conviction rate at the Federal level is so much higher than at the state level.

And yeah, sometimes these guys manage to sell the jury on their little program. One dude I saw get off, for example, was caught by police cutting up big rocks of crack into small rocks of crack from a HUGE mountain of crack on his coffee table. He managed to evade prosecution in court using an error made by law enforcement and our nations civil liberties. Good for him. I am happy to pay the cost of him getting off for my constitutional rights.

But make no mistake: he was a criminal (at least he was under our current drug laws, if you want to argue that crack should be legalized or at least should result in much lower prison sentences, that is totally fair).

So again, if I randomly pick a defendant hauled into Federal court, there is something like a 98% chance that he he did it. At that point, I, as a citizen, am going to assume that they are ALL GUILTY. I am glad the system does not. Again: yay civil liberties. But look: if I tell you that 98% of grizzly bears shit in the woods, you are going to assume that all bears shit in the woods and discount the 2% that prefer to shit in cars they have opened up like sardine cans.

And yes, if I am ever called as a juror, I will make sure the court hears all of this. I won't subvert the system by ensuring these dudes don't get their fair trial.

Anyway, my point is that as a Federal prosecutor you can feel good that you are putting away bad dudes who did really really heinous shit (well, except for the drug cases... those depend on how you feel about the drug laws... the rest of them are guilty, awful mofos).