Good problem to have: AUSA or main Justice Forum

[Anonymous User]

Mid/senior level associate here. I am lucky enough to be choosing between two good jobs: Going to US DOJ in DC as a Trial Attorney in a prosecution unit OR going to a mid-size city as an AUSA in the Asset Recovery unit.

My long term goals are up in the air but I'm looking for what will essentially best set me up for a long term career in law. I want to keep as many litigation doors open as possible: Judcial appointment, back to big law, in-house litigation, etc. My family is also from Los Angeles so I think I'd like to end up back there in whatever capacity.

Lastly, I also think I have a little bit of a chip on my shoulder because I didn't go to t14 law school and didn't clerk. Didn't go work at any of the super prestigious law firms either. My undergrad was my regular state school.

My understanding of the Asset Recovery role is that while I'll be able to prosecute some cases, my main focus is going to be recovering assets (duh :p) on behalf of victims from criminals who have already been convicted.

Please help me decide! Would appreciate any thoughts at all.

[Anonymous User]

Was in a similar situation (looking at Criminal Division positions, USAO vs. Main Justice) and decided on an AUSA position; although my AUSA position was going directly into a White Collar Criminal Unit in a mid-size district and mid-size city known for a specific type of fraud, so that helped tip the scale. The general pearl of wisdom I have from speaking to former AUSAs I've worked with (again pertains to the criminal side), including 2 former US Attorneys for large districts, is do AUSA first and then DOJ Trial Attorney second (as an AUSA, you will generally get more primary trial experience than just about any Section and Unit at MJ, aside from a few) because you can always go MJ after (or back to private). For purposes of portability and no offense intended to anyone, I wouldn't place too much "prestige" on working at Main versus a USAO unless the USAO is a small district and/or where you are not going to get a lot of transferrable (to private sector) experience. That said, I'm no expert on Asset Recovery, and if you are doing mostly asset forfeiture work as opposed to affirmative civil enforcement (think FCA, etc. where you would be trying civil prosecution cases in close parallel to criminal proceedings), it may lose some portability (to the private sector). As noted, there are only a few Main Justice Sections and Units that would have a lot of first chair trial work versus more 'tag-a-long' trial work (to AUSAs as the main prosecutors on the case) and/or work that is more investigatory and advisory in nature. The former will be better for portability than the latter, generally speaking. Even if it's the Fraud or Antitrust Section, there's a wide difference in the different units. The HCF Unit, for instance, is going to have a lot more primary trial work than the FCPA Unit. Note this isn't a knock to any USAOs, AUSAs, DOJ Units and Sections, or DOJ Trial Attorneys; I'm only evaluating these options based on portability and what you should do first in your federal prosecution career, based on what I have gathered over the past 7-10 years of white collar defense practice and as someone who has always had federal criminal prosecution as my goal. I'm also viewing this through the Criminal Division lens so to speak versus Civil, which I know much less about. It was still hard for me to decide one versus the other in the end. No matter what, you can't go wrong here as you have two great options, so congrats!!

[Anonymous User]

As a general point, I think you’re passed the point in your career where keeping your options open should be a primary goal; optimizing for optionality is itself very constraining. Where do you want to work? If you’re married, where does your spouse want to live?

[EvilCorp123]

All good options, congrats!

[Anonymous User]

As noted, there are only a few Main Justice Sections and Units that would have a lot of first chair trial work versus more 'tag-a-long' trial work (to AUSAs as the main prosecutors on the case) and/or work that is more investigatory and advisory in nature. The former will be better for portability than the latter, generally speaking.

I think it’s important for us to know what main Justice division (and potentially branch) you’re looking at. For instance, at my branch, USAOs have to bring any cases under the statutes we work with to us first. At that point, we get to decide to either take it on, work in conjunction with the USAO, or pass and let the USAO handle it entirely. So our role isn’t advisory, but to the above poster’s point, there are some branches that provide that type of support.

As for me, I went to MJ instead of a USAO. If you’re interested in nuts and bolts trial experience, many MJ components let their attorneys go on detail to DC USAO or EDVA. I will note that DC USAO is mostly bench trials for misdemeanors. With that being said, my branch has many trial opportunities and grand jury opportunities but I am not sure that’s the norm. If this were MJ vs USAO criminal or more general affirmative work I think it’s a closer call. But unless you want to do asset recovery forever, I think MJ is a pretty clear answer here.

[Anonymous User]

I’m an AUSA. Asset recovery tends to be pretty specialized/narrow. I know a lot of AUSAs who do it and like it (they have cool stories about forfeiting racehorses and such), but to be honest, I think it makes more sense to move into it after getting trial/investigation experience, and asset recovery itself isn’t really going to get you that experience. It can be a great long-term, lifestyle position, but I think it’s less transferable to other positions outside the government.

So while I tend to agree with the poster above that generally, USAO —> MJ makes more sense, here my inclination would be trial attorney, though it could depend a little on what component you’re in. MJ trial attorneys tend to specialize quite a bit, but you can move around if you do good work and pursue opportunities. MJ trial attorneys will travel to USAOs to assist with particular kinds of cases, so that can be a lot of travel. It’s probably not the same volume of trials as a criminal line AUSA, but more than someone in an asset recovery position.

That said, it’s also possible that you could move from asset recovery into a regular criminal position in that USAO, if you do good work in the prosecutions that you do get and if the office ends up with an opening (or making one). Hard to predict when and how that would happen, though, and it’s not guaranteed.

It is also fair to consider which city appeals to you more, but since it sounds like neither is LA, where you want to end up, I think that’s a little less pressing. I also think DC will let you pivot to LA more easily than a random mid-sized city would.

Last thing I’ll note is that while there’s a lot of bureaucracy involved in working for the feds wherever you are, my sense is that MJ is generally much more hierarchical and bureaucratic than USAOs are. For many people that won’t make a material difference, but I throw it out there in case it would matter to you.

[Anonymous User]

As someone at Main (albeit on the Civil side), I would take the AUSA position given your interests and priorities. Main Justice can be feast or famine. Speaking again only to the Civil Division, there are a few folks (not all) at FedProg, Commercial Lit, and Civ Appellate that have terrific stand up experience and significant opportunities, while the majority of trial attorneys have considerably less front-line litigation than AUSAs or even private lit boutiques. In my office, we spend a lot of time dealing with the interagency, providing views and exchanging memos with OSG and ODAG, commenting on briefs and other government public facing statements, and coordinating with and responding to inquiries from client agencies. It is relatively rare for the trial attorneys or even senior trial counsel in our branch/office to be first chairing trials or directly arguing motions in court.

[Anonymous User]

As someone at Main (albeit on the Civil side), I would take the AUSA position given your interests and priorities. Main Justice can be feast or famine. Speaking again only to the Civil Division, there are a few folks (not all) at FedProg, Commercial Lit, and Civ Appellate that have terrific stand up experience and significant opportunities, while the majority of trial attorneys have considerably less front-line litigation than AUSAs or even private lit boutiques. In my office, we spend a lot of time dealing with the interagency, providing views and exchanging memos with OSG and ODAG, commenting on briefs and other government public facing statements, and coordinating with and responding to inquiries from client agencies. It is relatively rare for the trial attorneys or even senior trial counsel in our branch/office to be first chairing trials or directly arguing motions in court.

So I assumed the OP was talking about the criminal division? I thought that's what "a prosecution unit" meant. B/c the issue is that an asset recovery AUSA isn't going to get a lot of stand-up experience, either.

[existentialcrisis]

As a general point, I think you’re passed the point in your career where keeping your options open should be a primary goal; optimizing for optionality is itself very constraining. Where do you want to work? If you’re married, where does your spouse want to live?

This.

[Anonymous User]

Was in a similar situation (looking at Criminal Division positions, USAO vs. Main Justice) and decided on an AUSA position; although my AUSA position was going directly into a White Collar Criminal Unit in a mid-size district and mid-size city known for a specific type of fraud, so that helped tip the scale. The general pearl of wisdom I have from speaking to former AUSAs I've worked with (again pertains to the criminal side), including 2 former US Attorneys for large districts, is do AUSA first and then DOJ Trial Attorney second (as an AUSA, you will generally get more primary trial experience than just about any Section and Unit at MJ, aside from a few) because you can always go MJ after (or back to private). For purposes of portability and no offense intended to anyone, I wouldn't place too much "prestige" on working at Main versus a USAO unless the USAO is a small district and/or where you are not going to get a lot of transferrable (to private sector) experience. That said, I'm no expert on Asset Recovery, and if you are doing mostly asset forfeiture work as opposed to affirmative civil enforcement (think FCA, etc. where you would be trying civil prosecution cases in close parallel to criminal proceedings), it may lose some portability (to the private sector). As noted, there are only a few Main Justice Sections and Units that would have a lot of first chair trial work versus more 'tag-a-long' trial work (to AUSAs as the main prosecutors on the case) and/or work that is more investigatory and advisory in nature. The former will be better for portability than the latter, generally speaking. Even if it's the Fraud or Antitrust Section, there's a wide difference in the different units. The HCF Unit, for instance, is going to have a lot more primary trial work than the FCPA Unit. Note this isn't a knock to any USAOs, AUSAs, DOJ Units and Sections, or DOJ Trial Attorneys; I'm only evaluating these options based on portability and what you should do first in your federal prosecution career, based on what I have gathered over the past 7-10 years of white collar defense practice and as someone who has always had federal criminal prosecution as my goal. I'm also viewing this through the Criminal Division lens so to speak versus Civil, which I know much less about. It was still hard for me to decide one versus the other in the end. No matter what, you can't go wrong here as you have two great options, so congrats!!

Thank you! The point about looking for trial work is well taken. In Asset Recovery, I think my opportunity for trial will be there but very limited so it may be a wash compared to DOJ. During the interview, I was told something like ~2 trials per 3 years. I really like your point about main justice "always being there," though.

As someone at Main (albeit on the Civil side), I would take the AUSA position given your interests and priorities. Main Justice can be feast or famine. Speaking again only to the Civil Division, there are a few folks (not all) at FedProg, Commercial Lit, and Civ Appellate that have terrific stand up experience and significant opportunities, while the majority of trial attorneys have considerably less front-line litigation than AUSAs or even private lit boutiques. In my office, we spend a lot of time dealing with the interagency, providing views and exchanging memos with OSG and ODAG, commenting on briefs and other government public facing statements, and coordinating with and responding to inquiries from client agencies. It is relatively rare for the trial attorneys or even senior trial counsel in our branch/office to be first chairing trials or directly arguing motions in court.

Very helpful. In Asset Recovery, I think there will be a lot of opportunity for arguing motions in court but I think getting first chair trials is going to be tougher. Your insight re: main justice is very very helpful

I think it’s important for us to know what main Justice division (and potentially branch) you’re looking at. For instance, at my branch, USAOs have to bring any cases under the statutes we work with to us first. At that point, we get to decide to either take it on, work in conjunction with the USAO, or pass and let the USAO handle it entirely. So our role isn’t advisory, but to the above poster’s point, there are some branches that provide that type of support.

As for me, I went to MJ instead of a USAO. If you’re interested in nuts and bolts trial experience, many MJ components let their attorneys go on detail to DC USAO or EDVA. I will note that DC USAO is mostly bench trials for misdemeanors. With that being said, my branch has many trial opportunities and grand jury opportunities but I am not sure that’s the norm. If this were MJ vs USAO criminal or more general affirmative work I think it’s a closer call. But unless you want to do asset recovery forever, I think MJ is a pretty clear answer here.

.

Thank you for this. I don't think I want to do AR forever (but who knows). The MJ section is Consumer Protection.

The detail point is interesting and not something I considered. My law firm let me take a 1 year break a few years ago to be a volunteer states attorney where I prosecuted misdemeanors. That experience played a big role in getting me to where I am now but I'm not sure getting detail opportunities at MJ would add *too* much more given that I've already spent a year as a local prosecutor?

I’m an AUSA. Asset recovery tends to be pretty specialized/narrow. I know a lot of AUSAs who do it and like it (they have cool stories about forfeiting racehorses and such), but to be honest, I think it makes more sense to move into it after getting trial/investigation experience, and asset recovery itself isn’t really going to get you that experience. It can be a great long-term, lifestyle position, but I think it’s less transferable to other positions outside the government.

So while I tend to agree with the poster above that generally, USAO —> MJ makes more sense, here my inclination would be trial attorney, though it could depend a little on what component you’re in. MJ trial attorneys tend to specialize quite a bit, but you can move around if you do good work and pursue opportunities. MJ trial attorneys will travel to USAOs to assist with particular kinds of cases, so that can be a lot of travel. It’s probably not the same volume of trials as a criminal line AUSA, but more than someone in an asset recovery position.

That said, it’s also possible that you could move from asset recovery into a regular criminal position in that USAO, if you do good work in the prosecutions that you do get and if the office ends up with an opening (or making one). Hard to predict when and how that would happen, though, and it’s not guaranteed.

It is also fair to consider which city appeals to you more, but since it sounds like neither is LA, where you want to end up, I think that’s a little less pressing. I also think DC will let you pivot to LA more easily than a random mid-sized city would.

Last thing I’ll note is that while there’s a lot of bureaucracy involved in working for the feds wherever you are, my sense is that MJ is generally much more hierarchical and bureaucratic than USAOs are. For many people that won’t make a material difference, but I throw it out there in case it would matter to you.

Also very helpful, thank you. The MJ section is consumer protection which I've been told does both criminal and civil affirmative work.

As a general point, I think you’re passed the point in your career where keeping your options open should be a primary goal; optimizing for optionality is itself very constraining. Where do you want to work? If you’re married, where does your spouse want to live?

Thanks, that point is well taken. My wife and I are both from Los Angeles and the end goal is go back there. However, for the next 3-7 years, we're open to living wherever.

[Anonymous User]

Since the MJ section is CPB, I would take that over the asset recovery position. CPB is one of the sections that has “first dibs” on any cases brought under the statutes they deal with. I also think they deal with such a broad array of litigation that your experience can be what you want it to be. They do civil side affirmative work, civil side defense work (represents the FDA), and criminal consumer work. I know they are working on the appeal related to mifepristone ruling, and do really interesting opioid work. So if any of that speaks to you, it’s there. I also think they are one of the branches that does more trial work than your average branch.

I know you said a detail may not be for you, but I know they send their incoming honors hires to USAO-DC. While this wouldn’t impact you, I would guess they’d let you do a detail if you wanted it.

[Anonymous User]

I'd take criminal AUSA over main justice. But I'd take main justice over asset recovery.

[Anonymous User]

Hey, AFPD here. Only speaking on that last point about longer term goals re judicial appointment. Getting appointed to the bench is really tough. I think the main thing is to be connected to your local scene and be well respected there. I think that'll be tough to do from main and much easier to make roots and inroads somewhere you are from/been practicing for awhile. In my flyover district, i've only really seen ausas appointed- could you self selection though.

[Anonymous User]

I'd take criminal AUSA over main justice. But I'd take main justice over asset recovery.

Say more?

[Anonymous User]

Hey, AFPD here. Only speaking on that last point about longer term goals re judicial appointment. Getting appointed to the bench is really tough. I think the main thing is to be connected to your local scene and be well respected there. I think that'll be tough to do from main and much easier to make roots and inroads somewhere you are from/been practicing for awhile. In my flyover district, i've only really seen ausas appointed- could you self selection though.

Thanks for the good point. I'd only want to be appointed in Central District Cal. because that's where I want to end up long term. Given that, I guess my question becomes which of these is more prestigious/valuable to get me back to LA in a position that would let me pursue bench opporunities (perhaps as an AUSA in the district first if that seems to be a must).

[Anonymous User]

I'd take criminal AUSA over main justice. But I'd take main justice over asset recovery.

Say more?

I’m not the person who posted this, but my take is that this is an accurate ranking of the degree of trial experience you’ll get. I also think criminal AUSA (caveat: in the district where you want to live) probably sets you up better for a judicial appointment than Main Justice does, but both are better than asset recovery. Being an AUSA in the district where you want to become a judge is a good way to get to know law enforcement and other attorneys and to build a local community reputation that can help you politically.

I do think that getting appointed as a federal judge in the CDCA is going to be REALLY hard, though. State maybe would be easier. (No idea whether California appoints or elects state judges though.)

[Anonymous User]

I'd take criminal AUSA over main justice. But I'd take main justice over asset recovery.

Say more?

I’m not the person who posted this, but my take is that this is an accurate ranking of the degree of trial experience you’ll get. I also think criminal AUSA (caveat: in the district where you want to live) probably sets you up better for a judicial appointment than Main Justice does, but both are better than asset recovery. Being an AUSA in the district where you want to become a judge is a good way to get to know law enforcement and other attorneys and to build a local community reputation that can help you politically.

I do think that getting appointed as a federal judge in the CDCA is going to be REALLY hard, though. State maybe would be easier. (No idea whether California appoints or elects state judges though.)

This may be a ranking of trial experience but it totally depends on your interest. If you don’t want to do drug / gun cases, MJ is probably a better fit unless you have a dedicated white collar role. Similarly if you do want to do those cases, the USAO is going to be a better fit. As for prestige, I think they’re pretty much equal, with some MJ components and specific USAOs above the rest.

[Anonymous User]

I'd take criminal AUSA over main justice. But I'd take main justice over asset recovery.

Say more?

I’m not the person who posted this, but my take is that this is an accurate ranking of the degree of trial experience you’ll get. I also think criminal AUSA (caveat: in the district where you want to live) probably sets you up better for a judicial appointment than Main Justice does, but both are better than asset recovery. Being an AUSA in the district where you want to become a judge is a good way to get to know law enforcement and other attorneys and to build a local community reputation that can help you politically.

I do think that getting appointed as a federal judge in the CDCA is going to be REALLY hard, though. State maybe would be easier. (No idea whether California appoints or elects state judges though.)

This may be a ranking of trial experience but it totally depends on your interest. If you don’t want to do drug / gun cases, MJ is probably a better fit unless you have a dedicated white collar role. Similarly if you do want to do those cases, the USAO is going to be a better fit. As for prestige, I think they’re pretty much equal, with some MJ components and specific USAOs above the rest.

Yeah, I think though that which job sets you up better for various long-term opportunities isn’t necessarily the same as which job you’d enjoy. In many many parts of the country, being a bread-and-butter criminal line AUSA will parlay better to a judicial appointment than doing consumer protection out of DC. But if you want to pick on which you’ll enjoy, that’s much more subjective.

Though I’ll also add that if you don’t want to do drug/gun cases, don’t be a federal prosecutor.

[Anonymous User]

I’m going to push back on this: “Though I’ll also add that if you don’t want to do drug/gun cases, don’t be a federal prosecutor.”

There are plenty federal prosecutors (especially at MJ) who do not want to do these cases, including me. I took my job as a federal prosecutor because I’m very passionate about the type of criminal cases on my docket. For me, pursuing criminal charges against companies and bad actors within them is very fulfilling. I am not looking down at the work AUSAs do at all, but I know I personally wouldn’t be fulfilled doing drugs and gun work. Not all prosecutors have to be fired up about the same things. Some people love the drugs and guns cases, and others don’t, and that’s okay!

[Anonymous User]

Different poster, but can I get thoughts on the Commercial Litigation Branch? Considering an offer and would love to hear more about trial experience at its sections

[Anonymous User]

I’m going to push back on this: “Though I’ll also add that if you don’t want to do drug/gun cases, don’t be a federal prosecutor.”

There are plenty federal prosecutors (especially at MJ) who do not want to do these cases, including me. I took my job as a federal prosecutor because I’m very passionate about the type of criminal cases on my docket. For me, pursuing criminal charges against companies and bad actors within them is very fulfilling. I am not looking down at the work AUSAs do at all, but I know I personally wouldn’t be fulfilled doing drugs and gun work. Not all prosecutors have to be fired up about the same things. Some people love the drugs and guns cases, and others don’t, and that’s okay!

I’m not saying you have to love drug and gun cases, just that you have to be willing to do them. Philosophically, I kind of have a problem with people picking and choosing prosecution based on the nature of the cases. Maybe it’s because there are a lot of people who disagree with federal laws on drugs and guns, and, personally, I have a problem with people taking a job as a prosecutor if they want other people do to the cases they don’t agree with. Like, if you’re prosecuting crimes on behalf of the federal government, you’re part of the system that enforces the laws you disagree with, and your work enables others to enforce those laws, and so you can’t really stand apart from that.

Now, that may not be what you meant by “not being fulfilled” by drug and gun cases, so I don’t mean to put words in your mouth. But being “passionate” about prosecuting a certain kind of bad actor and not other kinds of bad actors (rather than disliking the *kind of work* a given kind of case requires) sort of suggests that to me.

Of course, it it’s kind of a gray area - there are certainly some kinds of cases that people find more satisfying than others because they draw on particular skills and knowledge. It feels like a lot of the CCIPS people are sort of in this category, because they have all this tech knowledge and want to delve into that part of prosecution (although the tech stuff is pertinent across a wide range of cases, not just actual computer crime cases). And conversely, I grant that some kinds of cases can be annoying to work regardless of how you feel about the laws (I don’t love the logistics of working with drug CIs even though I’ve had some really good successes with them).

But anyway, no one is required to agree with me on this. I just suggest it as something to think about.

The last thing I’ll note is that if someone hasn’t actually done any criminal law (or many if any trials), guns and drugs are great cases to learn on.

[Anonymous User]

Different poster, but can I get thoughts on the Commercial Litigation Branch? Considering an offer and would love to hear more about trial experience at its sections

CLB is great and well-regarded across the board, but how much actual front-line litigation you do will vary (which can also be said of fed programs). National courts, quite a bit; civil frauds, more investigation and less stand up time.

[Anonymous User]

I’m going to push back on this: “Though I’ll also add that if you don’t want to do drug/gun cases, don’t be a federal prosecutor.”

There are plenty federal prosecutors (especially at MJ) who do not want to do these cases, including me. I took my job as a federal prosecutor because I’m very passionate about the type of criminal cases on my docket. For me, pursuing criminal charges against companies and bad actors within them is very fulfilling. I am not looking down at the work AUSAs do at all, but I know I personally wouldn’t be fulfilled doing drugs and gun work. Not all prosecutors have to be fired up about the same things. Some people love the drugs and guns cases, and others don’t, and that’s okay!

I’m not saying you have to love drug and gun cases, just that you have to be willing to do them. Philosophically, I kind of have a problem with people picking and choosing prosecution based on the nature of the cases. Maybe it’s because there are a lot of people who disagree with federal laws on drugs and guns, and, personally, I have a problem with people taking a job as a prosecutor if they want other people do to the cases they don’t agree with. Like, if you’re prosecuting crimes on behalf of the federal government, you’re part of the system that enforces the laws you disagree with, and your work enables others to enforce those laws, and so you can’t really stand apart from that.

Now, that may not be what you meant by “not being fulfilled” by drug and gun cases, so I don’t mean to put words in your mouth. But being “passionate” about prosecuting a certain kind of bad actor and not other kinds of bad actors (rather than disliking the *kind of work* a given kind of case requires) sort of suggests that to me.

Of course, it it’s kind of a gray area - there are certainly some kinds of cases that people find more satisfying than others because they draw on particular skills and knowledge. It feels like a lot of the CCIPS people are sort of in this category, because they have all this tech knowledge and want to delve into that part of prosecution (although the tech stuff is pertinent across a wide range of cases, not just actual computer crime cases). And conversely, I grant that some kinds of cases can be annoying to work regardless of how you feel about the laws (I don’t love the logistics of working with drug CIs even though I’ve had some really good successes with them).

But anyway, no one is required to agree with me on this. I just suggest it as something to think about.

The last thing I’ll note is that if someone hasn’t actually done any criminal law (or many if any trials), guns and drugs are great cases to learn on.

This is a weird take, especially in light of the new (as of like last December or so) guidance on charging from the AG.

Also, to OP's question, I'd take MJ over asset recovery here. One thing I haven't heard mention is that MJ attorneys are on GS and AUSAs are on AD. You're almost guaranteed to make more (sometimes significantly more) on the GS scale.

[Anonymous User]

I’m going to push back on this: “Though I’ll also add that if you don’t want to do drug/gun cases, don’t be a federal prosecutor.”

There are plenty federal prosecutors (especially at MJ) who do not want to do these cases, including me. I took my job as a federal prosecutor because I’m very passionate about the type of criminal cases on my docket. For me, pursuing criminal charges against companies and bad actors within them is very fulfilling. I am not looking down at the work AUSAs do at all, but I know I personally wouldn’t be fulfilled doing drugs and gun work. Not all prosecutors have to be fired up about the same things. Some people love the drugs and guns cases, and others don’t, and that’s okay!

I’m not saying you have to love drug and gun cases, just that you have to be willing to do them. Philosophically, I kind of have a problem with people picking and choosing prosecution based on the nature of the cases. Maybe it’s because there are a lot of people who disagree with federal laws on drugs and guns, and, personally, I have a problem with people taking a job as a prosecutor if they want other people do to the cases they don’t agree with. Like, if you’re prosecuting crimes on behalf of the federal government, you’re part of the system that enforces the laws you disagree with, and your work enables others to enforce those laws, and so you can’t really stand apart from that.

Now, that may not be what you meant by “not being fulfilled” by drug and gun cases, so I don’t mean to put words in your mouth. But being “passionate” about prosecuting a certain kind of bad actor and not other kinds of bad actors (rather than disliking the *kind of work* a given kind of case requires) sort of suggests that to me.

Of course, it it’s kind of a gray area - there are certainly some kinds of cases that people find more satisfying than others because they draw on particular skills and knowledge. It feels like a lot of the CCIPS people are sort of in this category, because they have all this tech knowledge and want to delve into that part of prosecution (although the tech stuff is pertinent across a wide range of cases, not just actual computer crime cases). And conversely, I grant that some kinds of cases can be annoying to work regardless of how you feel about the laws (I don’t love the logistics of working with drug CIs even though I’ve had some really good successes with them).

But anyway, no one is required to agree with me on this. I just suggest it as something to think about.

The last thing I’ll note is that if someone hasn’t actually done any criminal law (or many if any trials), guns and drugs are great cases to learn on.

Agree that this is a really strange take. I’m a prosecutor at MJ and I don’t find at all that I have to be willing to do drug and gun cases in practice, because I don’t do them at all, and took this job specifically so that I did not have to do them. But really what bothers me here is saying “Philosophically, I kind of have a problem with people picking and choosing prosecution based on the nature of the cases.” Prosecutors have discretion at all levels of prosecution. We pick and choose all the time which cases to indict and which ones not to. An integral part of our job is choosing these cases, based on specific sets of facts and circumstances. Past indictment, we structure plea agreements based on conduct and make judgment calls about what conduct is worse than others.

I personally think that there are many problems with our criminal Justice system. By your logic, I shouldn’t be a prosecutor because I don’t want to directly contribute to some of those problems that feel like a miscarriage of justice. I agree that if you take this job, you have to get right with the fact that DOJ does pursue these cases. But to want all other prosecutors to be ok with prosecuting anything is a) bad for our system because that means that we as prosecutors aren’t recognizing some of the inherent problems in the system, and b) means the same type of person with the same ideals is being hired in every instance, which is never a good thing.

On a grander scale, I think it’s important that we have discussions about the structural problems in our system, and those discussions can only be fruitful if people in USAOs and at MJ have varied opinions. Also as the previous poster noted, charging guidance is changing. That would not have happened if everyone at MJ or USAOs took your stance that we all have to be okay with prosecuting drug crimes.

[Anonymous User]

I’m going to push back on this: “Though I’ll also add that if you don’t want to do drug/gun cases, don’t be a federal prosecutor.”

There are plenty federal prosecutors (especially at MJ) who do not want to do these cases, including me. I took my job as a federal prosecutor because I’m very passionate about the type of criminal cases on my docket. For me, pursuing criminal charges against companies and bad actors within them is very fulfilling. I am not looking down at the work AUSAs do at all, but I know I personally wouldn’t be fulfilled doing drugs and gun work. Not all prosecutors have to be fired up about the same things. Some people love the drugs and guns cases, and others don’t, and that’s okay!

I’m not saying you have to love drug and gun cases, just that you have to be willing to do them. Philosophically, I kind of have a problem with people picking and choosing prosecution based on the nature of the cases. Maybe it’s because there are a lot of people who disagree with federal laws on drugs and guns, and, personally, I have a problem with people taking a job as a prosecutor if they want other people do to the cases they don’t agree with. Like, if you’re prosecuting crimes on behalf of the federal government, you’re part of the system that enforces the laws you disagree with, and your work enables others to enforce those laws, and so you can’t really stand apart from that.

Now, that may not be what you meant by “not being fulfilled” by drug and gun cases, so I don’t mean to put words in your mouth. But being “passionate” about prosecuting a certain kind of bad actor and not other kinds of bad actors (rather than disliking the *kind of work* a given kind of case requires) sort of suggests that to me.

Of course, it it’s kind of a gray area - there are certainly some kinds of cases that people find more satisfying than others because they draw on particular skills and knowledge. It feels like a lot of the CCIPS people are sort of in this category, because they have all this tech knowledge and want to delve into that part of prosecution (although the tech stuff is pertinent across a wide range of cases, not just actual computer crime cases). And conversely, I grant that some kinds of cases can be annoying to work regardless of how you feel about the laws (I don’t love the logistics of working with drug CIs even though I’ve had some really good successes with them).

But anyway, no one is required to agree with me on this. I just suggest it as something to think about.

The last thing I’ll note is that if someone hasn’t actually done any criminal law (or many if any trials), guns and drugs are great cases to learn on.

Agree that this is a really strange take. I’m a prosecutor at MJ and I don’t find at all that I have to be willing to do drug and gun cases in practice, because I don’t do them at all, and took this job specifically so that I did not have to do them. But really what bothers me here is saying “Philosophically, I kind of have a problem with people picking and choosing prosecution based on the nature of the cases.” Prosecutors have discretion at all levels of prosecution. We pick and choose all the time which cases to indict and which ones not to. An integral part of our job is choosing these cases, based on specific sets of facts and circumstances. Past indictment, we structure plea agreements based on conduct and make judgment calls about what conduct is worse than others.

I personally think that there are many problems with our criminal Justice system. By your logic, I shouldn’t be a prosecutor because I don’t want to directly contribute to some of those problems that feel like a miscarriage of justice. I agree that if you take this job, you have to get right with the fact that DOJ does pursue these cases. But to want all other prosecutors to be ok with prosecuting anything is a) bad for our system because that means that we as prosecutors aren’t recognizing some of the inherent problems in the system, and b) means the same type of person with the same ideals is being hired in every instance, which is never a good thing.

On a grander scale, I think it’s important that we have discussions about the structural problems in our system, and those discussions can only be fruitful if people in USAOs and at MJ have varied opinions. Also as the previous poster noted, charging guidance is changing. That would not have happened if everyone at MJ or USAOs took your stance that we all have to be okay with prosecuting drug crimes.

That’s all fair. I probably didn’t make myself clear, but I meant something more *categorical* than prosecutorial discretion. I didn’t at all mean to suggest that you can’t or shouldn’t advocate for the *right way* to handle drug/gun cases, or that you shouldn’t be deciding whether a specific gun case should be prosecuted - of course you pick and choose cases in that respect, and some are appropriate for prosecution and some aren’t. But I think those things are very different from saying “I won’t do drug/gun cases,” period.

Maybe I’m soured by working with a prosecutor who wouldn’t do gun cases because Second Amendment and Murica!!! But in the end, department policy is department policy, and that’s going to constrain your choices and may not always sit well with your personal beliefs in every instance, especially with types of cases where policies ping back and forth with changes in administration. Ducking a entire category of cases, regardless of current department policy or the nature of the specific cases, so your colleagues have to do them, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

It may also be unfair of me to apply this to MJ, as I’m an AUSA and have never worked in MJ. Certainly if you were hired to do only something other than drugs/guns, especially in a component that never does guns and drugs, your disinclination to do them doesn’t affect anyone else, so sure, that’s different. Then it’s just back to getting right with the fact that DOJ does do these cases, as you said. (But also, wrt changes in drug charging policy - there are a lot of important things to fight for in drug charging policy, but I absolutely cannot believe that policy is ever going to be “don’t do drug cases, period.” Someone is going to have to do drug cases. Saying you “won’t do drug/gun cases” also isn’t the same as saying “I would do these kinds of drug/gun cases but not *those.*”)