AUSA/USAO hiring Forum

[Anonymous User]

Dug through all the AUSA salary threads but will ask here for any additional insight:

I've cleared the initial vetting process and am waiting on a final offer. Salary hasn't been discussed so I'm in the dark as to what may/may not be offered. I have 4 years of legal work experience so I'm assuming I'll come in as an AD-23. For the job to be viable financially, I'd need to hit the midpoint/little above it without locality pay to get by (no Biglaw nest egg to live off of). I've read that some offices start their new hires at the 25th percentile, others will put it at the midpoint, some will try to max you out. I have no clue what this office's practice is, but wanted to get a sense as to whether a) I'd be able to negotiate a midpoint start; b) if there's an overall tendency to low-ball new hires; c) if there are any trends just to match the JSP pay scale when coming off a clerkship (which I would be). The salary component has always been a black box for me and I'd like to assume that with the competitiveness for these positions, word would have gotten out that the salaries are too low to be viable.

[Anonymous User]

Dug through all the AUSA salary threads but will ask here for any additional insight:

I've cleared the initial vetting process and am waiting on a final offer. Salary hasn't been discussed so I'm in the dark as to what may/may not be offered. I have 4 years of legal work experience so I'm assuming I'll come in as an AD-23. For the job to be viable financially, I'd need to hit the midpoint/little above it without locality pay to get by (no Biglaw nest egg to live off of). I've read that some offices start their new hires at the 25th percentile, others will put it at the midpoint, some will try to max you out. I have no clue what this office's practice is, but wanted to get a sense as to whether a) I'd be able to negotiate a midpoint start; b) if there's an overall tendency to low-ball new hires; c) if there are any trends just to match the JSP pay scale when coming off a clerkship (which I would be). The salary component has always been a black box for me and I'd like to assume that with the competitiveness for these positions, word would have gotten out that the salaries are too low to be viable.

So I’m an AUSA and I still find the salary system confusing. In case anecdotes are at all helpful, both my offices started me at the 25th percentile, but 1) I went to the USAO via the Honors program and had no biglaw salary to make any kind of argument with (i.e. no salary cut) and 2) I didn’t try to negotiate (I’m very bad at negotiating but there was also no intimation that there was any room for negotiation - it was very much “this is what the salary is” - which of course may or may not be true, it just worked on me). That said, a friend of mine who just moved offices went to an office where the baseline pay is higher, I think the midpoint but I can’t say for certain. (She moved from a different office and they had to send a letter to EOUSA to justify moving her base salary up to be consistent with the rest of the office.) I’ve never heard of anyone getting hired at the top of the range, but again, this is just anecdotal so it may just not happen in the offices I know.

The short answer to the rest is that it will depend on the office and the current financial situation. My sense is that offices tend to try to keep starting salaries relatively consistent and not have variations based on what people can negotiate, but again, that’s based on my experience only. It’s hard to extrapolate overall or trends because there’s a certain degree of autonomy and it depends on an office’s policy. Some offices are almost only hiring out of biglaw, which may lead to different practices than offices that hire a lot of state prosecutors (who are usually paid less than the feds. I know there are some states/counties where that’s not true, but I’d bet across the country it’s true for at least a majority).

I think there’s no harm in trying to negotiate. I don’t think there’s a tendency to lowball new hires, but we probably differ on what lowball means. I think, rather, they try to maintain a consistent office policy on salaries. I’m pretty sure there’s no expectation that they’ll follow the JS payscale (a friend of mine who clerked federally for 6 years took a significant paycut for the job and I’ve never heard of that even remotely hinted at).

I’m also going to disagree that the salaries are too low to be viable. I’ll acknowledge I’m in a relatively low COL area so I can’t claim to know the pain of someone in Manhattan or SF. But just because the salaries are way lower than biglaw doesn’t make them not viable. Obviously USAOs continue to get very competitive candidates and don’t have to raise salaries to do so. (I’ll admit I think they should match the GS-scale, but it’s not like anyone made me take this job, or is forcing anyone to leave biglaw to take the job.) But again, maybe offices in particularly expensive metros that hire primarily out of biglaw recognize that that’s something they have to address in starting salaries (outside my experience).

In any case, if you’re willing, I’d really appreciate it if you came back and updated (just in generalities about whether you successfully negotiated and what starting percentile you got). Willingness to share this stuff also varies a lot by office, I think, and it’s kind of hard to get tons of info.

[Anonymous User]

Nvm

[Anonymous User]

Sure. My issue is really just that

For the job to be viable financially

, which is about personal circumstances and choices, is not the same as

word would have gotten out that the salaries are too low to be viable.

If someone's living in Manhattan with two kids in private school and a spouse who doesn't work or works a low-paying job, sure, an AUSA salary may not work for them. But that's not the same as saying that the salaries, generally, are too low to be viable.

For reference, someone in NYC who's AD-23 at the 25%th percentile is going to be paid about $90,300 (probably a little more, I think I left out this year's overall annual increase). It's obviously not biglaw money nor is it great money for NYC, but lots of people in NYC live on less. If it's not the right salary for you, that's totally fine, but that's not the same as saying it's not a viable salary for anyone.

[Anonymous User]

Just got offered an interview with EDMI.....I think that would be an awesome job.

Curious if you applied to the term, appellate, or criminal position? How long did it take from application to the invitation to interview?

[Anonymous User]

Hey, everyone. I have my interview with the criminal division in a major metro area later this week. Does anyone have any tips or insight into the first round and what it entails?

Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

Probably a panel interview. Questions I’ve been asked include:

- why prosecution
- why federal prosecution
- why this office
- why public service (probably particularly if you’re coming from private practice)
- tell us about how your experience makes you a good fit for the job (if you have trial experience, probably tell us about your trial experience.)
- how do you work with opposing counsel
- (If you have previous prosecution experience) how do you work with agents, what investigative experience do you have, have you done x/y/z, how do you handle sentencing
- (maybe) where do you see yourself in 5/10 years
- (maybe) tell us about this particular random thing I see on your resume

I’ve had to address hypos before, but had warning in advance. I also know someone who had to do a 10 minute opening (or closing? I forget), but that was in the second round, and they also had advanced warning.

[Maizey703]

Just got offered an interview with EDMI.....I think that would be an awesome job.

Curious if you applied to the term, appellate, or criminal position? How long did it take from application to the invitation to interview?

I applied to the term and the criminal section positions. I am not sure which one generated an interview (government is funny that way). It took about a month. For me so far, I notice the sweet spots for interviews is 3 - 5 weeks out from closing dates.

[Anonymous User]

Did anyone apply to USAO DC for July-August window? Wondering if anyone heard back for an interview/when we should expect to.

[Anonymous User]

Did anyone apply to USAO DC for July-August window? Wondering if anyone heard back for an interview/when we should expect to.

I applied back in October 2018 and in March/April 2019. I was offered first/second round interviews (I'm from out of town) within 6 to 8 weeks of each application.

I canceled my July interview. Frankly, I felt jerked around by the office. I spent well over $1,500 setting up and canceling several sets of flights over two interview cycles due to what I consider not great communication.

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone else interviewed recently at DNJ? I interviewed for a position in the Camden office about a month ago. I have not heard anything back yet. My understanding from earlier posts on this thread is that DNJ moves slowly, so I’m not surprised

[Anonymous User]

Not sure this is the right place to post, but I have an offer and am going through the background check. One area I am concerned about is the tax records form. My husband and I are all up to date on our taxes, but back in 2015-2017 we filed a few extensions and I think ultimately at least one of the years we ended up paying late. We worked with our accountant to get everything up to date, paid any necessary penalties and interest, but I am really concerned about this. There’s nothing else concerning in my profile - never done any drugs ever, decent credit, clean employment history, etc. Anyone have any insight into this and how worried I should be? I’m thinking about just calling the personnel contact coordinating my background check, but I’m scared to raise alarm or be told I won’t pass my background check.

[Anonymous User]

I have a friend who worked as a cross-deputized SAUSA / tribal prosecutor.

During an informal interview for either the SAUSA position or a subsequent permanent AUSA opening, he was supposedly told that late (delinquent ?) taxes would cause serious issues on the background check, and that he should sort that out before formally applying. This was about three years ago so my recollection is spotty.

That's anecdotal but may be helpful. I don't have details on his situation, but it's possible it was more extreme. If you have a decent explanation and/or the amount is small, I imagine it's less of an issue.

[Anonymous User]

On the tax issue, thanks very much that is helpful. For more context, we have no outstanding liability at the moment (there was a small balance for this year assessed after we filed, but it was less than $100). There was one year where our payment and return were both a year late, but our penalties were waived for reasonable cause. There was one year where we filed an extension and filed and paid by the extension date. And then there was one year where we paid an estimated amount and filed our return later.

To me, it doesn’t seem like it should be a huge issue since we’ve paid our taxes in full over the years. However, I know how sensitive the background check process is so I am quite worried at the moment.

[Anonymous User]

No problem. If you've already paid off your liabilities, seems like it should be less of an issue.

My friend owed a substantial amount at the time he was scolded by the AUSA.

[Anonymous User]

I was told that failure to pay taxes was a dealbreaker (the three dealbreakers were: post-bar drug use, failure to pay taxes, defaulting on student loans). While they will ask you about the late payment, I think the fact that penalties were waived for reasonable cause will help you and since you’ve sorted everything out by now you’re likely to be okay. And I can’t imagine that filing for an extension will be an issue - it’s legal, there shouldn’t be any consequences for taking advantage of a completely legal option.

[Anonymous User]

When you all say 3 years of experience are generally required, could that include 2 years of clerking? Just finished one year in biglaw and embarking on two years of clerkships — one at a district court (SDNY/EDNY/EDVA level) and one at a COA. Ideally, I’d like to apply to USAOs during my second year clerking, but am uncertain (1) whether that’s enough experience (I also had extensive, high-profile, though non-legal experience before law school), and (2) how far in advance of finishing my second clerkship I should apply. Thank you very much for any insight you can share!

[Anonymous User]

It depends on the office. I've seen many midwest USAOs hire people with clerkships and 1-2 years of experience that doesn't directly translate to criminal trial work (civil litigation or some types of biglaw). I've even seen a couple people hired with no legal experience, but they were also prior service military. It almost seems random what some of the smaller offices want. There's probably a more discernible pattern with larger, urban offices.

[Anonymous User]

Yes, clerking counts as experience. I’ve seen the same as the poster above (a number of people get hired after clerking + 1-2 years firm experience). That’s almost invariably been people coming out of biglaw, though (the exception I know best is one person who was in insurance defense, but they had connections with the office that hired them (and are an excellent attorney)). Usually if people have been hired out of state prosecution jobs, they have more years of experience - again, at least IME.

The other thing is to look at the job posting. Some postings expressly say “at least 3 years,” and you won’t be considered without 3 years (your app won’t get forwarded to the hiring people). Some postings (usually smaller/less urban) say “at least 1 year.” And then some offices (like SDNY) say “prefers” (for SDNY it’s 2 years post-grad experience that expressly includes clerkships). But I think anyplace that hires through USAjobs will have at least a 1 year requirement and often 3.

Now, 2 years clerking + 1 year biglaw may not make you a super competitive candidate - it will depend on your overall qualifications and the office. I used to work in a border district with a lot of turnover that would hire people with 3 years’ experience (but also hired a lot of people with much more. They just hired a lot, period). In my current office, everyone who’s been hired in the last 2 years has come from another USAO with at least 4 years (some more) AUSA experience, and often additional practice experience before that (whether biglaw or state prosecutor). SDNY seems to hire lots of double-clerks out of biglaw, with a range of years of experience. It’s possible to have too much experience and price yourself out of a job, but that’s not really an issue for you (also for the right candidate I don’t think that’s an issue, more like a tiebreaker. We have a recent hire who has a long and illustrious history at other USAOs and main justice, who went into private practice for a while but wanted to go back to line prosecution. We hired him in a heartbeat).

I don’t think the high-profile experience pre-law school will make much difference, but it depends what it is. Like if you were a DEA agent investigating opioid crimes? My office would probably love that. Doing politics stuff on the Hill? Eh (though it would depend on who you know probably!).

Re: how far in advance of the end of the clerkship to apply - again, this is tough because different offices hire differently. Some major metro offices like SDNY take rolling apps, so you can apply whenever you like, but there’s no guarantee what their timeline will be to act on the apps. Many many many offices only even accept applications when there’s a specific opening they need to fill - they don’t take them on spec, so to speak. So while in an ideal universe, I would say that applying around Feb-April of your second clerkship year would probably be good timing (to get hired + get the background check done in time to start reasonably soon after your clerkship ends, assuming that’s in August), in reality you may not have any control over that. If you’re clerking and an opening comes up in, say, October or November for somewhere you want to be, you should just apply. But they might go with someone who could start in March because hiring only when there’s an opening usually means they need that person to start handling cases as soon as they can. Not much you can do about that.

Also, lots of people apply multiple places before getting a position. If you have 2 clerkships lined up already you probably have great credentials, so this may not be an issue for you, but there are just a lot of applicants. I’m in a small office in a nice but not remotely exciting or prestigious state, and we regularly get 300+ apps for postings. There are actually a significant number of those who aren’t remotely qualified (example that gives you the idea with identifiers changed: someone who’s graduated without any particular honors from a TTTT across the country from us, within the last 5 years, and whose experience is limited to running their own solo wills/estates practice. I mean no disrespect at all to that person, who has entrepreneurial gumption that I will never have and may be really great at their job. But they’re not going to get a second look from us), so 300+ is sort of overblown, but there are still lots of great candidates for one opening.

(Okay, that was long! Sorry!)

[Anonymous User]

I'm one of the anon posters above who commented earlier in the page.

The post above is probably one of the best summaries I've seen on this topic, and I've been scouring TLS and the internet for over a year.

[Anonymous User]

To the poster "in a small office in a nice but not remotely exciting or prestigious state," I'd appreciate your thoughts on "hav[ing] too much experience and pric[ing] yourself out of a job." (And thanks for the already helpful post).

I'd like to work USAO in my mid-size city. I graduated 6 years ago (T-10) then went Big Law for several years in NY/DC. Now I'm working in a larger firm, but not Big Law, in my mid-size city. I did not clerk.

Do you think I'm pushing it as far as experience? Are offices hiring AD-27's with no criminal experience?

[Anonymous User]

I don't think 6 years out/AD-27 is too expensive, no. My sense is that being too expensive would be more like you've already hit AD-29 - but again, I've also seen people with more experience than that get hired, especially if they have specialized experience valuable to the office. So while being too expensive is possible, IME it's not usually a dealbreaker.

No criminal experience is more of an issue than being 6 years out, I think (possibly combined with not clerking - I don't mean to be discouraging, but really, I think everyone I've seen get hired since I've been doing this has either clerked, or been a state or JAG prosecutor with lots of trial experience, with maybe a couple of exceptions). Though I have to emphasize that offices differ and so I don't want to claim I know how everything works everywhere. Connections are always really valuable, too.

I think most people coming from years of civil litigation have done pro bono criminal stuff (not sure if that's an option at your firm), or maybe got detailed to a DA's office (I know some biglaw shops will do this but no idea how common it is), or (and I hate hate hate to bring these up b/c I think they're exploitative) taken an unpaid SAUSA gig for a year or so to get criminal experience. (Not sure these are even really a thing under the current administration - I think they were more common during hiring freezes?).

I would never tell you not to apply because I'm just a rando on the internet, and can't say what would happen. Also, if you've been getting good trial experience, that helps even if it's civil. But I think you will have to work hard to sell yourself as being interested in/capable at criminal law.

[Anonymous User]

Also,

The post above is probably one of the best summaries I've seen on this topic, and I've been scouring TLS and the internet for over a year.

thank you!

[Anonymous User]

I've found in my target markets (smaller midwest offices, including branch offices) that connections and clerkships are more important than out of state prosecutor experience. I'm six years out of school, first three years were criminal defense, last three years have been at a large urban prosecutor's office. I have about a dozen criminal jury trials and hundreds of bench trials. I think I interview well, and I can get interviews, but the applicants being offered seem to have local civil midlaw litigation experience, federal clerkships, and/or a couple years of county attorney experience. But rarely more than a few years of criminal law. I thought that having more years of experience under my belt, even in another jurisdiction, would make me competitive, but I'm not sure that's true. If I could go back, I would have gotten local experience and connections, rather than what I thought would be more prestigious high profile experience out of state.

[Anonymous User]

(and I hate hate hate to bring these up b/c I think they're exploitative) taken an unpaid SAUSA gig for a year or so to get criminal experience. (Not sure these are even really a thing under the current administration - I think they were more common during hiring freezes?)

I'd be interested to know if anyone has ever heard of someone taking a SAUSA position truly for free. Every SAUSA I've ever met or heard of was either a state prosecutor or an attorney at a different federal agency (like the postal inspection service) that continued to collect their regular salary during their SAUSA tenure.