How hard is it to get AUSA after a fed d. ct. clerkship?
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:12 pm
Assume 2.5 years of mixed litigation experience in a V15 biglaw firm before the clerkship, including some depo and trial prep experience.
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=224216
Then I think the answer is you have a shot, but not a great one. E.g., it's probably worth looking and applying, but I wouldn't hold your breath. There will almost certainly be people with your rough qualifications who get hired as AUSAs this year. And I suspect many of them will have strong connections to the region that they are hired in (if that helps you tailor your search). But there's not going to be a ton of hiring in the near term, and much of that hiring will be of people who are more competitive than you (HYS / COA clerkship-types).OP here.
I'm interested in any market.
How does that work when one moves across the states to get the AUSA gig? do they have to take the bar of that state?Anonymous User wrote:I pretty much agree with what everyone else has said. If you're willing to go to any market, maybe; it will just depend when/if there's an opening (and who else applies, of course). I know of people moving across the country for an AUSA slot. Most new AUSAs I know had around 3-5 years at the state level (prosecution or defense); I do know people who came from civil litigation, but a few of them did an unpaid SAUSA position first (one had been in biglaw for 10 years). But other offices may vary. I know one person who got an AUSA directly out of the district court clerkship he did after graduation, but it's a fairly undesirable part of the country and he had very strong connections.
Sorry this is sort of rambling and anecdotal; it's just hard to answer in the absence of a specific opening. The short answer is I think you'd be competitive, certainly (and I don't think HYS/COA stats are required, but I may just be more familiar with less pedigree-conscious offices), but there are so many variables, it's hard to predict anything.
The most recent posting for a AUSA spot in SD Cal actually omitted the California bar preference. It's my understanding that they may have recently changed the requirement.A. Nony Mouse wrote:I agree, but hint: even though the ads say "will not lead to a job as a paid AUSA," I know of at least 4 AUSAs who started as unpaid SAUSAs. (I don't know anything about how the hiring freeze works but it's not absolute because I've seen a posting for a paid position just last week or so.) Personally, I think it's worse for for-profit places to hire unpaid than the government doing it, but I realize people can disagree about that.Anonymous User wrote:Why is there an "indefinite" hiring freeze for AUSAs? Why has almost every other facet of the federal government been funded, but not the DOJ? This SAUSA deal is ridiculous--just another evidence that going to law school is an insane idea in this economy. It's understandable when people who are trying to make a profit hire unpaid attorneys so they can "get experience." But it's simply depressing when your own government does this. It's exploitative, particularly when it doesn't lead to a full-time, paid job at the DOJ.
Also, as for the taking the bar question: you don't usually have to because you only practice in federal court. And in most districts, if you're admitted in federal court somewhere, you can get admitted (or at least permission to practice) in that district (even if it's not in the state where you are admitted). So if you're admitted in a state, you can often get admitted into the local district by filling out a form. If you can't do that, you just need to find someone admitted in a district that allows distance admission (so you don't have to appear in person) to sponsor you for admission in that district, then you can get permission for where you are practicing.
That's kind of long and rambling but the short answer is that it's really easy for federal attorneys to practice wherever in federal court. Unless it's a district like California that requires you to take the local bar. (Of course, if you get an AUSA gig the background check takes so long that you'd probably almost have time to take the second bar before you start...)
Yup. Hiring freeze is over.Citizen Genet wrote:This looks promising: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/02/10/hir ... epartment/