Is it hard to be an AUSA in California? Forum

[Anonymous User]

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?

[WheninLaw]

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.

[Anonymous User]

I interned for a USAO in one of those districts and am clerking for a judge in the other. 0 chance.

SCOTUS justices have personally called for candidates who were not hired. However the ADA route is possible in NDCA. Your current trajectory gives you no shot though.

[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.

[Anonymous User]

Not OP, but would people mind explaining why OP has no chance? I'm considering AUSA and need help understanding what I need to do to get there.

[Anonymous User]

They're just extremely competitive jobs. I'm in an arguably undesirable small city and we got 200 applications for an opening this spring. If you're aiming for LA or SF you're probably going to get 10x the applicants, because lots more people already live in/want to live in those places. (Okay, 10x is pure speculation, but it's going to be a lot of applicants.) I don't know what LA or SF specifically look for in hiring, but as a general rule the people I meet have either come out of biglaw - with the qualifications that requires - in which case they've also almost always clerked, or have lots of experience as a state prosecutor. (Different offices will vary in how much they prefer one or the other of these kinds of backgrounds.)

[Anonymous User]

I interned in one of the offices long ago. Almost all are BigLaw and one or more judicial clerkships. I assume law review and top grades too. On top of this, some also have prosecutorial experience in the city or state level. And there is a very very small minority that came straight from the city, DA offices or JAG without the above-mentioned qualifications.

[Anonymous User]

I forgot to mention the very very very small minority of city attorneys and ADAs that got in were prosecutors in huge cities. Thus, maybe you can try to join a state prosecution office? But the chances are not high at all. Nearly all are from clerkships (some Supreme Court clerkships too). So getting a clerkship and what others said above would be the way to go.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think it is "nearly impossible." I think you need to be strategic. First, is becoming an AUSA a recent development in your life or a long term goal? If it has been a long term goal, then hopefully you interned at a USAO at some point. This is important because as a starting point, in the most competitive offices, like SDNY, EDVA, NDIL, NDCA, and CDCA, they want to see a commitment to public service and the traditional indicator has been interning for a USAO. If you haven't done that, think about what in your background shows a commitment to public service and figure out how to leverage that in an application.

Second, go clerk. 9th Circuit, NDCA or CDCA. For AUSA applications, I think clerking on the district court gives you a better narrative for interviews (and better recommendations frankly), but appellate clerkships are prestigious. If you clerk on the 9th Cir, try to do it with someone who has been a federal prosecutor, but really, any clerkship will make you vastly more competitive. If you can't clerk on the 9th/NDCA/CDCA then try the 4th Circuit in Virginia or MD or D.MD.

You can try to get into the USAO after clerking, but it is likely to be a longshot. After clerking, I would lateral to a more prestigious firm in the Vault 10 range (better yet, check out Chambers and go somewhere with a great white collar practice). If you're set on making NDCA your home, then in addition to working on white collar stuff, you should also try to get some IP litigation experience and some cross-border litigation experience (preferably in FCPA or investigations). While NDCA does not handle a lot of FCPA (main justice does that), many of their cases are increasingly international in nature. Obviously, IP theft is a big priority there. After about a year of practicing post clerkship, I would shoot a strong application -- with recommendation letters and a strong list of references.

As for the suggestions to go the ADA route, I wouldn't do that. ADA --> AUSA is a frequent path, but it takes a lot of work to pull it off and a lot of years. Not sure you could do it in less than 5. Also the competition is much much much more fierce among ADAs seeking AUSA positions than biglaw associates. In Los Angeles, nearly every ADA (slight exaggeration) is applying for these jobs and many have applied multiple times and developed relationships with AUSAs. In San Fran, the competition is slightly less because younger ADAs in the district attorney's office are better paid than younger AUSAs, but many of the more senior ADAs are gunning for AUSA vacancies. So while the competition from biglaw is hard, I think you have a better shot at distinguishing yourself from other biglaw associates if you have certain experience than being one of 100 ADAs in the pile.

Finally, I would say that you might want to think about moving to California and doing biglaw there and get admitted to the bar. Some of the postings for CDCA have, in recent times, required applicants to be current members of the California Bar (some others I've seen don't; not sure why the difference in the announcements). In any event, being a current member of the bar would probably help on the margins - - which means you should probably seriously consider it. That being said, I don't think it is required. I got requests to interview at both offices and I've never set foot in California besides vacation, so there's that.

[registering]

I don't think it's realistic going straight from biglaw, but I have spoken to AUSAs who get there after doing a few years as an ADA. ADA in NYC (presumably Manhattan or Brooklyn) supposedly has some street cred in prosecutor circles. That being said, NDCA is very selective, and CDCA isn't that far behind either.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think it is "nearly impossible." I think you need to be strategic. First, is becoming an AUSA a recent development in your life or a long term goal? If it has been a long term goal, then hopefully you interned at a USAO at some point. This is important because as a starting point, in the most competitive offices, like SDNY, EDVA, NDIL, NDCA, and CDCA, they want to see a commitment to public service and the traditional indicator has been interning for a USAO. If you haven't done that, think about what in your background shows a commitment to public service and figure out how to leverage that in an application.

Second, go clerk. 9th Circuit, NDCA or CDCA. For AUSA applications, I think clerking on the district court gives you a better narrative for interviews (and better recommendations frankly), but appellate clerkships are prestigious. If you clerk on the 9th Cir, try to do it with someone who has been a federal prosecutor, but really, any clerkship will make you vastly more competitive. If you can't clerk on the 9th/NDCA/CDCA then try the 4th Circuit in Virginia or MD or D.MD.

You can try to get into the USAO after clerking, but it is likely to be a longshot. After clerking, I would lateral to a more prestigious firm in the Vault 10 range (better yet, check out Chambers and go somewhere with a great white collar practice). If you're set on making NDCA your home, then in addition to working on white collar stuff, you should also try to get some IP litigation experience and some cross-border litigation experience (preferably in FCPA or investigations). While NDCA does not handle a lot of FCPA (main justice does that), many of their cases are increasingly international in nature. Obviously, IP theft is a big priority there. After about a year of practicing post clerkship, I would shoot a strong application -- with recommendation letters and a strong list of references.

As for the suggestions to go the ADA route, I wouldn't do that. ADA --> AUSA is a frequent path, but it takes a lot of work to pull it off and a lot of years. Not sure you could do it in less than 5. Also the competition is much much much more fierce among ADAs seeking AUSA positions than biglaw associates. In Los Angeles, nearly every ADA (slight exaggeration) is applying for these jobs and many have applied multiple times and developed relationships with AUSAs. In San Fran, the competition is slightly less because younger ADAs in the district attorney's office are better paid than younger AUSAs, but many of the more senior ADAs are gunning for AUSA vacancies. So while the competition from biglaw is hard, I think you have a better shot at distinguishing yourself from other biglaw associates if you have certain experience than being one of 100 ADAs in the pile.

Finally, I would say that you might want to think about moving to California and doing biglaw there and get admitted to the bar. Some of the postings for CDCA have, in recent times, required applicants to be current members of the California Bar (some others I've seen don't; not sure why the difference in the announcements). In any event, being a current member of the bar would probably help on the margins - - which means you should probably seriously consider it. That being said, I don't think it is required. I got requests to interview at both offices and I've never set foot in California besides vacation, so there's that.

This is an excellent post.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. 100% serious to quyash all doubt and really appreciate all the responses and don't mind the harshness.

I am currently in the White Collar group - didn't know this mattered or I would have mentioned it.

For those who mentioned going to a DAs office - any opinion on going to another federal or state regulator? Perhaps SEC, CA's AG, CFPB, FDIC? Would those be equally helpful or should I really be going for SF or LA's DA's office?

Would it be worth trying to clerk in a flyover to improve my chances??

I don't think it is "nearly impossible." I think you need to be strategic. First, is becoming an AUSA a recent development in your life or a long term goal? If it has been a long term goal, then hopefully you interned at a USAO at some point. This is important because as a starting point, in the most competitive offices, like SDNY, EDVA, NDIL, NDCA, and CDCA, they want to see a commitment to public service and the traditional indicator has been interning for a USAO. If you haven't done that, think about what in your background shows a commitment to public service and figure out how to leverage that in an application.

Second, go clerk. 9th Circuit, NDCA or CDCA. For AUSA applications, I think clerking on the district court gives you a better narrative for interviews (and better recommendations frankly), but appellate clerkships are prestigious. If you clerk on the 9th Cir, try to do it with someone who has been a federal prosecutor, but really, any clerkship will make you vastly more competitive. If you can't clerk on the 9th/NDCA/CDCA then try the 4th Circuit in Virginia or MD or D.MD.

You can try to get into the USAO after clerking, but it is likely to be a longshot. After clerking, I would lateral to a more prestigious firm in the Vault 10 range (better yet, check out Chambers and go somewhere with a great white collar practice). If you're set on making NDCA your home, then in addition to working on white collar stuff, you should also try to get some IP litigation experience and some cross-border litigation experience (preferably in FCPA or investigations). While NDCA does not handle a lot of FCPA (main justice does that), many of their cases are increasingly international in nature. Obviously, IP theft is a big priority there. After about a year of practicing post clerkship, I would shoot a strong application -- with recommendation letters and a strong list of references.

As for the suggestions to go the ADA route, I wouldn't do that. ADA --> AUSA is a frequent path, but it takes a lot of work to pull it off and a lot of years. Not sure you could do it in less than 5. Also the competition is much much much more fierce among ADAs seeking AUSA positions than biglaw associates. In Los Angeles, nearly every ADA (slight exaggeration) is applying for these jobs and many have applied multiple times and developed relationships with AUSAs. In San Fran, the competition is slightly less because younger ADAs in the district attorney's office are better paid than younger AUSAs, but many of the more senior ADAs are gunning for AUSA vacancies. So while the competition from biglaw is hard, I think you have a better shot at distinguishing yourself from other biglaw associates if you have certain experience than being one of 100 ADAs in the pile.

Finally, I would say that you might want to think about moving to California and doing biglaw there and get admitted to the bar. Some of the postings for CDCA have, in recent times, required applicants to be current members of the California Bar (some others I've seen don't; not sure why the difference in the announcements). In any event, being a current member of the bar would probably help on the margins - - which means you should probably seriously consider it. That being said, I don't think it is required. I got requests to interview at both offices and I've never set foot in California besides vacation, so there's that.

This is awesome.

Thanks for the taking the time to write this. I don't have any internships with the USAO but that isn't because I didn't want to - I just never got accepted to one in law school haha. I do have a demonstrable public service experience though - did 2 big fed internships for 1L summer and then spent 2 semesters in DC externing for other bigfed regulators as well.

Two general questions:
Do you think I can do IP work without a B.S. background?
With regards to clerking in 9th, CDCA, NDCA, I was under the impression that my grades closed these doors already. Any value in a flyover clerkship instead? Or perhaps getting a flyover clerkship and then applying for a NDCA or CDCA?

[Anonymous User]

Not the super-helpful anon above, small-city anon, but: my sense is that a flyover clerkship would still be helpful. Most of the people in my office who clerked did so in all kinds of different locations. Clerking local to where you want to work is always best, mind you, but if you can't swing that, a clerkship would still be worth it (assuming it works with your personal life). (I also agree with super-helpful anon that DCt is more useful than COA, but it's not like I'd turn down COA, either.)

I have definitely seen people go to USAOs out of state AG offices (for instance, Texas seems to detail people from the state AG's office with the local USAO relatively regularly) - not so much the other regulators. But I'm not in LA/SF, so can't say about those offices.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. 100% serious to quyash all doubt and really appreciate all the responses and don't mind the harshness.

I am currently in the White Collar group - didn't know this mattered or I would have mentioned it.

For those who mentioned going to a DAs office - any opinion on going to another federal or state regulator? Perhaps SEC, CA's AG, CFPB, FDIC? Would those be equally helpful or should I really be going for SF or LA's DA's office?

Would it be worth trying to clerk in a flyover to improve my chances??

I don't think it is "nearly impossible." I think you need to be strategic. First, is becoming an AUSA a recent development in your life or a long term goal? If it has been a long term goal, then hopefully you interned at a USAO at some point. This is important because as a starting point, in the most competitive offices, like SDNY, EDVA, NDIL, NDCA, and CDCA, they want to see a commitment to public service and the traditional indicator has been interning for a USAO. If you haven't done that, think about what in your background shows a commitment to public service and figure out how to leverage that in an application.

Second, go clerk. 9th Circuit, NDCA or CDCA. For AUSA applications, I think clerking on the district court gives you a better narrative for interviews (and better recommendations frankly), but appellate clerkships are prestigious. If you clerk on the 9th Cir, try to do it with someone who has been a federal prosecutor, but really, any clerkship will make you vastly more competitive. If you can't clerk on the 9th/NDCA/CDCA then try the 4th Circuit in Virginia or MD or D.MD.

You can try to get into the USAO after clerking, but it is likely to be a longshot. After clerking, I would lateral to a more prestigious firm in the Vault 10 range (better yet, check out Chambers and go somewhere with a great white collar practice). If you're set on making NDCA your home, then in addition to working on white collar stuff, you should also try to get some IP litigation experience and some cross-border litigation experience (preferably in FCPA or investigations). While NDCA does not handle a lot of FCPA (main justice does that), many of their cases are increasingly international in nature. Obviously, IP theft is a big priority there. After about a year of practicing post clerkship, I would shoot a strong application -- with recommendation letters and a strong list of references.

As for the suggestions to go the ADA route, I wouldn't do that. ADA --> AUSA is a frequent path, but it takes a lot of work to pull it off and a lot of years. Not sure you could do it in less than 5. Also the competition is much much much more fierce among ADAs seeking AUSA positions than biglaw associates. In Los Angeles, nearly every ADA (slight exaggeration) is applying for these jobs and many have applied multiple times and developed relationships with AUSAs. In San Fran, the competition is slightly less because younger ADAs in the district attorney's office are better paid than younger AUSAs, but many of the more senior ADAs are gunning for AUSA vacancies. So while the competition from biglaw is hard, I think you have a better shot at distinguishing yourself from other biglaw associates if you have certain experience than being one of 100 ADAs in the pile.

Finally, I would say that you might want to think about moving to California and doing biglaw there and get admitted to the bar. Some of the postings for CDCA have, in recent times, required applicants to be current members of the California Bar (some others I've seen don't; not sure why the difference in the announcements). In any event, being a current member of the bar would probably help on the margins - - which means you should probably seriously consider it. That being said, I don't think it is required. I got requests to interview at both offices and I've never set foot in California besides vacation, so there's that.

This is awesome.

Thanks for the taking the time to write this. I don't have any internships with the USAO but that isn't because I didn't want to - I just never got accepted to one in law school haha. I do have a demonstrable public service experience though - did 2 big fed internships for 1L summer and then spent 2 semesters in DC externing for other bigfed regulators as well.

Two general questions:
Do you think I can do IP work without a B.S. background?
With regards to clerking in 9th, CDCA, NDCA, I was under the impression that my grades closed these doors already. Any value in a flyover clerkship instead? Or perhaps getting a flyover clerkship and then applying for a NDCA or CDCA?

1) It depends on the firm. A science or tech background is helpful for IP (and many firms require it for associates in that practice area), but at the end of the day, many associates work on financial litigation without a business or accounting background. So I would just put that out there to your assignment coordinator and express interest - - or if your firm is currently handling some interesting matters, just volunteer to work on them. They might say no, but they might say yes. I would make it clear that you just want to try it out, you're not trying to change practice areas.

(2) Well the Ninth Circuit is huge. Some of the judges place less emphasis on grades than others, so I'm not sure clerking on the 9th is impossible. NDCA will be very tough, but CDCA has some judges that aren't that grade conscious (although will still be tough). Even though you said 1/3, i think you can (and should) apply to judges who mention top 25%. As for clerking in a flyover, I think it will help with AUSA applications generally, but not sure it will have any specific measurable impact on the jurisdictions you are looking at (though if I had to guess, even in NDCA or CDCA, you're better off with a flyover clerkship than without any clerkship). In any event, I would still do a clerkship even if a flyover. Clerking is just an important thing to do if you're a litigator.

One final thought: the USAO in DC starts hiring after one year of experience. While it is competitive to get in there, I'm not sure it is impossible. They have a ton of turnover and seem to have AUSAs from all different types of law schools. Might be worth it to get your foot in the door there and then move to Cali after. The only downside is DC AUSA has a four year commitment and during that entire time, I think you're in superior court rather than federal court.

[Anonymous User]

If you go the ADA route, remember it is harder to do compared to doing BigLaw and a clerkship (to get to USAO). But if you do, ADA jobs especially in CA is extremely hard to get. Especially in LA or SF. People hired there have clerked in the offices their entire law school career or have significant trial experience. At least 20 jury trials usually. You gotta make yourself stand out. This is assuming you take the ADA route. I would recommend following the anon's advice above.

[RaceJudicata]

If you go the ADA route, remember it is harder to do compared to doing BigLaw and a clerkship (to get to USAO). But if you do, ADA jobs especially in CA is extremely hard to get. Especially in LA or SF. People hired there have clerked in the offices their entire law school career or have significant trial experience. At least 20 jury trials usually. You gotta make yourself stand out. This is assuming you take the ADA route. I would recommend following the anon's advice above.

Not an AUSA, or anything close. But I think it is a bit of a stretch to say "20 jury trials" is even a remote prerequisite.

[Anonymous User]

I think they're saying you need that level of experience to get hired as a LA/SF ADA.

But FWIW, experienced state prosecutors getting hired in my (small city) office have like 50 felony trials under their belts.

[Anonymous User]

If you go the ADA route, remember it is harder to do compared to doing BigLaw and a clerkship (to get to USAO). But if you do, ADA jobs especially in CA is extremely hard to get. Especially in LA or SF. People hired there have clerked in the offices their entire law school career or have significant trial experience. At least 20 jury trials usually. You gotta make yourself stand out. This is assuming you take the ADA route. I would recommend following the anon's advice above.

Not an AUSA, or anything close. But I think it is a bit of a stretch to say "20 jury trials" is even a remote prerequisite.

As anon above stated, I did mean LA or SF DA Offices. Even the smaller offices, a lot of newly-hired prosecutors have multiple jury trials under their belt. For the USAO, that is not necessary. I met a lot of new AUSAs that has never done a trial. I even met a handful of AUSAs with a few years experience without trials.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have any insight on the competitiveness of the Texas and Atlanta USAO's?

[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.

[rpupkin]

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.

Agreed. This is why I think OP's goal is unrealistic. It's not just that becoming an AUSA in SF/LA is a longshot; it's that there are necessary intermediate steps that, viewed individually, are longshots for a top 1/3, T20 student. When you add it all up, the long-term goal is close to impossible.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have any insight on the competitiveness of the Texas and Atlanta USAO's?

As a general rule of thumb, AUSA gigs are pretty competitive to get. There's tons of people out there with SDNY credentials applying to places like Atlanta, Charlotte, Austin because they want to be AUSAs but not in NYC.

Also as a general rule of thumb, it is much much harder to get a position as a criminal assistant than a civil assistant.

[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.

[WheninLaw]

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.

Agreed. This is why I think OP's goal is unrealistic. It's not just that becoming an AUSA in SF/LA is a longshot; it's that there are necessary intermediate steps that, viewed individually, are longshots for a top 1/3, T20 student. When you add it all up, the long-term goal is close to impossible.

Seconded. This is exactly why I initially called his/her chances almost impossible. OP's stats are not getting CA 9, and probably not Northern/Central District. You are talking about some of the most competitive clerkships in the country.

[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.