How long at a USAO with no set commitment until you could seek to transfer to Main or another USAO? Forum

[Anonymous User]

New AUSA in a medium-sized district (more than 3 months, less than 1 year in). For various reasons (mostly related to the type of work I want to do; in good standing at current office and expect that to continue), considering attempting to transfer/apply to other USAOs and Main Justice positions that showed interest in me or extended offers to me. No time commitment at current office. How far out is enough time so that it doesn't come across as too soon? Do I need to stay 1 year? 2 years? Longer? I have 7-8 YOE (not crim prosecution though) before coming in if that matters. TYIA.

[Anonymous User]

Fairly new AUSA in a medium-sized district. I had offers from other USAOs, including other medium-sized districts as well as some of the top 5 largest, and offers from different sections and units at Main Justice (as well as a SEC offer). I chose this AUSA position over all other offers because it was being hired (from the job posting and reiterated in interviews) directly into a unit doing the type of criminal work I wanted to do. Fast-forward a bit (more than 2 months in, less than 6 months in), and I'm starting out just like any other AUSA position would have - guns and drugs cases - which is completely fine as I understand one needs to get up to speed on the basics. However, it feels like a bit of a rug-pull, as there's been no attempt to even slowly integrate me into the group I was hired for as I continue doing general crimes work, let alone talk of putting me permanently into that group and when. I have heard, informally, it could be 6 months to a year before they even consider it, but it's starting to seem like the AUSA position was advertised to be a specialized position when really it's just the same as any other in terms of types of cases and progression up the office. Almost everything else at the office, especially the people I work with, I really like. No minimum time commitment for this position. I really just don't like what really seems to have been a rug-pull to hire me into a specific group so that I (and others applying for the position) would be highly motivated, only to be put into firearms and narcotics cases for an indeterminate (but what could be a fairly long) period of time like any other AUSA position. And, that the district I'm in does not seem to be doing as high a volume of the type of work that really interests me as I initially thought/could gather from the outside looking in.

Consequently, assuming the not-so-great scenario where I'm not transferred to the group I was hired for and the position I thought I was accepting (and why I turned down other offers) for a long time (or worst case scenario, not at all unless a need arises for that group), should I eventually look to transfer to another USAO or MJ, assuming it would be the type of work I am interested in, and if so, how far out is enough time so that it doesn't appear too soon to the new office? Do I need to stay 1 year? 2 years? [I have 5-8 YOE (not crim prosecution though) before coming in if that matters]. TYIA.

AUSA here. First, definitely talk to your supervisor about this, and if your supervisor doesn't have a satisfactory answer, escalate it to the next level. (You may have done this already and if so, ignore this advice, but it sounds like you haven't yet?) Maybe have the job posting handy, and/or your offer letter (depending on what it says - worth going back to look at that). Don't be confrontational or aggressive - you can ask perfectly politely and respectfully - but I don't think you should rely on what you've heard informally; just bring it up directly with the people who actually assign cases.

It's entirely possible that they haven't talked to you about integrating you into the group in question because they have a specific timeline for it, and everyone involved assumed someone else had told you. For instance, maybe everyone in that office has to do a stint in general crimes before doing more specialized work, even if they're hired into that specialized group. Or, it's possible there was some miscommunication with your immediate supervisor about your caseload. Conversely, you may find out that you somehow misunderstood the job posting/interview discussions and they never intended to start you in that unit (this seems unlikely, but you never know, and worth finding out).

If you have already had a direct conversation with your supervisor or other management about this, next step might be to go back and ask them for a specific timeline for getting into that unit and what you need to do to make that timeline happen (or to shorten it). (I say this b/c it sounds like you haven't had that conversation with anyone, given that you're relying on what you've informally heard about timelines.) The response you get to this should give you important information - if you get a clear timeline, even if it's contingent on other things happening ("we want you to do 2 trials first" or "AUSA X is supposed to leave on a detail that's been delayed and then we'll move you over"), then it's on you to decide if you're willing to follow that timeline. If they hedge and can't give you a clear timeline, or spend a lot of time talking about "paying your dues" and the desirability of the unit in question and how everyone wants those cases, that, to me, would be a red flag suggesting a bait-and-switch. An alternate possibility is that they tell you that the position was originally intended for that unit, but between you getting hired and starting, something material about the job changed. If that's the case, yeah, they should have told you before now, but tbh, I think sometimes management tends to assume that if you don't say anything, you don't have any questions or concerns.

If none of these steps assure you that they're going to move you into the group you wanted, or the timeline for doing so is unacceptable to you, then yeah, consider changing jobs (and just to be pedantic: that's by applying for job postings the same way that everyone else does, there's no magic way to ask to transfer from one district to another, which you probably know but "transfer" sometimes confuses people). I don't think there's a super clear requirement for how long you should wait, but some things to consider:

First, I think there's some benefit to waiting out your 14-month probation period, as the job security this gives you might be helpful moving forward, especially since you seem interested in staying with a USAO/fed gov. I don't think there's any real possibility that if you made clear your desire to leave, your current office would take advantage of your probationary status to do anything drastic, but hey, why take the chance. I also think spending at least a year or so in your current office would give you a really good base of prosecution experience, and ideally a trial or two, which would make moving to another office look like a natural progression, rather than just personal dissatisfaction.

Second, and kind of contradictory to the first, your timeline for leaving may depend on when other openings come up. If a posting for a job in the unit you want in a district where you want to be come up, it's probably worth applying since you can't guarantee there'll be an opening at a more convenient time for you.

The third thing to consider is when, if ever, is it worth jumping ship to another district (or MJ or SEC) without the offer of the specific unit, if you think that district does more of the work you want and would offer a more realistic chance at getting that work, and/or it otherwise seems like a better option for you than your current district. I think this is really subjective with no clear answer. How much does ability to do a particular kind of case outweigh working with people you like? Are you getting good experience with substantive cases even if they're not in your preferred area? How long is that worth sticking around for?

My standard answer for people who want to switch offices is that 3-5 years in their current office gives them a good base of experience to move elsewhere, but this often comes up in the context of "this is the USAO I could get an offer from, but I don't want to be in this location long term." Since you had offers from quite a few other USAOs/MJ already, that may be less pertinent here.

My gut response is that it would still make sense to get a couple of years' experience where you are, to develop a really good understanding of investigations, charging, grand jury practice, and just how USAOs work, as well as maybe get some trial experience. You're clearly already competitive for other jobs, but being able to sell yourself as an experienced *federal prosecutor,* rather than just an experienced attorney, will help make moving to another position look like a natural progression, rather than you thinking you're "too good" for the bread and butter cases like guns/drugs (I'm not saying you do think that, but I think looking like you do is a potential risk).

Some caveats though - first, I entered a USAO with no practice experience at all, so I may overestimate the learning curve for someone in your position, particularly if your 5-8 yrs experience was in criminal defense or something not-biglaw, and you already have some kind of knowledge base in criminal law and/or have done trials. If that's the case, moving sooner may may more sense.

Second, not saying this applies to you exactly given being hired into a specific group, but generally, I tend to want to see people "pay their dues." This may be b/c I started in a district where people had to do general crimes for at least a couple of years, if not more, before they had any chance of getting into a more specialized group, and people who wanted to move up more quickly tended to get side-eyed as a bit uppity. So my gut reaction is that 6 mos-1 year to get into a specialized group is fairly quick and not being willing to wait that out looks a little impatient. I don't know if that attitude is more widespread in USAOs generally, or only a function of certain characteristics of my first district; I mention it just in case it's a broader USAO thing that you might encounter/want to keep in mind. This reaction may also depend on the area in question. (Not wanting to do basic guns/drugs b/c you want to do more "prestigious" white collar or national security crime might read differently than if it's b/c you want to do violent crime or especially child sex abuse offenses - that is, wanting to do the specialized work b/c you have a deep personal connection to the issue and want to help victims may look different from only wanting to do complex, sophisticated, high-stakes cases.)

Finally, being told you'd get hired into a particular group but then not getting placed into that group is a good reason for leaving, but it's a little tricky to raise in an interview without looking like you're badmouthing your current employer (even if they suck and did engage in bait-and-switch). If you apply to a job posting for your preferred group, you can probably safely say that want to leave your current district by saying you were supposed to get those cases but you didn't (though I'd probably be polite and say something like "conditions changed between my hire and when I started" and not characterize it as a bait-and-switch). And that would also support moving sooner. However, if you decide you want to apply to different district/MJ despite the job not being in your preferred unit, I would probably come up with some other reason to want to leave (saying "I was supposed to do X kinds of cases and didn't get them" could be off-putting to an employer who isn't advertising that you'll do X kinds of cases). And that's where I think it would be better to have at least a couple years' experience, b/c you can make a good pitch that you got the experience there necessary to take you to the next level, whether that's a bigger district or a more specialized area in MJ.

But I think if you haven't had a clear conversation with your supervisor about this yet, doing so will give you a lot more information about how you want to move forward. While I think management collectively can err on the side of withholding information unless you ask directly, all the supervisors I've had have been very supportive of helping me develop as a prosecutor, interested in knowing what I want work on, and willing to help me get those cases, even though there may be constraints on how quickly or how exclusively. And given how you describe this job posting, it may be that there's just some miscommunication here rather than an actual bait-and-switch. You've only been there a very short time still, so unless you've already discussed this with your supervisor and been told something to the contrary, I think it's too early to say they've done some kind of rug-pull on you (though I understand why you're concerned, and you may have more details to support that concern that what you've written here).

[prosecutor2024]

Sorry I'm responding delayed here, but thought the poster above gave such an excellent response and new developments arose that I figured I would reach out for advice (I am the OP above). If you wouldn't mind DMing me, would love to pick your brain on this. Thank you for the very thoughtful reply above!

[prosecutor2024]

I'm the OP and to the poster above: Much appreciated for your very well thought out and detailed response, and for taking the time to write all of that. Turns out, did not get the job I applied for - was told no in no uncertain terms. Would love to pick your brain on next steps if you could DM me - staying at my USAO is really untenable now, but not sure how to address what was happened in cover letters and interviews (both for fedgov positions, and private positions - although staying in criminal prosecution is my preference). Thank you!