AUSA/USAO hiring Forum

[Anonymous User]

Quoted AUSA here.

I personally know four people who did the completely unpaid SAUSA route, and at least two of them worked with at least one other completely unpaid SAUSA in those offices (don’t know about the other two).

All the ones I know did this after working biglaw and presumably saving money to support themselves (and two had working spouses, which helped).

Like I said, I don’t know if they’re so much a thing now (the ones I know were probably doing this around 2009-12ish), but it was absolutely real.

It’s true that lots of state prosecutors or attorneys at other federal agencies get detailed to USAOs as SAUSAs, and continue to get paid by their home office. But unpaid SAUSAs exist too (or, again, have existed).

[Anonymous User]

I know of several people who have accepted uncompensated SAUSA positions since 2010. They're wealthy and can afford to to go without pay for 1-2 years, if that means a possible avenue to a permanent AUSA position. One of them was permanently hired in a small office and then transferred to the San Francisco office. He's a rockstar, but connections and wealth didn't hurt in getting the initial SAUSA job.

There are compensated HIDTA SAUSA positions that pop up fairly frequently in the rural midwest or markets that many people might not consider to be particularly desirable. Some offices (like Iowa) actually only traditionally hire through the SAUSA pool. Almost all of their AUSAs spent 2-3+ years as SAUSAs.

It seems that the uncompensated positions are posted in more competitive markets, like NDCA, places where USAOs can attract more applicants who are willing to be exploited for free labor.

[Anonymous User]

One of them was permanently hired in a small office and then transferred to the San Francisco office. He's a rockstar, but connections and wealth didn't hurt.

Lol, I think this person might be one of the ones I was referring to.

The uncompensated positions I know of weren’t in the most major metros out there, but usually adjacent enough to a major metro to attract people, and offices that have a pretty high volume. (Though now I do remember another one who was in NDCA.)

[Anonymous User]

Can any AUSAs opine as to whether NAC courses are eligible for CLE credit? Specifically, I'm wondering if the basic criminal trial advocacy course could be used to satisfy the balance of my live classroom requirements.

[Anonymous User]

Can any AUSAs opine as to whether NAC courses are eligible for CLE credit? Specifically, I'm wondering if the basic criminal trial advocacy course could be used to satisfy the balance of my live classroom requirements.

Yes, NAC courses count for CLE credit, and they should count as live classroom credits (my state doesn't make that distinction so I can't absolutely confirm that, but they are live classes so I don't see why they wouldn't).

Depending on the size of your office, they may offer internal trainings that count for CLE credits as well (my former office had these almost once every 1-2 months, although my current office is small enough that they're much rarer).

[Megatron15]

Care to share whatever happened with the EDMI?

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]

Wanted to see what folks thought was the best time to start applying to AUSA positions while clerking.

I'm approaching my sixth month of clerking right now. Started applying last month because, I've seen on the forum, and been personally told, the interview process (from application to offer) can take anywhere from 6-9 months. However, I received feedback on one of my applications stating that I applied too early, because they were hoping to have someone start in 2-3 months. So, now I'm second guessing myself and thinking I'm way too early and no one will look at my application.

Appreciate any insight - thanks!

[andythefir]

For folks who got hired in the huge wave of border offices: is everyone getting itchy and looking to leave right about now?

[nixy]

You’re assuming they’re not locals who don’t have any reason to leave.

[andythefir]

You’re assuming they’re not locals who don’t have any reason to leave.

Sure, but I know several people who were hired for border prosecutor spots, and none of them were even from the region of where they were hired. I’d also imagine those jobs themselves would be hard, such that even if you didn’t mind the place, the job would eventually wear you out.

[howell]

Wanted to see what folks thought was the best time to start applying to AUSA positions while clerking.

I'm approaching my sixth month of clerking right now. Started applying last month because, I've seen on the forum, and been personally told, the interview process (from application to offer) can take anywhere from 6-9 months. However, I received feedback on one of my applications stating that I applied too early, because they were hoping to have someone start in 2-3 months. So, now I'm second guessing myself and thinking I'm way too early and no one will look at my application.

Appreciate any insight - thanks!

I had a similar timeline issue. I was in the Air Force and had to give a 6-month notice before leaving, so I wasn't sure when to start applying. I think you're fine starting now. If you apply, and it's too early, I can't imagine an office wouldn't look at you again the next time a slot came open.

I had a really great interview with one office, but it was too early. They said they would call back when they posted another position, and they did, the very day it went live on USAJobs. The second time they were going to let me skip the initial round and just come out for the final interview, but I took another job.

So I would encourage you to just keep applying. But perhaps other people have had different experiences.

[Anonymous User]

Wanted to see what folks thought was the best time to start applying to AUSA positions while clerking.

I'm approaching my sixth month of clerking right now. Started applying last month because, I've seen on the forum, and been personally told, the interview process (from application to offer) can take anywhere from 6-9 months. However, I received feedback on one of my applications stating that I applied too early, because they were hoping to have someone start in 2-3 months. So, now I'm second guessing myself and thinking I'm way too early and no one will look at my application.

Appreciate any insight - thanks!

I had a similar timeline issue. I was in the Air Force and had to give a 6-month notice before leaving, so I wasn't sure when to start applying. I think you're fine starting now. If you apply, and it's too early, I can't imagine an office wouldn't look at you again the next time a slot came open.

I had a really great interview with one office, but it was too early. They said they would call back when they posted another position, and they did, the very day it went live on USAJobs. The second time they were going to let me skip the initial round and just come out for the final interview, but I took another job.

So I would encourage you to just keep applying. But perhaps other people have had different experiences.

Thank you, this is helpful. I felt discouraged at the time when the office contacted me. Made me think if I had applied towards the end of my clerkship, I would have gotten an interview, etc., but you're probably right. If they are looking again later, and I still don't have a job lined up, it may work out as it did for you.

If you don't mind me asking a follow up - for the job you ended up taking, how long did the process take (from application to offer and then starting date)?

[nixy]

If it’s any consolation, if you’d applied at the end of your clerkship you probably wouldn’t have gotten an interview etc. because they wouldn’t have had a position because they’d have filled it by then. (I mean, the timing sucks either way, but it’s not because you made the wrong choice when to apply).

[howell]

Thank you, this is helpful. I felt discouraged at the time when the office contacted me. Made me think if I had applied towards the end of my clerkship, I would have gotten an interview, etc., but you're probably right. If they are looking again later, and I still don't have a job lined up, it may work out as it did for you.

If you don't mind me asking a follow up - for the job you ended up taking, how long did the process take (from application to offer and then starting date)?

I ended up taking a job with a firm, so that's not too helpful. But even with the firm, "too early" wasn't a huge problem. I was targeting a May/June start to the new job, and I interviewed with the firm in early January. They couldn't commit that far out, but they called me back in April (I think) to come back down for another set of interviews. I got an offer after that.

I only applied to a few USAOs, and most seemed relatively quick to hire (~3 month timeline), especially if it was just one position. The Atlanta office hired like 8 AUSAs at once last year (or something like that). In a case like that, the slightly later start date probably shouldn't hurt you.

[lavarman84]

You’re assuming they’re not locals who don’t have any reason to leave.

Sure, but I know several people who were hired for border prosecutor spots, and none of them were even from the region of where they were hired. I’d also imagine those jobs themselves would be hard, such that even if you didn’t mind the place, the job would eventually wear you out.

As a border d. ct. clerk who has friends in the AUSA office, I would say that you generally get two types of people:
1) Somebody trying to get his/her foot in the door with DOJ who will transfer offices/jobs within 3 years; or
2) People who legitimately enjoyed living on the border and planned to stay for the long haul.

I know there's a good bit of turnover. There were a couple who returned to private practice. And quite a few who transferred within the DOJ. However, I don't know that the job wears you out. It didn't seem like the hours were unreasonable (compared to other offices). Now, if you fundamentally disagree with our immigration laws/policy, I could see it being difficult. Frankly, I think the extent I could see myself burning out is just the repetition. Could see doing a ton of 1325s and 1326s getting boring and tedious after awhile.

[Anonymous User]

Considering applying for a border district sometime in the future -- I'd be curious to hear from an AUSA/former AUSA who practiced in a border district about how boring the 1325/1326s really are. My exposure to them is limited, but it seems like since the guilt side is so straightforward, the interesting parts are going to be whatever creative defenses the FPDs/etc come up with. Also, what's the rough percentage of the caseload for a junior AUSA on entry/reentry cases? Would guess there's a fair bit of smuggling/etc too, but wouldn't be surprised if that's what you graduate from the 1326s to.

[Anonymous User]

Anon b/c I have the experience you're looking for, although my caveat is that I moved out of a border district before Trump was elected, so I'm sure things have changed.

There can be some variation in how offices handle this caseload. The basic reactive caseload is 1325/6s, alien smuggling (sorry, I use the term "alien" b/c it's in the statute/how the offices refer to it), and drugs coming across the border (trekked through the desert or in vehicles at a port/checkpoints, sometimes body carriers). I know of practices where these cases are divvied up by kind - you do only either 1325/6s, or smuggling, or drugs. But most places I know tend to divide them up equally among the general crimes people so you'd have some of all kinds. My caseload was probably 50% 1326s and 50% the other stuff in varying proportions just depending on when cases came in. (I didn't actually do 1325s; my office had one dude who handled them all and that was all he did.)

The big legal issues with 1326s are collateral attacks on deportation, and sentencing. Those can both get sort of complex (sentencing used to get you into the weeds of the categorical approach all the time, but they changed the guidelines so that's become much less complex).

Are they boring? I mean, yeah, they're not complex offenses and they're not sophisticated investigations, so to that extent, yes. Working with Border Patrol can be, well, trying. The vast majority of the cases are very straightforward so don't take up a ton of time/energy, and the volume gives you a lot of experience with working up a case, pleading, and sentencing. They do go to trial relatively regularly, given the volume of cases (they usually claim citizenship, or duress - not usually a thing unless someone literally held a gun to their head at the border itself - or they just don't want to admit anything).

As far as trials go, they're not very exciting for the jurors, because they're mostly document-based and it's hard to do that in an especially captivating way. But if you don't have trial experience, a 1326 case will still give you all the relevant experience with how trials work and what you need to do (obv it won't prepare you to try, say, a CP case, but then, doing complex drug investigations won't prepare you to try a CP case either). A lot of getting good a trials is doing a lot of them, and a 1326 will give you that experience even if it's not legally complex.

I'm not sure the "burnout" andythefir alludes to is quite a thing for everyone; I agree with lavarman's assessment of it. I was only in that office for 3 1/2 years, but I knew people who'd been there 15+ and they'd done reactive border crime throughout and had no issues with it, and my experience there was great. The problem is more the office policies and approach to the volume than that the cases are 1326s per se. And I left - as many people do, the turnover is fairly high - but it's frequently for personal reasons. You get a lot of people going to border districts who aren't from there and want to live elsewhere. I was a little concerned about whether it was good for my career to get experience only with border crime, but mostly b/c I thought it was likely I would want to move for geographic reasons. If I was a local who wanted to stay there it would have been fine. (As fate would have it, now I do reentries in my new district, wheeee. They're everywhere.)

I think a lot is also just down to your temperament. Some people are super ambitious and really invested in doing "sophisticated" work. From my time in 2 districts now, a lot of AUSA work is not really about that. Some in every district, sure, and in some districts more than others. But garden variety drug cases, gun cases, CP cases, fraud cases are not really sophisticated work, and the immigration cases fall right in line with that kind of work. Personally, I am pretty happy being a cog in a larger machine. If you can't get on board with that you might not like being an AUSA.

Also, if you have a problem with the work conceptually - you fundamentally disagree with the immigration laws - a border district would be very tough. My colleagues were all great compassionate people, but there were some who had very different takes on immigration than I did. But that's true about drug laws, and mandatory minimums, and other criminal justice issues. If you have that kind of fundamental disagreement with these things, being a prosecutor isn't a great move. I'll admit there are some changed priorities/policies under the current admin that I disagree with compared to the previous. Mostly I just accept that that's what I have to deal with in this job, though.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks a lot, anon -- very helpful and informative.

My main reservation about it at the moment is what you mentioned about people frequently moving out of the area for personal reasons -- for family reasons, I don't think I could be in a border district longterm, but it might be doable for a couple years. I've read some other posts on this forum about it sometimes being challenging to move to other districts due to the skepticism about trying border cases vs complex drug investigations and so on -- did you encounter that in your move?

[Anonymous User]

Not really - I applied to two offices, made it through the first cut at the other one (made a strategic error in the interview that I think sunk me at that stage) and got this one. In part I know my recommenders advocated for me really hard. (For instance, my current office does a LOT of drug cases and one of the grand poobahs was concerned that I hadn’t done a wiretap case. My mentor was like “they can LEARN to do a wiretap.” ) But it’s not just me - I also know a lot of other people who went from that office to other non-border districts.

Now, I think that if you were at the border district for, say, 10 years, and did nothing but border crime, it would be harder to move. But after putting in your dues, so to speak, you can move up to other non-border stuff - people who were in the reactive group when I was there are now doing white collar, complex drug cases, and violent crimes. So I think you can get a decent amount of experience with border crimes and either change offices at that point, or move into different kinds of work that will make you more competitive to move a little bit down the line. (FWIW, my current office has hired a fair bit since I got there, and overwhelmingly they’re AUSAs from other offices with ties to the area.)

[andythefir]

Not really - I applied to two offices, made it through the first cut at the other one (made a strategic error in the interview that I think sunk me at that stage) and got this one. In part I know my recommenders advocated for me really hard. (For instance, my current office does a LOT of drug cases and one of the grand poobahs was concerned that I hadn’t done a wiretap case. My mentor was like “they can LEARN to do a wiretap.” Jokes on them, though, because I kind of hate drug cases, still haven’t done a wiretap, and don’t intend to if I can avoid it.) But it’s not just me - I also know a lot of other people who went from that office to other non-border districts.

Now, I think that if you were at the border district for, say, 10 years, and did nothing but border crime, it would be harder to move. But after putting in your dues, so to speak, you can move up to other non-border stuff - people who were in the reactive group when I was there are now doing white collar, complex drug cases, and violent crimes. So I think you can get a decent amount of experience with border crimes and either change offices at that point, or move into different kinds of work that will make you more competitive to move a little bit down the line. (FWIW, my current office has hired a fair bit since I got there, and overwhelmingly they’re AUSAs from other offices with ties to the area.)

1 what was the most common time people without ties to the region left?

2 what was the most common job the people who left took?

[lavarman84]

Anon b/c I have the experience you're looking for, although my caveat is that I moved out of a border district before Trump was elected, so I'm sure things have changed.

There can be some variation in how offices handle this caseload. The basic reactive caseload is 1325/6s, alien smuggling (sorry, I use the term "alien" b/c it's in the statute/how the offices refer to it), and drugs coming across the border (trekked through the desert or in vehicles at a port/checkpoints, sometimes body carriers). I know of practices where these cases are divvied up by kind - you do only either 1325/6s, or smuggling, or drugs. But most places I know tend to divide them up equally among the general crimes people so you'd have some of all kinds. My caseload was probably 50% 1326s and 50% the other stuff in varying proportions just depending on when cases came in. (I didn't actually do 1325s; my office had one dude who handled them all and that was all he did.)

The big legal issues with 1326s are collateral attacks on deportation, and sentencing. Those can both get sort of complex (sentencing used to get you into the weeds of the categorical approach all the time, but they changed the guidelines so that's become much less complex).

Are they boring? I mean, yeah, they're not complex offenses and they're not sophisticated investigations, so to that extent, yes. Working with Border Patrol can be, well, trying. The vast majority of the cases are very straightforward so don't take up a ton of time/energy, and the volume gives you a lot of experience with working up a case, pleading, and sentencing. They do go to trial relatively regularly, given the volume of cases (they usually claim citizenship, or duress - not usually a thing unless someone literally held a gun to their head at the border itself - or they just don't want to admit anything).

As far as trials go, they're not very exciting for the jurors, because they're mostly document-based and it's hard to do that in an especially captivating way. But if you don't have trial experience, a 1326 case will still give you all the relevant experience with how trials work and what you need to do (obv it won't prepare you to try, say, a CP case, but then, doing complex drug investigations won't prepare you to try a CP case either). A lot of getting good a trials is doing a lot of them, and a 1326 will give you that experience even if it's not legally complex.

I'm not sure the "burnout" andythefir alludes to is quite a thing for everyone; I agree with lavarman's assessment of it. I was only in that office for 3 1/2 years, but I knew people who'd been there 15+ and they'd done reactive border crime throughout and had no issues with it, and my experience there was great. The problem is more the office policies and approach to the volume than that the cases are 1326s per se. And I left - as many people do, the turnover is fairly high - but it's frequently for personal reasons. You get a lot of people going to border districts who aren't from there and want to live elsewhere. I was a little concerned about whether it was good for my career to get experience only with border crime, but mostly b/c I thought it was likely I would want to move for geographic reasons. If I was a local who wanted to stay there it would have been fine. (As fate would have it, now I do reentries in my new district, wheeee. They're everywhere.)

I think a lot is also just down to your temperament. Some people are super ambitious and really invested in doing "sophisticated" work. From my time in 2 districts now, a lot of AUSA work is not really about that. Some in every district, sure, and in some districts more than others. But garden variety drug cases, gun cases, CP cases, fraud cases are not really sophisticated work, and the immigration cases fall right in line with that kind of work. Personally, I am pretty happy being a cog in a larger machine. If you can't get on board with that you might not like being an AUSA.

Also, if you have a problem with the work conceptually - you fundamentally disagree with the immigration laws - a border district would be very tough. My colleagues were all great compassionate people, but there were some who had very different takes on immigration than I did. But that's true about drug laws, and mandatory minimums, and other criminal justice issues. If you have that kind of fundamental disagreement with these things, being a prosecutor isn't a great move. I'll admit there are some changed priorities/policies under the current admin that I disagree with compared to the previous. Mostly I just accept that that's what I have to deal with in this job, though.

Agree with all of this. I will say that I think the alien smuggling/transportation cases are a good challenge if you want to be a trial lawyer. Those cases that go to trial tend to be difficult ones to win and come down to the lawyering. During my time in the district, I know of multiple acquittals (including one in our court) on that type of case. But I don't know how it was in other divisions. Jurors in our division tended to not like convicting for that crime when the defendant was sympathetic or hadn't engaged in truly reprehensible conduct.

[Anonymous User]

1 what was the most common time people without ties to the region left?

2 what was the most common job the people who left took?

1 - I'd say three years on up. Mostly 3-7ish, but with an outlier group of people with more like 12-15+ years experience in the office.

2 - For the first group, definitely AUSA in another district, followed by Main Justice. One is now a PD, which is what they did before being an AUSA. Some of the outliers switched offices too, but a lot went to be IJs or ALJs, or again, something in Main Justice (one guy went to the SEC in DC).

(also completely agree with lavarman about the smuggling cases.)

[andythefir]

1 Was the 3-7 year mark where they started applying or was that when their applications started getting traction?

2 did any of the folks you worked with go back to being a DA/clerk/take some random job because they couldn’t take the locals anymore?

[Anonymous User]

1 Was the 3-7 year mark where they started applying or was that when their applications started getting traction?

2 did any of the folks you worked with go back to being a DA/clerk/take some random job because they couldn’t take the locals anymore?

1) no idea for anyone but myself since people don’t usually advertise when they start applying. That was when I started applying.

2) No. Not at all. I don’t know anyone who “couldn’t take the locals” or was so unhappy that they fled to whatever random job they could find.

I know people who didn’t like the weather/school system/wanted to be in a bigger city, but again, they all left to be AUSAs elsewhere (or IJ/ALJs). Almost invariably they went to a district where they had ties, so were usually trying to get home rather than just get out.

I know one person who left for a permanent clerkship, but they came in without any practice experience at all and discovered they hated being a prosecutor. The issue wasn’t not being able to take the locals, because they were local, and they stayed local.

Now, I can’t speak for every border office out there. Lots of people like (and retire to) the city where I worked. Some locations may be harder to take than others (like, Yuma would probably be tough for someone from NYC who’s never been to the southwest - but there are about 4 AUSAs in the Yuma office and they are ALL former local prosecutors. You’re not going to hire someone out of Skadden into one of the tiny offices).

The thing is, I think most people who are going to be willing to pick up and move to a random border city for the chance at an AUSA gig are pretty focused and willing to put personal preference in a back seat to career advancement for as long as it will take to get them to the next step. They’re fairly adaptable or they probably wouldn’t take the gig in the first place.

Finally, the issue probably isn’t that someone couldn’t take the locals anymore. The issue is probably how the USA runs the particular office and what prosecution priorities are in place. I know that policies about intake and volume and such really affect what it’s like to work in a border office (though really, any office). I’m told there have been a lot of changes and morale isn’t good in my old office right now. But that’s not a local/non-local thing; that’s just an AUSA thing. I have a friend in an office in what is objectively a very desirable city where many many people want to live. She (and others there) would like to leave that office, but because of the specific office culture and pressures from the current USA, not because of “the locals.” (Again, she is a local.)

[Anonymous User]

Quick question. How much does it help to apply under Section A (i.e., disability hiring) when applying to AUSA positions?