Hiring Freezes?? Forum

[JakeTappers]

Totally speculative, unless there is an inside source here, but do we have any idea how this would shake out in offices? Presumably Trump would want a large increase in Chicago given his focus on violent crimes there, but I'm not sure how you allocate this otherwise (obviously, immigration goes to border districts).

[andythefir]

Totally speculative, unless there is an inside source here, but do we have any idea how this would shake out in offices? Presumably Trump would want a large increase in Chicago given his focus on violent crimes there, but I'm not sure how you allocate this otherwise (obviously, immigration goes to border districts).

I was surprised that the majority of the spots were set aside for gangs and not immigration. But there's immigration in every jurisdiction. I was a PD intern in Indiana, and tons of my clients were Spanish only speakers. If only symbolically, I bet the bulk will go to border districts, but others need them.

I wonder how this will play with the pending USA nominations. The budget won't come for several months yet, as will the nominations. I think that will mean when both hit there's going to be a ton of hiring.

[JakeTappers]

Totally speculative, unless there is an inside source here, but do we have any idea how this would shake out in offices? Presumably Trump would want a large increase in Chicago given his focus on violent crimes there, but I'm not sure how you allocate this otherwise (obviously, immigration goes to border districts).

I was surprised that the majority of the spots were set aside for gangs and not immigration. But there's immigration in every jurisdiction. I was a PD intern in Indiana, and tons of my clients were Spanish only speakers. If only symbolically, I bet the bulk will go to border districts, but others need them.

I wonder how this will play with the pending USA nominations. The budget won't come for several months yet, as will the nominations. I think that will mean when both hit there's going to be a ton of hiring.

As someone ending a clerkship in 14 months, I hope this is true. Though I guess 300 is a drop in the bucket more or less. Even with attention won't be much more. As to the immigration entries, I suppose that's true - i posted elsewhere that I know that at least one border district requested 30 for their district alone, and were told okay on 15 - but that they would be detailed from elsewhere. Will be interesting to see how this shakes out.

[Anonymous User]

I just received a letter from a USAO (busy District on the East Coast) saying that, while the freeze has been lifted, they will not be hiring this cycle. They recommended that wait one to two years before reapplying.

Fuck me.

[JakeTappers]

I just received a letter from a USAO (busy District on the East Coast) saying that, while the freeze has been lifted, they will not be hiring this cycle. They recommended that wait one to two years before reapplying.

Fuck me.

Good. Lord.

I guess this means we are basically in a freeze for the foreseeable future? Don't even know what "cycle" means in this or government context though.

Incredibly disheartening for me and I've got a year before my clerkship is up. Can't imagine for you/others.

[Anonymous User]

I just received a letter from a USAO (busy District on the East Coast) saying that, while the freeze has been lifted, they will not be hiring this cycle. They recommended that wait one to two years before reapplying.

Fuck me.

Good. Lord.

I guess this means we are basically in a freeze for the foreseeable future? Don't even know what "cycle" means in this or government context though.

Incredibly disheartening for me and I've got a year before my clerkship is up. Can't imagine for you/others.

The USAO is in a semi-official hiring freeze. Basically if an office 1 has a screaming need, 2 has the cash on hand to pay for a new USA, new FAUSA, new assistant to USA, and so on, AND can take on another salary for the new line AUSA hire, and 3 the acting USA is secure enough in his/her decisions to not anticipate any blowback from whoever the new USA is, then an office might hire. In other words, it's not impossible, but it's not likely. Checking the vacancies on the DOJ attorney site confirms that. There's a natural egress from offices, and that process has likely accelerated with the current administration.

I anticipate the dam breaking when the new USAs get installed. Specifically, if a new USA is sworn in in September, I'd bet within a month there are postings for that offices to interview in October/November, which means finishing the background check in January-ish.

A caveat: it's possible the USAOs get treated like State, where missing bodies are a feature, not a bug. The opposite end is Border Patrol, where, if nothing else, the administration appears eager to symbolically amp up bodies in offices. As between the 2, USAOs should be more similar to BP, but no one can say for sure.

[Anonymous User]

I think this is more a function of the lack of USAs, rather than the Trump hiring freeze (not that you really said otherwise, just a comment). The proposed Trump budget envisions adding AUSAs. Now, I don't know when he's going to get a budget passed or what will be in it, but I don't think there's any sign that Trump intends to shrink USAOs.

[JakeTappers]

I just received a letter from a USAO (busy District on the East Coast) saying that, while the freeze has been lifted, they will not be hiring this cycle. They recommended that wait one to two years before reapplying.

Fuck me.

Good. Lord.

I guess this means we are basically in a freeze for the foreseeable future? Don't even know what "cycle" means in this or government context though.

Incredibly disheartening for me and I've got a year before my clerkship is up. Can't imagine for you/others.

The USAO is in a semi-official hiring freeze. Basically if an office 1 has a screaming need, 2 has the cash on hand to pay for a new USA, new FAUSA, new assistant to USA, and so on, AND can take on another salary for the new line AUSA hire, and 3 the acting USA is secure enough in his/her decisions to not anticipate any blowback from whoever the new USA is, then an office might hire. In other words, it's not impossible, but it's not likely. Checking the vacancies on the DOJ attorney site confirms that. There's a natural egress from offices, and that process has likely accelerated with the current administration.

I anticipate the dam breaking when the new USAs get installed. Specifically, if a new USA is sworn in in September, I'd bet within a month there are postings for that offices to interview in October/November, which means finishing the background check in January-ish.

A caveat: it's possible the USAOs get treated like State, where missing bodies are a feature, not a bug. The opposite end is Border Patrol, where, if nothing else, the administration appears eager to symbolically amp up bodies in offices. As between the 2, USAOs should be more similar to BP, but no one can say for sure.

This seems reasonable, and I hope true, but it does seem like appointment may be a much much slower process than expected in some districts. For instance, I know one district (border...so that might have something to do with it) where the senators (unified) made a recommendation months ago, multiple interviews have happened, and I think we can assume an appointment within a few months, max. Then you look at a contested state like Illinois, and it seems they haven't even run candidates through any sort of screening whatsoever and it appears that screening is going to be an onerous process that is hotly contested (unless Trump admin decides to blow it all up). https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/ ... ominations

Would seem that a year from now may be more likely for such districts, particularly given the snails pace of other senatorially confirmed positions.

[Anonymous User]

Anon above. The two-year recommendation makes me worry, honestly, and my clerkship ends in September; the idea of "hiding out" in a job while scheming to bail for this particular office (which isn't easy to get to, and which I'd move further away from if I accepted another job) is not particularly appealing. The world is obviously not calibrated to my special needs, but it doesn't make me any less bitter.

THANKS, HILLARY.

[andythefir]

Anon above. The two-year recommendation makes me worry, honestly, and my clerkship ends in September; the idea of "hiding out" in a job while scheming to bail for this particular office (which isn't easy to get to, and which I'd move further away from if I accepted another job) is not particularly appealing. The world is obviously not calibrated to my special needs, but it doesn't make me any less bitter.

THANKS, HILLARY.

That really sucks, I'm really sorry you're in that position.

[JakeTappers]

I saw about 10 nominations were announced today, mostly smaller districts (aside from DC), so we should start to see how these will move and if it will indeed open some hiring.

Anyone familiar with SD Cal? I saw they posted 5+ spots and am wondering what that means, particularly with no proposed USA.

[Anonymous User]

Anon above. The two-year recommendation makes me worry, honestly, and my clerkship ends in September; the idea of "hiding out" in a job while scheming to bail for this particular office (which isn't easy to get to, and which I'd move further away from if I accepted another job) is not particularly appealing. The world is obviously not calibrated to my special needs, but it doesn't make me any less bitter.

THANKS, HILLARY.

I'm in the same boat, made the mistake of clerking mid-career specifically to try to transition into DOJ. Upended my life for a D. Ct. clerkship. Could not have timed it worse.

[andythefir]

I saw about 10 nominations were announced today, mostly smaller districts (aside from DC), so we should start to see how these will move and if it will indeed open some hiring.

Anyone familiar with SD Cal? I saw they posted 5+ spots and am wondering what that means, particularly with no proposed USA.

All of the nominations that came forward today were either 2 R senators or both senators were in agreement. The Ohio one, especially, is enlightening: the senators put that name forward soon after inauguration. So 5ish months from putting a name forward>nomination, now we have to wait to see how long it takes to go from nomination>hearing/vote.

[Anonymous User]

Any word on Tucson, AZ USAO?

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know if the DOJ's departmental freeze is still in effect? I've seen job postings but am curious if any (AUSA) offers have started to be made again. Thanks for any info.

[andythefir]

Does anyone know if the DOJ's departmental freeze is still in effect? I've seen job postings but am curious if any (AUSA) offers have started to be made again. Thanks for any info.

No USAs means hiring AUSAs will be dicey. Acting USAs mostly want to stick around the office once the new USAs get installed, so they're unlikely to want to antagonize their future boss by bringing on new people without the new USA. This is especially true for more senior positions, but screaming needs in an office + well credentialed candidate might slip past the goalie.

[JakeTappers]

Does anyone know if the DOJ's departmental freeze is still in effect? I've seen job postings but am curious if any (AUSA) offers have started to be made again. Thanks for any info.

No USAs means hiring AUSAs will be dicey. Acting USAs mostly want to stick around the office once the new USAs get installed, so they're unlikely to want to antagonize their future boss by bringing on new people without the new USA. This is especially true for more senior positions, but screaming needs in an office + well credentialed candidate might slip past the goalie.

This is certainly the conventional wisdom but there are quite a bit of listings out there, obviously, and large offices like SDNY, EDNY, CDCAL, are actively soliciting applications (not just passively).

[andythefir]

This is certainly the conventional wisdom but there are quite a bit of listings out there, obviously, and large offices like SDNY, EDNY, CDCAL, are actively soliciting applications (not just passively).

Across the country there's nowhere near the number of postings that you'd normally see to account just for turnover, forget new prosecutors to handle new prosecution directions. There are some, just way fewer than you'd normally see if 1 there were installed USAs and 2 anyone knew what the budget was going to look like.

[JakeTappers]

This is certainly the conventional wisdom but there are quite a bit of listings out there, obviously, and large offices like SDNY, EDNY, CDCAL, are actively soliciting applications (not just passively).

Across the country there's nowhere near the number of postings that you'd normally see to account just for turnover, forget new prosecutors to handle new prosecution directions. There are some, just way fewer than you'd normally see if 1 there were installed USAs and 2 anyone knew what the budget was going to look like.

Abandon all ye hope?

[andythefir]

Abandon all ye hope?

If you have a short onramp for whatever reason. If you absolutely had to catch on at a particular place from February 2017 until whenever the new USAs are on board and there's a budget. I also haven't heard about folks leaving the executive branch like I anticipated. But crimes are still getting committed, people are still leaving USAOs for more $ in firms, so there will be spots eventually.

[JakeTappers]

Abandon all ye hope?

If you have a short onramp for whatever reason. If you absolutely had to catch on at a particular place from February 2017 until whenever the new USAs are on board and there's a budget. I also haven't heard about folks leaving the executive branch like I anticipated. But crimes are still getting committed, people are still leaving USAOs for more $ in firms, so there will be spots eventually.

Yea I'm rolling into a COA clerkship from a DCT clerkship after years of biglaw. Don't want to go back is all and if I do, have to stay a year at least with the bonus etc so gets complicated. Just hoping shit gets figured out some day soon. Grassley seemed to say judges and subcabinet are first and second priority. I know there aren't hearings on USAs but not sure they will fit in anytime in 2017 and who knows when contentious ones like New York or Chicago even get nominated.

[FSK]

The holdup in the senate isn't in judiciary, its getting floortime for these votes. As soon as a USA can't get UC (unanomous consent), mcconell has to find floor time to hold a vote. The senate just does not have much floor time, and McConnell will have to burn a ton on healthcare, budget, debt ceiling,and it seems they're making judges a big priority. I know they have to address FAA funding also. There's just not much time for non UC things...

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know if the DOJ's departmental freeze is still in effect? I've seen job postings but am curious if any (AUSA) offers have started to be made again. Thanks for any info.

Hope so. I'm interviewing at one in a few weeks -- and they had a few interview dates, I think for several open positions/lots of candidates.

[andythefir]

Looks like there's been some movement. Whole bunch of new AUSA openings posted in the last few days.

[Anonymous User]

Just confirming, it would be a terrible idea to try and join CFPB honors right now, right? In terms of job stability, etc...