AUSA Positions Forum

[Anonymous User]

Can anyone speak on how difficult it is to get AUSA positions (for experienced attorneys)? Do these positions generally require T-14 schools or top grades from lower tier schools? What type of qualifications/firm experience is helpful for applying? Thanks.

[deadpanic]

From what I know, generally very competitive.

They favor litigation experience like other prosecution jobs. A lot are from top schools, but many are from the local regional flagship but have a good resume (i.e. top grades and worked as ADAs for years). I think it depends on the district; if you are shooting for SDNY or something else competitive, you will need to go to a T14 and probably more like HYSCCN.

The most common route I've seen lately is federal clerkship -> big law/other prestigious firm with litigation experience -> AUSA.

[gdane]

--LinkRemoved--

http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/C ... o_2012.pdf

[anon168]

Can anyone speak on how difficult it is to get AUSA positions (for experienced attorneys)? Do these positions generally require T-14 schools or top grades from lower tier schools? What type of qualifications/firm experience is helpful for applying? Thanks.

Feel free to peruse this previous thread I started.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=191582

If you have other questions, feel free to post, or PM me.

Hope that helps. Good luck.

[Anonymous User]

Can anyone speak on how difficult it is to get AUSA positions (for experienced attorneys)? Do these positions generally require T-14 schools or top grades from lower tier schools? What type of qualifications/firm experience is helpful for applying? Thanks.

Depends on the district. N.D. Ill., California, E.D.N.Y., E.D.Va. are extremely competitive and probably looking for both 3-4 years of experience and a top school pedigree -- or some serious and unique stand-up work experience from a lower school (e.g. state prosecutor, JAG, etc.). SDNY may be even more competitive, but my understanding is that they prefer slightly less experienced applicants so they can "mold" them. I don't know a ton about SDNY/EDNY though, so someone can correct me. But in general candidates in those districts will be from top schools.

In North Dakota, Arkansas, etc., on the other hand, you will have more of a mix. Some will be career prosecutors from local lower-tier schools, many of whom had state prosecutor experience beforehand. Others will be young hotshots from top schools. I know of Williams & Connolly types who worked as associates for a few years, even some who were Supreme Court clerks, and then went "home" to a flyover state to be an AUSA. Those districts are also more likely to hire directly out of clerkships. (But probably not directly out of law school with no clerkship.)

Any federal clerkship is helpful in applying, particularly if you are less experienced. A district court clerkship might be more helpful in actually teaching you about the work and the job, and getting you connections in the district if your clerkship is where you want to work, but I don't think it's actually more useful than an appellate clerkship in terms of how your resume looks. In either case, ideally you want your judge to recommend you to the US Atty.

Beyond that, if you start out at a firm you want as much federal court litigation and stand-up experience as you can find. Pro bono is fine, just get yourself into court. Work with and get a good reputation with partners at your firm who are former prosecutors. (They have the connections.) Read a lot about developments in criminal law. Try to meet people who are already AUSAs.

[jselson]

Everyone I interviewed with for an internship at a USAO had done DOJ Honors, as well. This was for civil side.

[jselson]

Everyone I interviewed with for an internship at a USAO had done DOJ Honors, as well. This was for civil side.

Do you mean that they'd been hired at the USAO through the Honors program, or that they started in some other component in DOJ and then moved to the USAO? (Just curious.)

I think the latter, but not totally sure. And it seemed like 4-5 years exp. beforehand was basically mandatory for getting in to the USAO. Some folks started right about then, others started much later in their careers. But the DOJ thing stuck in my mind (don't know if it's similar now because of restricted hiring), and also that they seemed to prefer people who had interned at that office before.

In any case, they all loved the job.

[deadpanic]

And it seemed like 4-5 years exp. beforehand was basically mandatory for getting in to the USAO.

That sounds right to me. I know some job postings for AUSAs say minimum 1 year experience, but from all the AUSAs I've talked to, they told me that it was truly 3 years minimum before they would even consider you.

[kalvano]

Dallas USAO has a mix of T14 and random school graduates. It was probably 60/40 former prosecutor / Biglaw people. They actually had more than a few former transactional attorneys that had financial experience for fraud and similar cases.

4-5 years is all but mandatory to get a look, but not a lot had clerkships.

[Anonymous User]

How likely is it to get an AUSA job with 2.5 years of biglaw experience followed by 1.5 years of clerking for a f. dt. judge (without going back to biglaw)?

[rad lulz]

d

[oblitigate]

How likely is it to get an AUSA job with 2.5 years of biglaw experience followed by 1.5 years of clerking for a f. dt. judge (without going back to biglaw)?

Hard bc it's really hard for everyone

I'm skeptical as to how you know this. Just talked to AUSA at courthouse today in big city and he almost described homeboy's stats as what they want when they hire

Not like I care either way

[adonai]

One highly competitive California district - ideal candidate will have done some trial work at a big firm known for trial work (many seem to come from Latham/O'Melveny), and federal clerkships (more/higher the better). Second best is DOJ Honors lateral. Third best is JAG. A VERY distant fourth best is DA for 5+ years. I was told this by a person who did hiring at that AUSA district. These are just broad categories. Of course there are people who don't fit these categories and still get the AUSA job somehow.

It's tough even though you fall in the "ideal candidate" bracket because they will be hiring like 3 and there are 20+ of you. If you fall below the top two brackets, I'd say you don't even have a chance. You would just be eligible for consideration (if you can call it that).

[rad lulz]

ds

[Anonymous User]

One highly competitive California district - ideal candidate will have done some trial work at a big firm known for trial work (many seem to come from Latham/O'Melveny), and federal clerkships (more/higher the better). Second best is DOJ Honors lateral. Third best is JAG. A VERY distant fourth best is DA for 5+ years. I was told this by a person who did hiring at that AUSA district. These are just broad categories. Of course there are people who don't fit these categories and still get the AUSA job somehow.

It's tough even though you fall in the "ideal candidate" bracket because they will be hiring like 3 and there are 20+ of you. If you fall below the top two brackets, I'd say you don't even have a chance. You would just be eligible for consideration (if you can call it that).

I'm the anon from above with four years of experience.

When you say trial work, do you mean actually standing up and arguing at trial? I can count on one hand the number of 5th year (or more junior) associates who have done this at my firm of over 1k attorneys. My firm is comparable in prestige to Latham.

[adonai]

I'm the anon from above with four years of experience.

When you say trial work, do you mean actually standing up and arguing at trial? I can count on one hand the number of 5th year (or more junior) associates who have done this at my firm of over 1k attorneys. My firm is comparable in prestige to Latham.

That kind of threw me off when I heard it, too, because I know trial experience is hard to come by as a junior or even mid-level associate. But then he said it was ideal, so ideal will be ideal (the perfect candidate). Maybe they count second chairing as trial experience, or maybe they mean motion practice fits in there. I didn't really follow up on that. But the ones I met who fit that archetype were rather young, so unless they all got to argue in court regularly, I don't think it should mean that.

[anon168]

Questions like "how difficult is it to get an AUSA position" or "what does the USAO require in ___ experience" are impossible to answer, as these questions are really in the abstract.

And as others have noted, hiring requirements are really office dependent, and not only that but will vary from time to time as the USA changes in each office.

Some people here can provide better information if a person cares to specify which district (or specific office) they are inquiring about, but without knowing more it's just pissing in the wind unfortunately.

[jselson]

I was describing CDCA.

[gdane]

Just apply after you have a few (at least five) years of experience. If you don't get it you can always apply again. I had so many current AUSA's tell me that they had to apply twice in order to get in. Also, even though it's unpaid, the SAUSA position is a great way for an experienced attorney to get into USAO. You can always give that a shot.

[Anonymous User]

Also, even though it's unpaid, the SAUSA position is a great way for an experienced attorney to get into USAO. You can always give that a shot.

I find the SAUSA positions to be a little ridiculous. "Hey, you just spent a shitload of money and 7+ years of your life becoming an attorney? Great! Well, come work for us for FREE. To make it even better, we won't even allow you to work at any paying job while you work for us. You're smart, just figure out a way to make that work! And is there any possibility we'll hire you at our USA office after you're done wasting 1-2 years of your life working for us? Absolutely not! Your life would have been better if you had taken a janitor position after graduating high school, but the good news for us is that you didn't."

[84651846190]

Also, even though it's unpaid, the SAUSA position is a great way for an experienced attorney to get into USAO. You can always give that a shot.

I find the SAUSA positions to be a little ridiculous. "Hey, you just spent a shitload of money and 7+ years of your life becoming an attorney? Great! Well, come work for us for FREE. To make it even better, we won't even allow you to work at any paying job while you work for us. You're smart, just figure out a way to make that work! And is there any possibility we'll hire you at our USA office after you're done wasting 1-2 years of your life working for us? Absolutely not! Your life would have been better if you had taken a janitor position after graduating high school, but the good news for us is that you didn't."

This doesn't seem like an entirely accurate characterization of SAUSA positions. But the point you're kind of implying is that THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY FUCKING LAWYERS BEING PRODUCED BY AMERICAN LAW SCHOOLS, and I agree with you 100% in this regard.

[Citizen Genet]

Just apply after you have a few (at least five) years of experience. If you don't get it you can always apply again. I had so many current AUSA's tell me that they had to apply twice in order to get in.

Half-credited. Some districts start accepting applications on 1, 2, or 3 years experience. My impression is, you should start applying as early as you are ready to do it. In part, it's just a numbers game. On another level, it shows you're committed to working in that office. For sure, 5 years is longer than necessary in some districts.

USAOs are like clerkships. The hiring is much more idiosyncratic than the BigLaw circuit is. Do everything you can to make connections with someone in an office and stay updated with them.

[gdane]

Yea I've seen the SAUSA position work out for people. At the USAO I worked at There were four former state prosecutors that went from SAUSA to AUSA in about a year. Also, from what they told me, they were able to continue getting paid by the state while working as unpaid SAUSA's.

So, it's not a dead end position. Sure it sucks to not get paid, but if you really want something you make it work.

[TR Fan]

Yea I've seen the SAUSA position work out for people. At the USAO I worked at There were four former state prosecutors that went from SAUSA to AUSA in about a year. Also, from what they told me, they were able to continue getting paid by the state while working as unpaid SAUSA's.

So, it's not a dead end position. Sure it sucks to not get paid, but if you really want something you make it work.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between being detailed to a USAO as a SAUSA as a state prosecutor, and being an actual unpaid SAUSA. I know people who are officially paid by their state, but are detailed to a USAO as a SAUSA because of the nature of the work. If the state was paying them, they were probably detailed and then transitioned to a regular AUSA position, rather than starting in one of these unpaid SAUSA positions.

Correct. Additionally, some SAUSAs are detailed from Main Justice to a USAO, and so continue to earn their normal salary. I.e., not all SAUSAs are unpaid positions.

[Anonymous User]

How strong are AUSA exit options? I'm sure it varies by district, but say someone at any district in California. Would they be able to land California biglaw pretty easily?

Also, do AUSA civil positions have exit options?