Is just a Circuit clerkship enough for an AUSA role down the line? Forum

[Anonymous User]

My end goal after working at a biglaw firm for a few years would be to be an AUSA down the line. I am currently a State Supreme Court clerk and about to begin a federal circuit court clerkship. (The SSC was backfilled as my circuit judge recommended it to me and it sounded cool). My goal was to go clerkship --> firm for a few years --> district --> back to firm and/or AUSA. Now that I have two clerkships though, I am thinking maybe I should just be done?

My question is two-tiered I guess. One, would a district court clerkship be overkill and/or negative. Two, would just a federal circuit clerkship be enough for a line AUSA role (note, I am not looking for appellate positions).

To the extent it matters. I would say I have the baseline stats that are competitive for AUSA offices. T14 top 5% plus LR, but both of my judges have never fed. I'll add also that I know I am not going to get any class credit for a third one down the line, but I'm fine with that.

[Anonymous User]

My end goal after working at a biglaw firm for a few years would be to be an AUSA down the line. I am currently a State Supreme Court clerk and about to begin a federal circuit court clerkship. (The SSC was backfilled as my circuit judge recommended it to me and it sounded cool). My goal was to go clerkship --> firm for a few years --> district --> back to firm and/or AUSA. Now that I have two clerkships though, I am thinking maybe I should just be done?

My question is two-tiered I guess. One, would a district court clerkship be overkill and/or negative. Two, would just a federal circuit clerkship be enough for a line AUSA role (note, I am not looking for appellate positions).

To the extent it matters. I would say I have the baseline stats that are competitive for AUSA offices. T14 top 5% plus LR, but both of my judges have never fed. I'll add also that I know I am not going to get any class credit for a third one down the line, but I'm fine with that.

I feel like you don't have to decide this now. I am an AUSA and I know non-appellate AUSAs who had only circuit clerkships, so it's definitely possible to get the job with that qualification. If someone was asking about this before getting any clerkships, I would say that a district ct clerkship is more helpful for an AUSA position, and I think that's true - it's just more directly relevant. But that doesn't mean a circuit clerkship isn't also helpful/valuable.

That said, I don't think doing a district ct clerkship as well would be a negative, or overkill. But it may not be necessary.

I realize the issue is timing since you have to apply for clerkships so far in advance, but I would play this all by ear. See how your time with the firm goes and apply for AUSA gigs after a few years and see what traction you get.

[Anonymous User]

My end goal after working at a biglaw firm for a few years would be to be an AUSA down the line. I am currently a State Supreme Court clerk and about to begin a federal circuit court clerkship. (The SSC was backfilled as my circuit judge recommended it to me and it sounded cool). My goal was to go clerkship --> firm for a few years --> district --> back to firm and/or AUSA. Now that I have two clerkships though, I am thinking maybe I should just be done?

My question is two-tiered I guess. One, would a district court clerkship be overkill and/or negative. Two, would just a federal circuit clerkship be enough for a line AUSA role (note, I am not looking for appellate positions).

To the extent it matters. I would say I have the baseline stats that are competitive for AUSA offices. T14 top 5% plus LR, but both of my judges have never fed. I'll add also that I know I am not going to get any class credit for a third one down the line, but I'm fine with that.

I feel like you don't have to decide this now. I am an AUSA and I know non-appellate AUSAs who had only circuit clerkships, so it's definitely possible to get the job with that qualification. If someone was asking about this before getting any clerkships, I would say that a district ct clerkship is more helpful for an AUSA position, and I think that's true - it's just more directly relevant. But that doesn't mean a circuit clerkship isn't also helpful/valuable.

That said, I don't think doing a district ct clerkship as well would be a negative, or overkill. But it may not be necessary.

I realize the issue is timing since you have to apply for clerkships so far in advance, but I would play this all by ear. See how your time with the firm goes and apply for AUSA gigs after a few years and see what traction you get.

Thanks! So plan of action now is go back to firm, wait two or three years. Apply to AUSA, see if district court is something that keeps coming up and if so then apply, stick with firm, do clerkship, try AUSA again? Yeah timing is always an issue because I see on OSCAR some of these judges especially in competitive districts are posting for 2026 already, but I guess such is the nature of the game.

[Anonymous User]

I have no direct knowledge, but I'll be doing a COA clerkship and none of the AUSAs I've talked to have ever suggested that it would be a disadvantage. It's easy to explain how you ended up with two appellate clerkships, and doing a third clerkship risks making private employers (and even USAOs) skeptical of your interest in actually practicing law. Also, plenty of AUSAs did not clerk—particularly those who came from biglaw and have more writing experience than state prosecutors.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks! So plan of action now is go back to firm, wait two or three years. Apply to AUSA, see if district court is something that keeps coming up and if so then apply, stick with firm, do clerkship, try AUSA again? Yeah timing is always an issue because I see on OSCAR some of these judges especially in competitive districts are posting for 2026 already, but I guess such is the nature of the game.

To be clear (which I wasn't really above), I don't think district court is going to come up, in that I don't think a USAO is ever really going to say "you're great but you need a district court clerkship." I think it's more if you're looking for a way to get out of biglaw for a stretch, or you find/make a connection with a judge who has good connections with a USAO, a district court clerkship could be a good move.

Also, I think that if you (like most people) don't get much courtroom experience in biglaw, doing a district court clerkship can help you better sell yourself to a USAO in interviews, by giving you more experience/exposure to what AUSAs do. My experience with interviewing is limited, but I think people who came out of biglaw who had clerked had more thoughtful answers to interview questions about why they wanted the job/the kinds of issues you face in the job than biglaw people who hadn't clerked. (Local prosecutors fall into a different kind of bucket here.) That said, taking a year to do the job at a lower paycheck may not be worth it just for this, and a COA may also give you enough experience, since you'll encounter a lot of criminal matters; I just haven't interviewed any former COA clerks.

Also, plenty of AUSAs did not clerk—particularly those who came from biglaw and have more writing experience than state prosecutors.

So in my experience, this isn't true for criminal AUSAs. I think almost every criminal AUSA I've met who came from biglaw has also clerked. It's not literally required, so I'm sure there are some out there who haven't, and I agree that the writing experience of biglaw can give biglaw refugees an edge over state prosecutors, but IME former biglaw AUSAs usually clerked (though again, it doesn't have to be district court).

I do know plenty of civil AUSAs who didn't clerk, but most people who want USAO are aiming for criminal so that's what I've been talking about.

[Anonymous User]

I have no direct knowledge, but I'll be doing a COA clerkship and none of the AUSAs I've talked to have ever suggested that it would be a disadvantage. It's easy to explain how you ended up with two appellate clerkships, and doing a third clerkship risks making private employers (and even USAOs) skeptical of your interest in actually practicing law. Also, plenty of AUSAs did not clerk—particularly those who came from biglaw and have more writing experience than state prosecutors.

This is OP

Yeah see that was my concern. Something feels off about doing three clerkships (obviously putting aside SCOTUS which is a different bucket). I just sort of get a sense that no one really wants/expect three and while two are accepted there is sort of a diminishing value as seen in the minimal 20k bonus.

Based on this thread I am going to put district out of my mind and only really keep track of SDNY/DDC and apply minimally. And, while I'm at my biglaw firm I'll do that classic thing of pro bono and other things that get me that trial experience to make me a good candidate.

Also to further clarify as the previous anon said, yes my main (probably only, but don't want to necessarily rule out civil) interest is criminal AUSA so that is the field I'm seeking advice. I live in New York so the goal is EDNY/SDNY, but I'm more interested in being a criminal AUSA then the actual location so I would say I'm really open to anywhere in the Northeast.

[Anonymous User]

Plenty of the more recent hires at EDNY and even SDNY have lacked a clerkship altogether. It's not really a necessity. Just do good work at your firm, build relationships with ex-AUSAs who can go to bat for you, and try to get on-the-record experience in pro bono matters. The clerkship won't make or break it.