Top Law Schools

Posted: **Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:54 pm**

Has anyone taken an uncompensated AUSA position? I see them typically listed as Special AUSA positions.

In a Chambers ranked litigation boutique in my area but at a certain point would like to jump to AUSA.

I am interested in hearing if anyone has taken these jobs, what the experience was like, if you stayed on as a permanent AUSA in that district, and if you felt marketable after the fact. If there’s any other detail you can provide that would be great. Thank you.

Posted: **Sat Mar 25, 2023 1:05 am**

Born-Ready29 wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:54 pm
Has anyone taken an uncompensated AUSA position? I see them typically listed as Special AUSA positions.

In a Chambers ranked litigation boutique in my area but at a certain point would like to jump to AUSA.

I am interested in hearing if anyone has taken these jobs, what the experience was like, if you stayed on as a permanent AUSA in that district, and if you felt marketable after the fact. If there’s any other detail you can provide that would be great. Thank you.

I haven't personally taken one of these positions, but I know 4 people who did (and know of one other). Based on their anecdata, my understanding is:

- in terms of cases you work on, you're treated pretty much exactly like any other AUSA with your level of experience. Now, if the office has a particularly high volume of less complex cases, you'd probably do a lot of those, but that's mostly b/c all newbies tend to do a lot of general bread-and-butter crimes before moving into more complex/sophisticated stuff, not because you as an uncompensated SAUSA are not worthy of doing more interesting cases. The caveat to this is it's possible the position could be defined more narrowly, with a more limited range of experience, but I haven't generally seen this and if it's not outlined in the job posting, you're probably going to do the same kinds of cases that everyone else in the office does.

- only one person I know stayed on as a permanent AUSA in the district where they SAUSAed. Some offices actually put it into the terms of the position that you *cannot* move into a permanent position in that office (though I don't know how much that can be enforced if the office really wants to keep you). That said, 4 ended up as permanent AUSAs in other districts, and one went to another district to a paid but term AUSA position (they were replacing someone who was out on detail, theoretically for a limited time, but in practice the position kept getting renewed b/c the detailee wasn't coming back).

- how marketable you are after the fact depends on what you want to do. As I said, all the people I know ended up in some kind of AUSA position after doing the uncompensated gig, and I do think that once you get your foot in the door at a USAO, it's much easier to get into another office (obviously assuming you make a good impression as a SAUSA). Both offices where I've worked have been happy to hire people coming from other USAOs, and don't make a significant distinction between standard AUSAs and uncompensated SAUSAs. That said, that could vary by office or administration (my current office had a long stretch of hiring people from other USAOs, that's shifted with our current leadership).

If you want to go to the USAO for the trial experience to bounce back to a firm as partner, I'm not sure the SAUSA gig will do as much for you, mostly b/c you're not likely to be in it long enough to get the kind of experience with complex white-collar stuff that tends to make you a valuable draw for a firm. But that's also a little bit of speculation on my part, I don't have personal experience with it or know anyone who does.

- as for the experience overall, I think it can vary by office. One person I knew SAUSAed in a really large border district and I think came away from it with a bad taste in their mouth because they did feel like the SAUSAs got strung along to do shitty work with the promise that they'd get hired to a permanent position, but it never happened, and they had to go elsewhere. That said, the info I have suggests that it's a semi-dysfunctional office where lots of people are unhappy, so this person's experience may not really have been about being a SAUSA. The person who stayed in the office where they SAUSAed obviously had a good experience there and stuck around. The others who moved offices didn't seem to have any particular issues with their experience.

FWIW, the 4 people I know who did this came out of biglaw and lived on savings for the year. Two of them had supportive spouses with good jobs, too. (The person I just know of, I don't know their personal circumstances.)

I really hesitate to *recommend* these positions because I think they're kinda exploitative, as well that it's kind of crappy that only people with biglaw and/or family money can really take advantage of them. That said, the people I know who've done them have managed to go on and get permanent jobs and are happy. That could well be survivor bias - I don't know the people who didn't manage to get permanent jobs - so let me offer you this huge grain of salt.

(I also feel like these jobs are much less common than they were under some of the Obama years, when there were government hiring freezes and so more finagling to get staffing, and my info is about 10 years old know, but hopefully it's somewhat helpful.)

Posted: **Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:58 am**

Born-Ready29 wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:54 pm
Has anyone taken an uncompensated AUSA position? I see them typically listed as Special AUSA positions.

In a Chambers ranked litigation boutique in my area but at a certain point would like to jump to AUSA.

I am interested in hearing if anyone has taken these jobs, what the experience was like, if you stayed on as a permanent AUSA in that district, and if you felt marketable after the fact. If there’s any other detail you can provide that would be great. Thank you.

I can really only speak to DC USAO, but they regularly hire their SAUSAs. However, the difference between DC and any other USAO is that you’re likely starting where most others do, in misdemeanors. This can be great because you will immediately get substantive trial experience, but it also means case load is high and you’ll be working a lot of hours for no pay.

Posted: **Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:38 am**

I had one of these positions. I was in a small office (think district with no major city in it) back in the Obama years during the hiring freeze. I was on the civil side (e.g. civil forfeitures), just a couple years out of law school. I had been in biglaw but both burned out and needed to move for personal reasons.

Did some mildly interesting stuff, but the office overall wasn't enormously exciting. I actually ended up back in biglaw very fast, again for personal reasons. The SAUSA job had a term of a year. At the end I could have applied for a permanent position, and they told me I'd be likely to get it, but since I was leaving anyway I didn't apply.

It really wasn't a job for me -- everything was just very relaxed and slow, daily hour-long lunches, etc. The work might have gotten boring pretty fast. And the criminal side is just depressing (sending kids to prison because they bought sudafed for their meth-cooking relatives). In the office I was at, it was very much a 9-to-5 government job. I spent way too much time playing games on my phone.

I'm now back in biglaw, rather successfully. I can say that having the SAUSA position on my resume (which everybody says to just represent as an AUSA job) has helped occasionally -- people at the firm think I must have had interesting/valuable experience, and very occasionally work randomly pops up in my old district. But, as noted above, I didn't have nearly enough time to have any valuable experience in something interesting like white-collar, so that side of the firm ignores me -- they know that I'm a bit of a fake.

Personally, I think it was a nice break for a year. Sort of similar to going off for a clerkship, but actually standing up in court, which you don't get much of when you're young in biglaw. My firm was totally happy to take me back when I returned, and I came back fresh and motivated.

Posted: **Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:20 am**

Is the justification for these positions basically like oh we wish we could pay you, but the government won't give us the funding or is the justification something like this a privilege to work for us.

To me, the whole thing seems so absolutely insane in the similar way unpaid clerkship positions are. Like as a non-rich person, the sacrifices I would have to make to work for free after taking on debt to go to law school truly boggles my mind. The only possible way I could justify this internally is if it was a stepping stone to a permanent position, which it seems like it can be (but not guaranteed) I guess.

Posted: **Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:43 am**

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:20 am
Is the justification for these positions basically like oh we wish we could pay you, but the government won't give us the funding or is the justification something like this a privilege to work for us.

To me, the whole thing seems so absolutely insane in the similar way unpaid clerkship positions are. Like as a non-rich person, the sacrifices I would have to make to work for free after taking on debt to go to law school truly boggles my mind. The only possible way I could justify this internally is if it was a stepping stone to a permanent position, which it seems like it can be (but not guaranteed) I guess.

100% agree. If it's legal it shouldn't be.

Posted: **Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:40 am**

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:20 am
Is the justification for these positions basically like oh we wish we could pay you, but the government won't give us the funding or is the justification something like this a privilege to work for us.

To me, the whole thing seems so absolutely insane in the similar way unpaid clerkship positions are. Like as a non-rich person, the sacrifices I would have to make to work for free after taking on debt to go to law school truly boggles my mind. The only possible way I could justify this internally is if it was a stepping stone to a permanent position, which it seems like it can be (but not guaranteed) I guess.

I think it's a little of both, honestly. From the office's point of view, it's a way to get staffing when funding is unavailable - I don't know anyone who thinks people should be willing to work without pay and am pretty sure everyone would much rather pay everyone fairly. But the fact that it's a sought after job and there's a lot of sort of cultural messaging about it being a privilege (for everyone) to do this job (I can't tell you how often we get told being an AUSA is the best job a lawyer can have) underpins the ability to get people to do it for free. That said, I've never really seen the attitude that the SAUSA should consider themselves lucky even to be there - I think most offices feel grateful to have good people willing to take the positions. (Before anyone pops in with anecdotes to the contrary, I fully recognize there may be individual assholes floating around.)

And your post goes back to my original point that it's basically an option for rich people. I think people do justify it as a stepping stone to a permanent position - somewhere, if not in the district where you SAUSA - which does seem to happen enough to make this semi-rational. I also think anecdotally that most people who actually do this 1) grew up financially comfortable enough that taking an unpaid year doesn't freak them out, and 2) are so diehard about working as an AUSA that they're going to end up there one way or another. Like, if your attitude is "AUSA would be nice, but if it doesn't happen, that's fine, too," the uncompensated SAUSA is probably not for you. (I'm still not sure it's a great idea to be so attached to any job, especially one you haven't done, to give up a year of income. But that said, it's going to be a great way to figure out if it is for you.)

I love the idea that the year was a mellow break from biglaw, though - that *definitely* varies by office (that said, I think civil forfeiture is pretty humane in every office).

Posted: **Sat Mar 25, 2023 12:18 pm**

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:43 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:20 am
Is the justification for these positions basically like oh we wish we could pay you, but the government won't give us the funding or is the justification something like this a privilege to work for us.

To me, the whole thing seems so absolutely insane in the similar way unpaid clerkship positions are. Like as a non-rich person, the sacrifices I would have to make to work for free after taking on debt to go to law school truly boggles my mind. The only possible way I could justify this internally is if it was a stepping stone to a permanent position, which it seems like it can be (but not guaranteed) I guess.
100% agree. If it's legal it shouldn't be.

Same here. It is absolutely ridiculous that these exist at all.

Posted: **Sat Mar 25, 2023 1:37 pm**

Idk enough about SAUSAs, but in my district if you are an ADA in the state your office will keep paying you your salary for the year to get the experience. I haven't heard of one getting a trial? They tend to get more bread and butter stuff- at least from what I hear.

Posted: **Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:20 pm**

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:43 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:20 am
Is the justification for these positions basically like oh we wish we could pay you, but the government won't give us the funding or is the justification something like this a privilege to work for us.

To me, the whole thing seems so absolutely insane in the similar way unpaid clerkship positions are. Like as a non-rich person, the sacrifices I would have to make to work for free after taking on debt to go to law school truly boggles my mind. The only possible way I could justify this internally is if it was a stepping stone to a permanent position, which it seems like it can be (but not guaranteed) I guess.
100% agree. If it's legal it shouldn't be.

I mean, it's not slavery; no one's compelled to take these jobs. I do think it's generally kind of shitty, but if that were the standard for legality we'd live in a very different universe. (And yes, these jobs are legal; not at all claiming that the federal government is above reproach in all things, but they're very careful about, you know, not posting job listings that violate the law.)

Posted: **Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:43 pm**

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:43 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:20 am
Is the justification for these positions basically like oh we wish we could pay you, but the government won't give us the funding or is the justification something like this a privilege to work for us.

To me, the whole thing seems so absolutely insane in the similar way unpaid clerkship positions are. Like as a non-rich person, the sacrifices I would have to make to work for free after taking on debt to go to law school truly boggles my mind. The only possible way I could justify this internally is if it was a stepping stone to a permanent position, which it seems like it can be (but not guaranteed) I guess.
100% agree. If it's legal it shouldn't be.
I mean, it's not slavery; no one's compelled to take these jobs. I do think it's generally kind of shitty, but if that were the standard for legality we'd live in a very different universe. (And yes, these jobs are legal; not at all claiming that the federal government is above reproach in all things, but they're very careful about, you know, not posting job listings that violate the law.)

I agree it's not slavery. But in a world where there's a minimum wage, I think it's reasonable to expect the federal government to follow it, regardless of what the constitution strictly requires.

Posted: **Sat Mar 25, 2023 6:03 pm**

crazywafflez wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 25, 2023 1:37 pm
Idk enough about SAUSAs, but in my district if you are an ADA in the state your office will keep paying you your salary for the year to get the experience. I haven't heard of one getting a trial? They tend to get more bread and butter stuff- at least from what I hear.

I think some of that is just luck of the draw - it's going to depend a lot on the size of the office and what cases you get assigned to. If there aren't a lot of trials in the year you're there (very likely in the smaller offices), there isn't much you can do. And if you're only there for a year, plenty of cases take more than a year to go to trial, so even if you charge a trial case it might not go before your term is up.

That said, IME offices do try to put SAUSAs on a trial if at all possible, but I also think the incentive for doing do for an ADA is different than for someone coming out of biglaw. An ADA doesn't really need trial experience, they already get way more trial experience than AUSAs do. What they'd likely benefit from is getting put on investigations, so they can get experience building a case with law enforcement from the beginning, rather than dealing so much with reactive cases the police bring you after the fact. (Not suggesting ADAs never do longer-term investigations, but I think they may do fewer of them early in their career than AUSAs do.)

Posted: **Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:30 am**

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 25, 2023 1:05 am

Born-Ready29 wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:54 pm
Has anyone taken an uncompensated AUSA position? I see them typically listed as Special AUSA positions.

In a Chambers ranked litigation boutique in my area but at a certain point would like to jump to AUSA.

I am interested in hearing if anyone has taken these jobs, what the experience was like, if you stayed on as a permanent AUSA in that district, and if you felt marketable after the fact. If there’s any other detail you can provide that would be great. Thank you.
I haven't personally taken one of these positions, but I know 4 people who did (and know of one other). Based on their anecdata, my understanding is:

- in terms of cases you work on, you're treated pretty much exactly like any other AUSA with your level of experience. Now, if the office has a particularly high volume of less complex cases, you'd probably do a lot of those, but that's mostly b/c all newbies tend to do a lot of general bread-and-butter crimes before moving into more complex/sophisticated stuff, not because you as an uncompensated SAUSA are not worthy of doing more interesting cases. The caveat to this is it's possible the position could be defined more narrowly, with a more limited range of experience, but I haven't generally seen this and if it's not outlined in the job posting, you're probably going to do the same kinds of cases that everyone else in the office does.

- only one person I know stayed on as a permanent AUSA in the district where they SAUSAed. Some offices actually put it into the terms of the position that you *cannot* move into a permanent position in that office (though I don't know how much that can be enforced if the office really wants to keep you). That said, 4 ended up as permanent AUSAs in other districts, and one went to another district to a paid but term AUSA position (they were replacing someone who was out on detail, theoretically for a limited time, but in practice the position kept getting renewed b/c the detailee wasn't coming back).

- how marketable you are after the fact depends on what you want to do. As I said, all the people I know ended up in some kind of AUSA position after doing the uncompensated gig, and I do think that once you get your foot in the door at a USAO, it's much easier to get into another office (obviously assuming you make a good impression as a SAUSA). Both offices where I've worked have been happy to hire people coming from other USAOs, and don't make a significant distinction between standard AUSAs and uncompensated SAUSAs. That said, that could vary by office or administration (my current office had a long stretch of hiring people from other USAOs, that's shifted with our current leadership).

If you want to go to the USAO for the trial experience to bounce back to a firm as partner, I'm not sure the SAUSA gig will do as much for you, mostly b/c you're not likely to be in it long enough to get the kind of experience with complex white-collar stuff that tends to make you a valuable draw for a firm. But that's also a little bit of speculation on my part, I don't have personal experience with it or know anyone who does.

- as for the experience overall, I think it can vary by office. One person I knew SAUSAed in a really large border district and I think came away from it with a bad taste in their mouth because they did feel like the SAUSAs got strung along to do shitty work with the promise that they'd get hired to a permanent position, but it never happened, and they had to go elsewhere. That said, the info I have suggests that it's a semi-dysfunctional office where lots of people are unhappy, so this person's experience may not really have been about being a SAUSA. The person who stayed in the office where they SAUSAed obviously had a good experience there and stuck around. The others who moved offices didn't seem to have any particular issues with their experience.

FWIW, the 4 people I know who did this came out of biglaw and lived on savings for the year. Two of them had supportive spouses with good jobs, too. (The person I just know of, I don't know their personal circumstances.)

I really hesitate to *recommend* these positions because I think they're kinda exploitative, as well that it's kind of crappy that only people with biglaw and/or family money can really take advantage of them. That said, the people I know who've done them have managed to go on and get permanent jobs and are happy. That could well be survivor bias - I don't know the people who didn't manage to get permanent jobs - so let me offer you this huge grain of salt.

(I also feel like these jobs are much less common than they were under some of the Obama years, when there were government hiring freezes and so more finagling to get staffing, and my info is about 10 years old know, but hopefully it's somewhat helpful.)

Very helpful response. Thank you. My background is a bit unique and lacking the typical pedigree that these positions require. I am hoping that working at my firm can get me into my district (a very competitive one) at some point, but it’s a definitely an uphill battle. So I’ve thought maybe I can do a year at one of the uncompensated AUSA offices but preferably a compensated one in a less competitive district for a term.

My SO works and we have some savings but I would probably do my best to work weekends and contribute something to the home.

I’ll really have to do research on the different districts and find out what the experience entails. I just want to try cases and do this job all the way.

Would you know if the term SAUSA positions that are compensated are open to anyone? I understand that many are for attorneys on detail from Main Justice or other government organizations.

Posted: **Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:33 am**

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:58 am

Born-Ready29 wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:54 pm
Has anyone taken an uncompensated AUSA position? I see them typically listed as Special AUSA positions.

In a Chambers ranked litigation boutique in my area but at a certain point would like to jump to AUSA.

I am interested in hearing if anyone has taken these jobs, what the experience was like, if you stayed on as a permanent AUSA in that district, and if you felt marketable after the fact. If there’s any other detail you can provide that would be great. Thank you.
I can really only speak to DC USAO, but they regularly hire their SAUSAs. However, the difference between DC and any other USAO is that you’re likely starting where most others do, in misdemeanors. This can be great because you will immediately get substantive trial experience, but it also means case load is high and you’ll be working a lot of hours for no pay.

Thanks for this response. So I’ve heard this before about DC, that you’re a glorified State/District Attorney. Obviously it’s a good office to work in if you stay there long term. But I’m not sure it’s as transferable if you’ve working on cases that no other USO office is handling.

Posted: **Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:37 am**

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:38 am
I had one of these positions. I was in a small office (think district with no major city in it) back in the Obama years during the hiring freeze. I was on the civil side (e.g. civil forfeitures), just a couple years out of law school. I had been in biglaw but both burned out and needed to move for personal reasons.

Did some mildly interesting stuff, but the office overall wasn't enormously exciting. I actually ended up back in biglaw very fast, again for personal reasons. The SAUSA job had a term of a year. At the end I could have applied for a permanent position, and they told me I'd be likely to get it, but since I was leaving anyway I didn't apply.

It really wasn't a job for me -- everything was just very relaxed and slow, daily hour-long lunches, etc. The work might have gotten boring pretty fast. And the criminal side is just depressing (sending kids to prison because they bought sudafed for their meth-cooking relatives). In the office I was at, it was very much a 9-to-5 government job. I spent way too much time playing games on my phone.

I'm now back in biglaw, rather successfully. I can say that having the SAUSA position on my resume (which everybody says to just represent as an AUSA job) has helped occasionally -- people at the firm think I must have had interesting/valuable experience, and very occasionally work randomly pops up in my old district. But, as noted above, I didn't have nearly enough time to have any valuable experience in something interesting like white-collar, so that side of the firm ignores me -- they know that I'm a bit of a fake.

Personally, I think it was a nice break for a year. Sort of similar to going off for a clerkship, but actually standing up in court, which you don't get much of when you're young in biglaw. My firm was totally happy to take me back when I returned, and I came back fresh and motivated.

Ya for me it’s the missing gap in my resume, real trial experience. Ideally I would want Fed trial experience.

I don’t have a real preference as to Civil or Criminal division. I imagine the civil divisions try less cases? Any advantage/disadvantage to any of the divisions as far as experience are concerned?

Thanks for the response.

Posted: **Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:48 am**

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:40 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:20 am
Is the justification for these positions basically like oh we wish we could pay you, but the government won't give us the funding or is the justification something like this a privilege to work for us.

To me, the whole thing seems so absolutely insane in the similar way unpaid clerkship positions are. Like as a non-rich person, the sacrifices I would have to make to work for free after taking on debt to go to law school truly boggles my mind. The only possible way I could justify this internally is if it was a stepping stone to a permanent position, which it seems like it can be (but not guaranteed) I guess.
I think it's a little of both, honestly. From the office's point of view, it's a way to get staffing when funding is unavailable - I don't know anyone who thinks people should be willing to work without pay and am pretty sure everyone would much rather pay everyone fairly. But the fact that it's a sought after job and there's a lot of sort of cultural messaging about it being a privilege (for everyone) to do this job (I can't tell you how often we get told being an AUSA is the best job a lawyer can have) underpins the ability to get people to do it for free. That said, I've never really seen the attitude that the SAUSA should consider themselves lucky even to be there - I think most offices feel grateful to have good people willing to take the positions. (Before anyone pops in with anecdotes to the contrary, I fully recognize there may be individual assholes floating around.)

And your post goes back to my original point that it's basically an option for rich people. I think people do justify it as a stepping stone to a permanent position - somewhere, if not in the district where you SAUSA - which does seem to happen enough to make this semi-rational. I also think anecdotally that most people who actually do this 1) grew up financially comfortable enough that taking an unpaid year doesn't freak them out, and 2) are so diehard about working as an AUSA that they're going to end up there one way or another. Like, if your attitude is "AUSA would be nice, but if it doesn't happen, that's fine, too," the uncompensated SAUSA is probably not for you. (I'm still not sure it's a great idea to be so attached to any job, especially one you haven't done, to give up a year of income. But that said, it's going to be a great way to figure out if it is for you.)

I love the idea that the year was a mellow break from biglaw, though - that *definitely* varies by office (that said, I think civil forfeiture is pretty humane in every office).

I fall into the second category. I think that being an SAUSA and eventually an AUSA would make my career as a litigator. I could probably find weekend work to supplement my SO’s income. I’m hell bent on doing this at the highest level.

Posted: **Sun Mar 26, 2023 2:42 am**

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:30 am
Very helpful response. Thank you. My background is a bit unique and lacking the typical pedigree that these positions require. I am hoping that working at my firm can get me into my district (a very competitive one) at some point, but it’s a definitely an uphill battle. So I’ve thought maybe I can do a year at one of the uncompensated AUSA offices but preferably a compensated one in a less competitive district for a term.

My SO works and we have some savings but I would probably do my best to work weekends and contribute something to the home.

I’ll really have to do research on the different districts and find out what the experience entails. I just want to try cases and do this job all the way.

Would you know if the term SAUSA positions that are compensated are open to anyone? I understand that many are for attorneys on detail from Main Justice or other government organizations.

I think job postings should be pretty clear about who can apply. My impression is that the compensated SAUSAs for attorneys on detail aren’t going to be advertised as open to the public, but will be arranged directly with the agency in question without posting the job publicly. But I could be wrong. Still, a job posting will say who can apply and if you can apply, you’ll be considered. Keep your eye out too for term AUSA positions - these are usually to backfill people who go on details and are still competitive but slightly less so since fewer people will want a short term gig.

Ya for me it’s the missing gap in my resume, real trial experience. Ideally I would want Fed trial experience.

I don’t have a real preference as to Civil or Criminal division. I imagine the civil divisions try less cases? Any advantage/disadvantage to any of the divisions as far as experience are concerned?

There are way way way fewer civil trials. Civil AUSA is a good gig, but if you want to get federal trial experience you will want to work on the criminal side. Plus, if you want to work towards getting a permanent AUSA gig, there are far more criminal openings and getting criminal experience is what will help get your foot in the door. (Assuming you’re at a firm now, you’re already getting relevant civil experience. I’m assuming you’re not currently an ADA or you wouldn’t say you’re not getting trial experience.)

Also, civil forfeiture is kind of a weird hybrid where trials are even rarer than in regular civil cases (at least, in districts in familiar with).

And if you’re still talking about SAUSA positions I don’t think you generally see SAUSAs for civil (with the forfeiture position as an exception obviously).

Lastly (too lazy to quote separately), about working on the weekends to supplement your income, just keep in mind that you wouldn’t be able to engage in any other legal work and you’d have to get additional employment approved for conflicts purposes. I like to think they’d be pretty flexible with an uncompensated SAUSA but it can be complicated. There are also offices where the hours are intense, and in the lead up to trial/in trial there’s no way you could do a second job (at least IMO). Things like teaching a law school course or grading bar essays will likely be fine (and obviously something like driving for Uber could fit around your schedule, not sure what offices would think of it though).

Top Law Schools

Uncompensated AUSA Forum

Uncompensated AUSA

Re: Uncompensated AUSA

Re: Uncompensated AUSA

Re: Uncompensated AUSA

Re: Uncompensated AUSA

Re: Uncompensated AUSA

Re: Uncompensated AUSA

Re: Uncompensated AUSA

Re: Uncompensated AUSA

Re: Uncompensated AUSA

Re: Uncompensated AUSA

Re: Uncompensated AUSA

Re: Uncompensated AUSA

Re: Uncompensated AUSA

Re: Uncompensated AUSA

Re: Uncompensated AUSA

Re: Uncompensated AUSA