Top Law Schools

I graduated from a TTT and was lucky enough to clerk for a year in my home district. I just got an offer from a V50 in my hometown and interviewed a few weeks back at the USAO in a very respected district (not quite SDNY/CDCA though) in a location that would be good to live in but not one where I think I'd ultimately like to end up. The position is one of those temporary AUSA positions funded for 2 yrs, then maybe converts to permanent depending on funding. They said they were going to act pretty quickly and I got the impression they didn't interview many candidates, so I think I may have a pretty good shot of getting an offer there.

I never really thought that I would do biglaw because, frankly, it doesn't sound like the best lifestyle and, while I have the stats, I definitely don't have the school to be competitive for it. I only got the interview through a family connection and I didn't get any interviews at other firms. But now, faced with the offer, the sound of the money + clerkship bonus is starting to sound too good to pass up in favor of a much lesser paid AUSA position that supposedly may exist for only a limited 2 yr period. Obviously, the flip side of that is that I don't have any loans (went to school on a full ride) and so, there's no real NEED for me to have that salary. Kinda just worry by taking the AUSA, I'll be blowing the only chance in my career I'll have at making a crapload of money.

Obviously, AUSA to biglaw is well-traveled path, but I'm just afraid that would be harder for someone like me who doesn't have the school credentials to back it up. Anyone got thoughts?

This boart seems to think that Big law --> AUSA --> Big law is easy, but the firms like to see the first stint of biglaw. I'm not experienced like that, but something to consider. You could probably land a better AUSA position later if government is your end game

flawschoolkid wrote:This boart seems to think that Big law --> AUSA --> Big law is easy, but the firms like to see the first stint of biglaw. I'm not experienced like that, but something to consider. You could probably land a better AUSA position later if government is your end game

This board is also full of a bunch of retards who weren't competitive enough to get fed gvt/grads who went to school around the financial crisis. At my law school, prior to the financial crisis recession, it seemed like everyone did SAs their 2L year because it was almost a guaranteed post-graduation job offer. However, most people aimed for federal clerkships and federal government, and the people who went back to biglaw were the ones who couldn't get a clerkship or federal government.

Biglaw to AUSA is not easy. I know this is a thing is SDNY, but it's not everywhere. USAOs don't like to/have the resources to train people, and want people who are going to be able to hit the ground running. The vast majority of biglaw firms aren't going to give you the practical experience that USAOs want. Just look at the requirements and preferred qualifications in AUSA postings. You're not going to meet most of the "preferred qualifications" as someone with a year or two of biglaw experience (obviously there are biglaw firms that exceptions to this), and with how competitive those jobs are, you need to more than meet nearly every one of those qualifications.

OP, I think you should think of your long-term career goals. It'd be one thing if biglaw was what you wanted, and were willing to dedicate your life to making partner at a biglaw firm. However, your post seems to suggest the exact opposite is true. In the long-run, you're probably going to be better off at the USAO, because biglaw tends to be a 3-5 year stint for most recent grads. In as little as 3.5 years, you'll be at GS-15 (or its equivalent) and making $125k /year (assuming you're in a major city), and your salary will continue to increase till you cap out at $157k. Not bad given the long-term job security,* awesome federal benefits & perks, and way better work-life balance than what you're going to get in biglaw. Also USAO to biglaw is possible. For example, if you get into the white collar criminal division at the USAO (assuming you're in a major city), do it for 8-10 years, get national (or at least local) recognition, biglaw firms will hire you as an equity partner, which allows you to skip the bullshit associate years.

If you're thinking long-term, biglaw sounds kind of retarded (especially since it sounds like you're going into litigation, which has shitty exit options). But I can see the appeal in the short-term, since you'll make a LOT more money in the next 3-5 years.

*I know you said that the office is recruiting for a temporary 2-year position. But after 2-years, it might hire you. Even if it doesn't, 2 years of experience at a USAO will get you into another office.

AUSA to biglaw isn't a sure thing, as you say, but you know what else isn't a sure thing? Biglaw to AUSA.

If you get the AUSA job, my advice is take it and don't look back. You are getting the job now that people in biglaw will kill for in 3-5 years.

dixiecupdrinking wrote:AUSA to biglaw isn't a sure thing, as you say, but you know what else isn't a sure thing? Biglaw to AUSA.

If you get the AUSA job, my advice is take it and don't look back. You are getting the job now that people in biglaw will kill for in 3-5 years.

This is very much credited. Don't assume you can just pop either direction easily in 3 years. For me it would be in insanely easy decision and I would take the USAO's office, but it's a personal choice.

Do you want to make a lot of money and hate what you do or make an okay livable salary and for the most part, enjoy what you do?

Not to thread-jack, but do you mind sharing how you got the AUSA interview? My understanding was that AUSA hiring was almost exclusively non-entry level (e.g., post-BigLaw), except for limited hiring though the honors program. Is that wrong or did you find an exception to that rule? Do you think your path depended on serious demonstrated interest to gov/PI work, or would it have been open to you with standard BigLaw credentials + FedGov clerkship?

On topic, I'd vote for going with the USAO—I know way too many BigLaw associates who would kill to be AUSAs to ever encourage someone to give that up.

Frayed Knot wrote:Not to thread-jack, but do you mind sharing how you got the AUSA interview? My understanding was that AUSA hiring was almost exclusively non-entry level (e.g., post-BigLaw), except for limited hiring though the honors program. Is that wrong or did you find an exception to that rule? Do you think your path depended on serious demonstrated interest to gov/PI work, or would it have been open to you with standard BigLaw credentials + FedGov clerkship?

On topic, I'd vote for going with the USAO—I know way too many BigLaw associates who would kill to be AUSAs to ever encourage someone to give that up.

OP said that it was a 2-year funded temp job/internship, not a permanent hire...

XxSpyKEx wrote:

flawschoolkid wrote:This boart seems to think that Big law --> AUSA --> Big law is easy, but the firms like to see the first stint of biglaw. I'm not experienced like that, but something to consider. You could probably land a better AUSA position later if government is your end game

This board is also full of a bunch of retards who weren't competitive enough to get fed gvt/grads who went to school around the financial crisis. At my law school, prior to the financial crisis recession, it seemed like everyone did SAs their 2L year because it was almost a guaranteed post-graduation job offer. However, most people aimed for federal clerkships and federal government, and the people who went back to biglaw were the ones who couldn't get a clerkship or federal government.

Biglaw to AUSA is not easy. I know this is a thing is SDNY, but it's not everywhere. USAOs don't like to/have the resources to train people, and want people who are going to be able to hit the ground running. The vast majority of biglaw firms aren't going to give you the practical experience that USAOs want. Just look at the requirements and preferred qualifications in AUSA postings. You're not going to meet most of the "preferred qualifications" as someone with a year or two of biglaw experience (obviously there are biglaw firms that exceptions to this), and with how competitive those jobs are, you need to more than meet nearly every one of those qualifications.

OP, I think you should think of your long-term career goals. It'd be one thing if biglaw was what you wanted, and were willing to dedicate your life to making partner at a biglaw firm. However, your post seems to suggest the exact opposite is true. In the long-run, you're probably going to be better off at the USAO, because biglaw tends to be a 3-5 year stint for most recent grads. In as little as 3.5 years, you'll be at GS-15 (or its equivalent) and making $125k /year (assuming you're in a major city), and your salary will continue to increase till you cap out at $157k. Not bad given the long-term job security,* awesome federal benefits & perks, and way better work-life balance than what you're going to get in biglaw. Also USAO to biglaw is possible. For example, if you get into the white collar criminal division at the USAO (assuming you're in a major city), do it for 8-10 years, get national (or at least local) recognition, biglaw firms will hire you as an equity partner, which allows you to skip the bullshit associate years.

If you're thinking long-term, biglaw sounds kind of retarded (especially since it sounds like you're going into litigation, which has shitty exit options). But I can see the appeal in the short-term, since you'll make a LOT more money in the next 3-5 years.

*I know you said that the office is recruiting for a temporary 2-year position. But after 2-years, it might hire you. Even if it doesn't, 2 years of experience at a USAO will get you into another office.

I'm all for skipping law firm life if at all possible. It sounds like OP will be fine financially in either job. But, I would not assume an ability to enter biglaw (or lucrative boutique) down the road. Promotions to positions that will attract biglaw attention (chief of crim division, chief of financial crimes, etc.) are just as arbitrary and hard to get as promotion to equity partner --even in super high-turnover offices.

Also, even pre-financial crisis, clerkships were never a substitute to biglaw. Most government jobs, especially outside of DC, require some sort of other experience first.

mr.hands wrote:

Frayed Knot wrote:Not to thread-jack, but do you mind sharing how you got the AUSA interview? My understanding was that AUSA hiring was almost exclusively non-entry level (e.g., post-BigLaw), except for limited hiring though the honors program. Is that wrong or did you find an exception to that rule? Do you think your path depended on serious demonstrated interest to gov/PI work, or would it have been open to you with standard BigLaw credentials + FedGov clerkship?

On topic, I'd vote for going with the USAO—I know way too many BigLaw associates who would kill to be AUSAs to ever encourage someone to give that up.

OP said that it was a 2-year funded temp job/internship, not a permanent hire...

OP here, my thought is that qualifications may be different for the temporary positions. I do have a pretty solid public interest background and I kind of think there might not have been a lot of applicants because the posting was open for only like a week. The position also is within a specific unit that handles a type of cases that I have worked on before during my clerkship and was able to express an interest in my cover letter. So that may have helped. Other than that, I have no idea how I got the interview.

The consensus here seems to be to do AUSA, which obviously sounds more fun and rewarding than biglaw, although the last comment troubles me a bit -- I'm just trying to think of what the other exit options are for AUSAs who strike out on biglaw or lit boutique. Also I worry a bit about the temporary nature of the position -- it would suck to be out of the office in 2 years, which isn't enough time to make unit supervisor or division chief, etc, and after only 2 years, I certainly would not just be lateraling into some biglaw office as a partner. At this point, either option leads to a very uncertain future and it sort of feels like its all or nothing with either: If I take AUSA now, I feel like I'd be foreclosing any option of going into biglaw, since if I only end up doing 2 yrs, biglaw will likely not hire me as a 4th or 5th year associate, right? And if I do biglaw, as people have observed, laterling to the USAO after 3-5 yrs is statistically not super likely.

In the face of this uncertainty, there's the money. It's true I don't really need a biglaw salary since no loans, but the idea of getting a big chunk of change right now that I could invest or put away early in my career makes me feel like that is the safer route than taking a 2 year temp job which may be paid fine but I won't save much at all probably bc the COL in the city where the USAO is a lot higher than my hometown.

dixiecupdrinking wrote:AUSA to biglaw isn't a sure thing, as you say, but you know what else isn't a sure thing? Biglaw to AUSA.

If you get the AUSA job, my advice is take it and don't look back. You are getting the job now that people in biglaw will kill for in 3-5 years.

+1

AUSA is one of the best legal jobs you can get.

The caveat here is if you want to go in-house some day, then take the biglaw job.

Take the AUSA. Your BigLaw job could be just as temporary and you probably won't have the opportunity to develop as many skills to help you find the next job. The funding piece is scary, less so because of your loan situation, but making a good impression while you are there will help you land well if they can't hire.

mr.hands wrote:

Frayed Knot wrote:Not to thread-jack, but do you mind sharing how you got the AUSA interview? My understanding was that AUSA hiring was almost exclusively non-entry level (e.g., post-BigLaw), except for limited hiring though the honors program. Is that wrong or did you find an exception to that rule? Do you think your path depended on serious demonstrated interest to gov/PI work, or would it have been open to you with standard BigLaw credentials + FedGov clerkship?

On topic, I'd vote for going with the USAO—I know way too many BigLaw associates who would kill to be AUSAs to ever encourage someone to give that up.

OP said that it was a 2-year funded temp job/internship, not a permanent hire...

No, those two year positions aren't internships at all--they're real, fully paid AUSA jobs. That's just unfortunately how DOJ now hires for many openings because of how much its budget for new hires has been cut. After two years they can be turned into permanent positions without any competition, and that's what happens in the vast majority of cases. It's best to think of it as an extended probationary period (which is usually one year in any federal job) but with a little more risk.

Anonymous User wrote:

mr.hands wrote:

Frayed Knot wrote:Not to thread-jack, but do you mind sharing how you got the AUSA interview? My understanding was that AUSA hiring was almost exclusively non-entry level (e.g., post-BigLaw), except for limited hiring though the honors program. Is that wrong or did you find an exception to that rule? Do you think your path depended on serious demonstrated interest to gov/PI work, or would it have been open to you with standard BigLaw credentials + FedGov clerkship?

On topic, I'd vote for going with the USAO—I know way too many BigLaw associates who would kill to be AUSAs to ever encourage someone to give that up.

OP said that it was a 2-year funded temp job/internship, not a permanent hire...

OP here, my thought is that qualifications may be different for the temporary positions. I do have a pretty solid public interest background and I kind of think there might not have been a lot of applicants because the posting was open for only like a week. The position also is within a specific unit that handles a type of cases that I have worked on before during my clerkship and was able to express an interest in my cover letter. So that may have helped. Other than that, I have no idea how I got the interview.

The consensus here seems to be to do AUSA, which obviously sounds more fun and rewarding than biglaw, although the last comment troubles me a bit -- I'm just trying to think of what the other exit options are for AUSAs who strike out on biglaw or lit boutique. Also I worry a bit about the temporary nature of the position -- it would suck to be out of the office in 2 years, which isn't enough time to make unit supervisor or division chief, etc, and after only 2 years, I certainly would not just be lateraling into some biglaw office as a partner. At this point, either option leads to a very uncertain future and it sort of feels like its all or nothing with either: If I take AUSA now, I feel like I'd be foreclosing any option of going into biglaw, since if I only end up doing 2 yrs, biglaw will likely not hire me as a 4th or 5th year associate, right? And if I do biglaw, as people have observed, laterling to the USAO after 3-5 yrs is statistically not super likely.

In the face of this uncertainty, there's the money. It's true I don't really need a biglaw salary since no loans, but the idea of getting a big chunk of change right now that I could invest or put away early in my career makes me feel like that is the safer route than taking a 2 year temp job which may be paid fine but I won't save much at all probably bc the COL in the city where the USAO is a lot higher than my hometown.

Just echoing what other have said: the likelihood of turning it into a permanent AUSA position (either at that office or another office) is pretty good if you do good work. Also, you're going to develop marketable skills as a AUSA, which a few years in biglaw doesn't really get you (I'm assuming you're going into litigation, since you're coming out of a clerkship). The odds of landing on your feet are much higher after a couple years at a USAO than with a few years in biglaw. But, yes, if you're only looking at short-term income (i.e. in the next 3-5 years), biglaw is better for that.

I must be the crazy one, but I worked for the USAO and it wasn't that great. Lots of hand-holding agents through investigations, lots of witness prep, minimal assistance with the menial legal tasks compared to being in private practice, pretrial motions up the wazoo, and to top it off you basically just go from one trial to the next, you deal with politics (some upper-echelon turd vists twice a week, and you have to roll out the red carpet), and you don't make a ton of money.

Where I worked, you had to pay for your own parking space unless you were like one of the most senior people, and getting from the lot to the office was annoying. And it's not a 40 hour per week job. Definitely more than that, unless you're the lucky guy who gets assigned to some slow area. And you will work weekends fairly regularly.

I felt it had a lot of the negatives of private practice without having a lot of the positives. I mean, it's a cushier gig than biglaw, but I wasn't exactly enamored. Very repetitive.

Anonymous User wrote:I must be the crazy one, but I worked for the USAO and it wasn't that great. Lots of hand-holding agents through investigations, lots of witness prep, minimal assistance with the menial legal tasks compared to being in private practice, pretrial motions up the wazoo, and to top it off you basically just go from one trial to the next, you deal with politics (some upper-echelon turd vists twice a week, and you have to roll out the red carpet), and you don't make a ton of money.

Where I worked, you had to pay for your own parking space unless you were like one of the most senior people, and getting from the lot to the office was annoying. And it's not a 40 hour per week job. Definitely more than that, unless you're the lucky guy who gets assigned to some slow area. And you will work weekends fairly regularly.

I felt it had a lot of the negatives of private practice without having a lot of the positives. I mean, it's a cushier gig than biglaw, but I wasn't exactly enamored. Very repetitive.

At many firms in major cities you have to pay for your own parking too as a junior. Granted, you have a larger salary to pay for your parking from, but I don't think this should be the deciding factor. I mean if we're going down that road the health benefits are way more subsidized at the USAO and the 401k matching is much better--this more than makes up for the parking charge. Plus you get federal public transit benefits which are helpful if you work in a major city.

Anon who worked at ASAO here. I posted like nine factors, and people only respond to one, saying it shouldn't be a controlling factor in making the decision. Well, yeah, that's why there were so many other factors listed too. I suggest that reading comprehension includes reading comprehensively.

Regarding parking, nobody is saying it's a huge factor. But when I was parking and walking a nearly half-hour round trip every day from my car to my desk (by the time I got in through security and out of the elevator), in a part of the country where it snows in the winter and hits 100 degrees in the summer, and peer lawyers at firms in the same city were getting private covered parking 90 seconds from their desks, well, that makes a difference. It's basically working an additional 85 hours per year. That's significant.

Parking aside, the point is just to compare all of the fringe factors very carefully. There are others along the same lines. Your office (the actual physical space) in the USAO will probably be pretty lame / small. Everything is on a gov't budget. Dealing with random shit in the office can be frustrating. Whomever the DoJ signs contracts with affects you; I had to use fuckin' Word Perfect(!), and you'll get adequate-at-best technology. You'll have to log in your hours in timesheets and go off of the Department's vacation policy and just in general do annoying shit on a near-daily basis like complete the Department-mandated annual trainings on Sexual Harassment, Security, Personal Safety, and How Not to Kill Puppies (this one is actually quarterly).

Some of these idiosyncracies are pro-gov't (you may have to log in your time in annoying bi-weekly electronic "sheets" in WebTA, but at least you don't have to keep track of billables; vacation policy can be annoying but at least you get vacation), but the point is to consider them. I'd say 80% of these differences that affect your day-to-day life cut against the DoJ compared to against biglaw.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I commented on "going from one trial to the next," too.

I get that it's worth considering all the factors, including things like physical space, because that does matter, but honestly, because you had to trek half an hour from parking doesn't mean every AUSA will need to, is all.

Fair enough. I don't find going from one trial to the next to be a good part of the job. I'm not sure biglaw's model of never going to trial is better, but I think that can vary a lot by person. There are some legal jobs that fall in the middle, and that's healthier.

It takes a certain type of person to want to constantly prepare for trial, especially as a prosecutor. I worked on a white-collar crime case with over 1,000 government exhibits and 30 witnesses. It was basically 1.5 lawyers and one assistant preparing. I was the .5; the guy who was the 1.0 was putting in biglaw hours+ for the better part of six weeks. This was a very experienced prosecutor from HYS slogging away, at times doing what was basically doc review for 10 hours a day on the weekends.

That last paragraph tended more toward work load than I intended. I'm not saying USAO is as bad as biglaw when it comes to hours, but it's really not all gravy. Workload aside, imagine preparing for that trial, going to trial (which it did), winning it (which we did), and then going back to your desk, opening up another file, and jumping right back in to trial prep. It's not fun. Lots of prosecutors do, in fact, get burned out.

ETA: To clarify, I think that's the big risk. You go to the AUSA expecting it to be somewhat "cushy," you get into a role where it is far from cushy, you get burned out, and you have really limited options: slog away prosecuting for a few more years and then rotate to a white-collar crim defense boutique doing the same shit you dislike, or try to catch on at biglaw (not guaranteed and not any better), or else try to find a unicorn non-law, political, education, etc. job, or go to the bench. Your options of rotating out to in-house or mid-law or civil litigation (if you were crim side at USAO) may not be awesome.

Anonymous User wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I commented on "going from one trial to the next," too.

I get that it's worth considering all the factors, including things like physical space, because that does matter, but honestly, because you had to trek half an hour from parking doesn't mean every AUSA will need to, is all.

Fair enough. I don't find going from one trial to the next to be a good part of the job. I'm not sure biglaw's model of never going to trial is better, but I think that can vary a lot by person. There are some legal jobs that fall in the middle, and that's healthier.

It takes a certain type of person to want to constantly prepare for trial, especially as a prosecutor. I worked on a white-collar crime case with over 1,000 government exhibits and 30 witnesses. It was basically 1.5 lawyers and one assistant preparing. I was the .5; the guy who was the 1.0 was putting in biglaw hours+ for the better part of six weeks. This was a very experienced prosecutor from HYS slogging away, at times doing what was basically doc review for 10 hours a day on the weekends.

That last paragraph tended more toward work load than I intended. I'm not saying USAO is as bad as biglaw when it comes to hours, but it's really not all gravy. Workload aside, imagine preparing for that trial, going to trial (which it did), winning it (which we did), and then going back to your desk, opening up another file, and jumping right back in to trial prep. It's not fun. Lots of prosecutors do, in fact, get burned out.

ETA: To clarify, I think that's the big risk. You go to the AUSA expecting it to be somewhat "cushy," you get into a role where it is far from cushy, you get burned out, and you have really limited options: slog away prosecuting for a few more years and then rotate to a white-collar crim defense boutique doing the same shit you dislike, or try to catch on at biglaw (not guaranteed and not any better), or else try to find a unicorn non-law, political, education, etc. job, or go to the bench. Your options of rotating out to in-house or mid-law or civil litigation (if you were crim side at USAO) may not be awesome.

Most of the negatives you mention are what white collar criminal trial prosecutors do (besides the parking issue, which isn't exactly a good reason to work in biglaw). The negatives sound more like a mismatch with you and the job more than anything. It's unfortunate that you didn't land in a practice group that best-matched you, but there are a lot of other practice areas in the USAOs, including ones that will give you a better balance in terms of hours worked each week (e.g. appellate).

OP here again, I want to elaborate a little more on the position because part of my concern stems from the fact that, like so many of the postings for DOJ these days, the funding seems to be coming from Main Justice or somewhere else (no idea really), but it's sort of clear that it's not part of the main office budget. They get these funds for one particular need and then who knows what happens? They told me I would basically be working on one or two ongoing investigations and that is about it. Although the work seems like it would be interesting and important, it kind of seems like I would be hired help. Just does not seem like I would have the kind of exposure to a wide variety of things that the typical AUSA might get.

A lot of people seem to be saying that once I'm in the office it would be easy to convert this to a permanent position. I'm just curious, is this mostly anecdotal? The interviewer was very careful not to say either way whether that would be a possibility, although when I asked point blank if taking that position would mean I would for sure not be considered for a permanent job, they kind of backed off and said they didn't want to take that extreme of a position.

Finally, to the point of the anonymous commenter who said they did not enjoy their time at the USAO, it was told to me that the hours at this job would be quite substantial, which I'm assuming is a way of saying don't think this going to be much different from biglaw. I'm fine with that and making much less doing that, but I just want to be sure this is the best thing for my career. It would suck to shrug off biglaw money + V50 firm to do 2 yrs at AUSA where I have really limited exit options. Thoughts?

Anonymous User wrote:OP here again, I want to elaborate a little more on the position because part of my concern stems from the fact that, like so many of the postings for DOJ these days, the funding seems to be coming from Main Justice or somewhere else (no idea really), but it's sort of clear that it's not part of the main office budget. They get these funds for one particular need and then who knows what happens? They told me I would basically be working on one or two ongoing investigations and that is about it. Although the work seems like it would be interesting and important, it kind of seems like I would be hired help. Just does not seem like I would have the kind of exposure to a wide variety of things that the typical AUSA might get.

A lot of people seem to be saying that once I'm in the office it would be easy to convert this to a permanent position. I'm just curious, is this mostly anecdotal? The interviewer was very careful not to say either way whether that would be a possibility, although when I asked point blank if taking that position would mean I would for sure not be considered for a permanent job, they kind of backed off and said they didn't want to take that extreme of a position.

Finally, to the point of the anonymous commenter who said they did not enjoy their time at the USAO, it was told to me that the hours at this job would be quite substantial, which I'm assuming is a way of saying don't think this going to be much different from biglaw. I'm fine with that and making much less doing that, but I just want to be sure this is the best thing for my career. It would suck to shrug off biglaw money + V50 firm to do 2 yrs at AUSA where I have really limited exit options. Thoughts?

My comment about the two year position conversion comes from how those two-year "temporary" jobs are used at my federal agency (not DOJ) and how attorneys I know at Main Justice tell me they are used at DOJ. At my agency, those postings are what we use to hire employees that we intend to be permanent but we don't have the funding to hire them permanently right away. Admittedly, they could be used very differently at an individual USAO and based on your description of the position in the latest post, maybe they are.