Special AUSA position vs. AUSA position, please help Forum

[Anonymous User]

I am mid to senior level associate in a major city (NY, SF, CHI, LA, etc.).

I have the opportunity to take a Special AUSA position in my highly selective district (SDNY, NDCAL, CDCAL, EDNY, etc.). I also am very close to securing an AUSA position in smaller city (Think Portland, Philly, etc.).

I have fairly unremarkable stats so I'm very pleased with these 2 options. I went to a T20 law school, graduated top third, worked in the local prosecutors office and then at an unremarkable big firm.

The Special AUSA position is funded by another government agency and it would involve me prosecuting solely this agency's cases. It's a good agency though and the crimes they are responsible for run the gamut from drugs to white collar crimes.

My only real long term goals are to work in the big city I currently live in and to climb as high as I can on the imaginary legal prestige ladder. In the short term, I am willing to go anywhere to further my career.

Which job should I take?

[Anonymous User]

So I think this is an easy call - you take the normal AUSA position (if it is offered to you…). Special AUSAs in many districts cannot be hired in that same district as a permanent (at least not directly after their term as a special expires). I think the better move is to take a permanent job and then apply to your preferred USAO in a few years. Also, it’s confusing because you said the position is funded by another agency, so are you being paid for the SAUSA gig? If so, that’s not normal (outside DC where agencies send their newer hires to USAOs to get experience) because typically SAUSAs are unpaid. The only thing I think that would change my advice is if you really like the work that one particular agency does and would be happy to relocate to DC and work at MJ after your SAUSA term expires.

[Anonymous User]

Thank you for your comments!

Yes, the SAUSA position is paid. My paychecks would come from the agency but I would sit in the local USAO as a Special AUSA. I would be a regular prosecutor like all the others but my caseload would be entirely made up of cases brought by the agency.

As background, my understanding is that the agency brings more cases than the local USAO is able to handle and they came up with this arrangement so they would have a dedicated prosecutor for their cases. The "best" cases would probably still go to the USAO.

Does your opinion change if there was no restriction on being hired by the USAO after the SAUSA term ends? Certainly there would be no guarantee and its probably 50-50 at best that I could convert the SAUSA position to an AUSA position after the 3 year(ish) term ends.

[Anonymous User]

Actually, it is typical for SAUSAs to get paid. It’s arranged the way the OP describes - an agency (usually federal but sometimes state) basically hires someone to be placed in a USAO and prosecute cases related to that agency’s interests, as a way to make sure those interests are served, by someone with the right expertise. Examples I’ve seen include Customs & Border Protection (in a border district), Social Security, and I want to say a state AG’s health care fraud division, but any agency could do this AFAIK.

There *are* also unpaid SAUSA gigs, but they are completely unrelated, and my impression is that the paid agency version is the original/standard model, and the unpaid ones were a spin-off. I have seen limitations on hiring unpaid SAUSAs to the same office (it will be in the job posting, that you cannot convert the position to a permanent one), but I haven’t seen that for the agency SAUSAs.

Agency SAUSAs also need not be appointed for a specific term, I think. Depends on the funding probably. I would check this - often even when there are terms people just get them renewed and keep going in the same position, but not always. So it depends what kind of job security you’re looking for.

Anyway, all that said, I’m not sure there’s a super clear cut answer. My gut says to take the permanent position, because it’s a bit more of a sure thing and I tend to prefer the sure thing, but it doesn’t guarantee you’ll be able to get back to your current city. And if you get good experience prosecuting a range of crimes in the agency position, future employers are unlikely to care that you were paid by an agency rather than the USAO.

Some offices do use SAUSAs to address what are usually highly repetitive, routine cases (border cases, SSA), but in other instances it’s to take advantage of particular expertise to address significant and complex cases (what I’ve seen of the health fraud cases). Given how you’ve described the caseload, it doesn’t sound like this job falls in the highly repetitive/routine bucket, but one thing to consider is drilling down further into what kinds of cases the position actually handles (do they say “white collar crimes” but the reality is that you’ll do one case of someone stealing a check out of the mail and cashing it for themselves every 18 months or something?). In some
respects you will be an agency lawyer rather than a “real” AUSA - do you have any issues with this agency or think that others could have issues with it? (A prime example might be something especially politicized like ICE.)

Also, to what extent will you work with other AUSAs, or do other AUSAs work with your agency? The less siloed you are, the better, and the more people in the office know you and like working with you, the better.

Finally, what does “climb as high as you can on the imaginary prestige ladder” actually mean to you? There’s really no way to say which gig is better without knowing that. Do you want a permanent AUSA gig? Do you want to make partner at a firm? Go into local politics? Taking the smaller city gig will definitely get you a permanent position, but not in your preferred city. Taking the SAUSA gig will keep you where you are, but not guarantee you a permanent gig in that office, but you may not need/want that in future. How long are you willing to be away from your current city and how flexible are you willing to be about that?

Tl;dr - if you want to stay where you are, figure out whether the SAUSA position is term-limited or precludes that USAO hiring you, what the real nature of your caseload is, who you get to work with, and if you have any concerns about the agency. If you want the standard permanent gig, think about how long you’d want to stay there and how you’d head back to your current city.

[Anonymous User]

Anon above just adding in response to your last post - find out how long other people in that position have stayed and what they have gone on to do. If it’s a revolving door where they can’t stay past one term and none of them convert to regular AUSA, I’d probably lean to the other gig. But I’ve also seen SAUSAs stay on past their original term and get converted - it just depends a lot on the office, their practice, and if they like you. One unfortunate thing is that sometimes if you’re there in the SAUSA gig and the office knows they can keep you in that position, they will have little incentive to make you permanent.

[Anonymous User]

Thank you all again for the comments.

The SAUSA position is term-limited and is between 3 and 5 years. There is no bar on getting hired because I've seen prior SAUSAs in this role become permanent AUSAs. I don't know the chances though because this is purely anecdotal.

As a SAUSA, I'll be siloed a little on the agency's cases but my office supervisor will be the relevant USAO's section chief. I'll take part in office meetings and trainings but otherwise not much interaction with AUSAs. When cases get close to trial, I will be assigned an AUSA to second chair my cases though. Without divulging too much, the cases are going to be pretty similar in both complexity and subject matter to what a newly hired AUSA in a general crimes section would expect.

My reference to the imaginary ladder is admittedly unclear. That's partly because I don't totally know what I want to do yet. My short term dream job is definitely being an AUSA in my current city but long term... I'm not sure.

Finally, I'll add that I'm risk averse and generally prefer the permanent position as well.

(edit) One other point: My legal resume is fine but it's not great. Over the last 3 years, I've been applying to various jobs here and there and consistently find myself being the second-best candidate.. getting 1 or 2 (even 3) interviews but ultimately falling short. It may not be because of my resume but I do see myself losing many of these positions to people from better firms or better law schools or with a3 clerkshps. In some ways, I hope an AUSA position opens other doors for me.

[Anonymous User]

I think that if you consistently find yourself the 2nd-choice candidate, it's more bad luck than a sign that your application is lacking. Usually, once you get down to the top 2 people, both are pretty equally desirable, and the hiring authority is just picking based on small differences because they have to make a choice. Maybe it is your resume, but your resume is definitely getting you in the door and to a final round, so it can't be that much of a problem. And while I haven't had a ton to do with hiring, I have rarely seen anyone get the final nod because compared to the other finalists, their school was better, or their firm was better. Usually it's more because the person who gets the offer had that much more pertinent experience on their resume, or did particularly well in the interview.

Now, can I rule out the possibility that behind the scenes, the employer is saying "we like candidate A & B equally well in all possible respects, but A went to Harvard and B only went to USC, so let's go with A"? No, I can't rule that out, but usually it's more holistic than that; there are more differences than where the two went to school.

(Though lack of a clerkship can be more of an issue.)

Finally, as for an AUSA position opening doors: this really depends. It is a great gig and I think people generally respect it as giving you good experience. But it's not necessarily going to be a revolving door to biglaw unless you do a critical mass of white collar cases - your average gun/drug/CP cases won't be relevant.