Why AUSA? Forum

[Lacepiece23]

I interviewed for the job once and didn’t get it because of the regime change. And I’m thankful. This post is for discussion for TLS folks thinking about doing it.

My questions is why? It’s not the revolving door to biglaw partnership it once was. It comes with a four year commitment. Most people who get it are not passionate about putting away non violent offenders for drug chargers.

In most districts you get one trial a year. And that one trial is dead to rights we have all the evidence you’re going to jail. Not really a testament to honing your trial skills like you’d get in the DAs office.

And then there’s the pay. Low six figures isn’t anything to scoff at. But If you are qualified for it you can probably make three times more with a bit larger of a workload.

So, other than prestige, why do people sign up?

[Anonymous User]

Some people like public service with a good salary and manageable hours.

[Anonymous User]

Some people like public service with a good salary and manageable hours.

^

Also: autonomy/responsibility without the business/admin requirements of running your own practice; stability and benefits and the usual perks of federal gigs; criminal law is way more interesting than civil; if you want to do criminal it’s much better pay than DA’s offices, and better training and resources than DA’s offices; there’s still a lot of research/writing if you like that side of things.

I don’t actually think it’s especially “prestigious” most of the time; a lot of it is run of the mill drug/gun/CP cases.

I do think public service has to be intrinsically meaningful to you, and you have to want to do criminal law. If you don’t have a strong interest in those things, there isn’t any great reason to do the job. I agree that going to the USAO and leaving for biglaw partnership generally isn’t a thing any more.

If you do want to do criminal law, though, it’s a great gig. This is especially the case if you aren’t temperamentally inclined to defense work, by which I mean not “defense is bad” (I think def attorneys do a more important job than AUSAs, frankly) but that being a good defense attorney requires an ability to confuse issues and people skills that not everyone has.

(I also disagree that having shitty evidence and bad witnesses and less time to prepare everything at a DA’s office actually “hones your skills” better at trial; obviously experienced DAs do have a lot of great trial skills but I don’t think the relative strength of federal cases gets in the way of learning to be a great trial attorney in the federal system. Number of trials, sure, but not because they’re “slam dunk” cases. It is ALWAYS possible to fuck up a trial.)

I do think a lot of people have stars in their eyes and unrealistic expectations about the job, so I agree with that not everyone who wants AUSA probably should. I’m fine with saying that AUSA is overrated for a lot of people.

But FWIW, I know a ton of lifer AUSAs. A lot of people find it really congenial.

[Anonymous User]

Totally agree with the above post. A lot of law students are obsessed with getting the next gold star and so they think they want to be an AUSA because it is a very competitive and (whether rightly or wrongly) prestigious position, particularly in the big districts. But it takes a certain kind of person to like the work (all the traits the poster mentioned), though if that described you, the job can be really great. And you really can't be in the law for money, which knocks out a lot of people in this profession. Also completely agree that there are a lot of ways to screw up a slam dunk trial - I reviewed many of them in my clerkships. The one point of disagreement would be that there is not a meaningful difference between people who like criminal defense and people who like prosecution -- once you take political beliefs out of it, it really is a lot of the same skills and people move between defense and prosecution easily and often.

[Anonymous User]

Anon from 2 posts above - want to clarify that yes, absolutely, lots of people do move between defense and prosecution. I was thinking more that if you want criminal law but don’t want to do defense (for whatever reason), there isn’t a private sector option, so AUSA makes even more sense. But yes, I would say a lot (probably most) people involved in criminal law see it all as involving the same bucket of skills and move back and forth without issue. I know a lot of private defense attorneys who started as AUSAs. (There are probably fewer PDs who turn to prosecution, but I know some of those as well.)

[Anonymous User]

There are indeed some people that get a high off of throwing the book at people.

EDIT:

Many of the true defense attorneys I know would never take a defense lawyer seriously who was once on the other side and I see the merit in that.

[lavarman84]

There are indeed some people that get a high off of throwing the book at people.

EDIT:

Many of the true defense attorneys I know would never take a defense lawyer seriously who was once on the other side and I see the merit in that.

That's a dumb stance. Hell, one of the best defense attorneys I saw during my clerkship was a former FBI agent. He was quite adept at tearing apart the federal officers on the stand and was able to slip in the fact that he had previously been FBI during cross (which seemed to bolster his credibility with the juries).

Obviously, that's a little different from being a prosecutor, but it helps to have intimate knowledge of the other side. It's an advantage to have that perspective, whether it's from working in law enforcement or being a prosecutor.

I interviewed for the job once and didn’t get it because of the regime change. And I’m thankful. This post is for discussion for TLS folks thinking about doing it.

My questions is why? It’s not the revolving door to biglaw partnership it once was. It comes with a four year commitment. Most people who get it are not passionate about putting away non violent offenders for drug chargers.

In most districts you get one trial a year. And that one trial is dead to rights we have all the evidence you’re going to jail. Not really a testament to honing your trial skills like you’d get in the DAs office.

And then there’s the pay. Low six figures isn’t anything to scoff at. But If you are qualified for it you can probably make three times more with a bit larger of a workload.

So, other than prestige, why do people sign up?

Seems like there are two general types: (1) people in it for career advancement (prestige) or (2) people in it because they believe in the work they're doing. Sometimes, it's both.

[Anonymous User]

Many of the true defense attorneys I know would never take a defense lawyer seriously who was once on the other side and I see the merit in that.

I mean that's your prerogative, but you'd be missing out on a ton of really successful lawyers.

[ChickenSalad]

There are indeed some people that get a high off of throwing the book at people.

EDIT:

Many of the true defense attorneys I know would never take a defense lawyer seriously who was once on the other side and I see the merit in that.

Jesus this is depressingly closed-minded. I don't know a single defense attorney that would take this view. There are tons of exceptional lawyers that transitioned from one side to the other. Dan Webb went from the US Attorney for NDIL to defense work at Winston and Strawn and Raj Parekh (US Attorney at EDVA) went from Simpson Thatcher to government work.

Your view is just tribalism for the sake of it...

Edit: Oh I almost forgot, would the *true* defense attorneys you know take Robert Mueller seriously?

[LBJ's Hair]

Many of the true defense attorneys I know would never take a defense lawyer seriously who was once on the other side and I see the merit in that.

A lot of younger public defenders feel this way and, no offense, it's just fucking stupid. Has nothing to do with benefiting their indigent defendant clients and everything to do with performative radical chic office politics.

When some big investment bank is getting investigated by the government, they hire BigLaw firms stacked with former white collar AUSAs. Because... those guys know the playbook.

[Lacepiece23]

Some fair points. When I was clerking, I was pretty surprised by how dull a lot of the work seemed. Every once in a while I saw a cool suppression hearing and we even had one trial, which I had a hard time staying awake during.

But it mostly seemed like writing sentencing memos for plea deals. I didn’t get to see the investigation piece, which seems like it could be interesting.

[Anonymous User]

I think the AUSA's populate biglaw less because they "know the playbook" which is pretty well known by everyone at this point and moreso that the hope is that the AUSA's working on the case will treat the defense lawyers with slightly more respect/slightly improved conduct because they may know the folks from before (or know of them). It's a more clique-ish group than they let on.

*awaits thirty comments about how I am wrong*

[Anonymous User]

There are indeed some people that get a high off of throwing the book at people.

EDIT:

Many of the true defense attorneys I know would never take a defense lawyer seriously who was once on the other side and I see the merit in that.

Jesus this is depressingly closed-minded. I don't know a single defense attorney that would take this view. There are tons of exceptional lawyers that transitioned from one side to the other. Dan Webb went from the US Attorney for NDIL to defense work at Winston and Strawn and Raj Parekh (US Attorney at EDVA) went from Simpson Thatcher to government work.

Your view is just tribalism for the sake of it...

Edit: Oh I almost forgot, would the *true* defense attorneys you know take Robert Mueller seriously?

One thing to remember. All of the people you listed tried a million cases as AUSA's - these days there are less, the people becoming AUSA's are doing so slightly older than back then and the big stuff goes to the senior people (who never leave). The same experience cannot be had in most big city USAO's that could once be had.

Also, though I am not in this camp, I think it is fair to say that less people are taking Robert Mueller seriously now than they once did.

[publius365]

There are indeed some people that get a high off of throwing the book at people.

EDIT:

Many of the true defense attorneys I know would never take a defense lawyer seriously who was once on the other side and I see the merit in that.

Either you don't know what you are talking about, or you know bottom of the barrel defense attorneys.

[Anonymous User]

One thing to remember. All of the people you listed tried a million cases as AUSA's - these days there are less, the people becoming AUSA's are doing so slightly older than back then and the big stuff goes to the senior people (who never leave). The same experience cannot be had in most big city USAO's that could once be had.

I think this is a different issue than whether to take defense attorneys seriously if they ever worked as prosecutors. The people who don’t, don’t care whether those prosecutors are getting as much experience as they used to, they’re just ideologically opposed to the crossover at all.

[Robot]

There are indeed some people that get a high off of throwing the book at people.

EDIT:

Many of the true defense attorneys I know would never take a defense lawyer seriously who was once on the other side and I see the merit in that.

Jesus this is depressingly closed-minded. I don't know a single defense attorney that would take this view. There are tons of exceptional lawyers that transitioned from one side to the other. Dan Webb went from the US Attorney for NDIL to defense work at Winston and Strawn and Raj Parekh (US Attorney at EDVA) went from Simpson Thatcher to government work.

Your view is just tribalism for the sake of it...

Edit: Oh I almost forgot, would the *true* defense attorneys you know take Robert Mueller seriously?

I mean probably not, I doubt that many highly ideologically motivated criminal defense practitioners have much respect for biglaw white collar lawyers who never see courtrooms or defend violent crimes, especially ones like Mueller who have extensive rather than incidental prosecution experience

[ninthcircuitattorney]

In federal court, rules of evidence, standards on motions to suppress, trial voir dire, etc. are exactly the same for the drug dealer down the street as for President Trump. Thus, only the most childishly ideological criminal defense attorney would look down on another attorney for only handling white collar criminal cases or vice versa.

[objctnyrhnr]

There are indeed some people that get a high off of throwing the book at people.

EDIT:

Many of the true defense attorneys I know would never take a defense lawyer seriously who was once on the other side and I see the merit in that.

Either you don't know what you are talking about, or you know bottom of the barrel defense attorneys.

OP seems pretty drunk off the wokeness kool aid (and likely a law student or extremely junior). I have come across people like this. Amongst those people, “PROSECOoTOR = BAD” is not only a legitimate take…but a widely endorsed one. Kind of nuts.

[dtlaatty]

There are indeed some people that get a high off of throwing the book at people.

EDIT:

Many of the true defense attorneys I know would never take a defense lawyer seriously who was once on the other side and I see the merit in that.

I am sure some"true" defense attorneys believe this, but not wise ones or the best ones. In my experience "true believers" in PD's offices often have the hardest time seeing weaknesses in their own case and therefore do a worse job for their clients than attorneys who are less "hardcore" anti-the system and are able to take a more even-keeled view of the prosecution's case as well as theirs. That same ideological blinder would seem to generate the opinion you note.

[objctnyrhnr]

There are indeed some people that get a high off of throwing the book at people.

EDIT:

Many of the true defense attorneys I know would never take a defense lawyer seriously who was once on the other side and I see the merit in that.

I am sure some"true" defense attorneys believe this, but not wise ones or the best ones. In my experience "true believers" in PD's offices often have the hardest time seeing weaknesses in their own case and therefore do a worse job for their clients than attorneys who are less "hardcore" anti-the system and are able to take a more even-keeled view of the prosecution's case as well as theirs. That same ideological blinder would seem to generate the opinion you note.

+1.

[Anonymous User]

There are indeed some people that get a high off of throwing the book at people.

EDIT:

Many of the true defense attorneys I know would never take a defense lawyer seriously who was once on the other side and I see the merit in that.

I am sure some"true" defense attorneys believe this, but not wise ones or the best ones. In my experience "true believers" in PD's offices often have the hardest time seeing weaknesses in their own case and therefore do a worse job for their clients than attorneys who are less "hardcore" anti-the system and are able to take a more even-keeled view of the prosecution's case as well as theirs. That same ideological blinder would seem to generate the opinion you note.

Absolutely true. The "if ever a prosecutor (or worked in a law firm) = bad" formula is rampant among law students who have no idea how the system works and often persists for a bit once people start doing PD, but as others have said, for most people it quickly wears off and is replaced by a more nuanced view of the world and the work. And it is also true that while being purely ideologically driven may support your "cause" in some abstract way, it can have seriously negative repercussions on your clients who have to live in the real world and not the utopia true believers believe they can create.

[Robot]

In federal court, rules of evidence, standards on motions to suppress, trial voir dire, etc. are exactly the same for the drug dealer down the street as for President Trump. Thus, only the most childishly ideological criminal defense attorney would look down on another attorney for only handling white collar criminal cases or vice versa.

Big firm white collar practice has not much in common with being e.g. a PD in the skills required, day to day work, clients, applicable law, etc. Some of the procedure is the same of course but one of the biggest differences is that big firms go to trial very rarely so voir dire is a similarity in name only. And if you’re ideologically motivated I doubt you look kindly on people who exclusively defend the wealthy from financial crimes.