AUSA/USAO hiring Forum

[Anonymous User]

So I don’t think that clerking really counts as multiple jobs, and I also don’t think getting asked about multiple jobs means that it’s an obstacle to getting hired, as long as changing jobs was a conscious choice that you made and not something that happened because you kept getting fired or let go or failing at a job. Interviewers will ask about it because it will be clear from your resume, and they ask you about the stuff on your resume. But that doesn’t mean it’s a black mark; it’s just part of your history. I have a whole pre-law school career and I always get asked about why I changed careers, but I have a good answer and no one cares.

So yeah, in your situation I can understand not wanting to move again for a while. But while it’s true employers may wonder if you changed jobs because you kept failing at them, you just have to be prepared to show that that’s not the case. (And even if it was, you need to come up with a plausible alternative explanation.)

That’s not to say you have to move again or anything, but I still stick by the statement that you shouldn’t stay put out of concern that the USAO will think you’re flighty, when you don’t know if or when the USAO will be interested in hiring you. If there are other reasons to stay put, of course, that’s another thing.

[Anonymous User]

So I don’t think that clerking really counts as multiple jobs, and I also don’t think getting asked about multiple jobs means that it’s an obstacle to getting hired, as long as changing jobs was a conscious choice that you made and not something that happened because you kept getting fired or let go or failing at a job. Interviewers will ask about it because it will be clear from your resume, and they ask you about the stuff on your resume. But that doesn’t mean it’s a black mark; it’s just part of your history. I have a whole pre-law school career and I always get asked about why I changed careers, but I have a good answer and no one cares.

So yeah, in your situation I can understand not wanting to move again for a while. But while it’s true employers may wonder if you changed jobs because you kept failing at them, you just have to be prepared to show that that’s not the case. (And even if it was, you need to come up with a plausible alternative explanation.)

That’s not to say you have to move again or anything, but I still stick by the statement that you shouldn’t stay put out of concern that the USAO will think you’re flighty, when you don’t know if or when the USAO will be interested in hiring you. If there are other reasons to stay put, of course, that’s another thing.

Don't really disagree with anything said here, but I think it's worthwhile to have a back and forth for the OP to consider his or her options. I do think that frequent job changes causing additional interview questions are a negative. Is it a negative that can be overcome for good cause? Sure. And further, I agree completely that clerkship changes are 100% normal and don't even count for this discussion. But big picture: why are you adding a negative factor to your profile that you will then have the burden of overcoming? I hope there's a major plus factor to outweigh it and make it worthwhile.

So I do think that non-clerkship job changes are a yellow flag. Employers are savvy enough, and the DOJ sure as hell is, to know that there's a wide spectrum between getting fired from a job versus other lesser degrees of job performance issues. A young lawyer who leaves a firm after 1-2 years and claims that the firm is happy with him/her and will even give a "positive" referral (which usually means a vaguely worded and largely neutral comment that has been cleared by an employment lawyer) is good odds of being someone who was not looked on favorably by the partners. Harsh but sober truth. It's a prejudice imposed upon you, and it will now take some effort and persuasion to overcome that prejudice.

[Anonymous User]

So I don’t think that clerking really counts as multiple jobs, and I also don’t think getting asked about multiple jobs means that it’s an obstacle to getting hired, as long as changing jobs was a conscious choice that you made and not something that happened because you kept getting fired or let go or failing at a job. Interviewers will ask about it because it will be clear from your resume, and they ask you about the stuff on your resume. But that doesn’t mean it’s a black mark; it’s just part of your history. I have a whole pre-law school career and I always get asked about why I changed careers, but I have a good answer and no one cares.

So yeah, in your situation I can understand not wanting to move again for a while. But while it’s true employers may wonder if you changed jobs because you kept failing at them, you just have to be prepared to show that that’s not the case. (And even if it was, you need to come up with a plausible alternative explanation.)

That’s not to say you have to move again or anything, but I still stick by the statement that you shouldn’t stay put out of concern that the USAO will think you’re flighty, when you don’t know if or when the USAO will be interested in hiring you. If there are other reasons to stay put, of course, that’s another thing.

Don't really disagree with anything said here, but I think it's worthwhile to have a back and forth for the OP to consider his or her options. I do think that frequent job changes causing additional interview questions are a negative. Is it a negative that can be overcome for good cause? Sure. And further, I agree completely that clerkship changes are 100% normal and don't even count for this discussion. But big picture: why are you adding a negative factor to your profile that you will then have the burden of overcoming? I hope there's a major plus factor to outweigh it and make it worthwhile.

So I do think that non-clerkship job changes are a yellow flag. Employers are savvy enough, and the DOJ sure as hell is, to know that there's a wide spectrum between getting fired from a job versus other lesser degrees of job performance issues. A young lawyer who leaves a firm after 1-2 years and claims that the firm is happy with him/her and will even give a "positive" referral (which usually means a vaguely worded and largely neutral comment that has been cleared by an employment lawyer) is good odds of being someone who was not looked on favorably by the partners. Harsh but sober truth. It's a prejudice imposed upon you, and it will now take some effort and persuasion to overcome that prejudice.

Sure, that’s fair. But this is mostly assuming that the job changes are just changing firms (which is also fair since I think that’s what started this discussion), and I think there are also job changes that are kind of self-evident improvements towards your goals. So I think it’s a little more complicated than just number of jobs. But it makes sense to think about it.

[Anonymous User]

Sure, that’s fair. But this is mostly assuming that the job changes are just changing firms (which is also fair since I think that’s what started this discussion), and I think there are also job changes that are kind of self-evident improvements towards your goals. So I think it’s a little more complicated than just number of jobs. But it makes sense to think about it.

I'm the one going back and forth with you on this, and you're right. Good discussion. Hope it helps someone.

[ughbugchugplug]

Sure, that’s fair. But this is mostly assuming that the job changes are just changing firms (which is also fair since I think that’s what started this discussion), and I think there are also job changes that are kind of self-evident improvements towards your goals. So I think it’s a little more complicated than just number of jobs. But it makes sense to think about it.

I'm the one going back and forth with you on this, and you're right. Good discussion. Hope it helps someone.

This is all super helpful, thanks to you both. The job changes are basically of the following type:

1) big law in major city
2) clerk
3) “big law” for relevant market
4) clerk
5) boutique in relevant market that is known for doing relevant work

Basically I did (1) to (3) because I wanted to go to the relevant market and then I did (3) to (5) because I wanted to have more autonomy and do more directly relevant stuff (and, frankly, because I didn’t know (5) existed when I moved to (3) - I would’ve done (5) right away if I’d known about it).

The question marking hanging over (5) is it doesn’t pay as much as (1) or (3) and I’m realizing that matters more to me than I thought. But a switch would be away from specializing and towards money. But I actually like (5) a lot, and could see making a career here. It’s just a bummer since I had a good resume and have been missing out on the ludicrous mid-level/senior level pay scale at big law.

[Anonymous User]

What are the timelines on how long you've been at each of those positions?

[ughbugchugplug]

What are the timelines on how long you've been at each of those positions?

I’d rather not say - I feel like I’ve given more information than I’d like for purposes of staying semi anonymous at this point. Let’s just say I could be between a fifth and ninth year if I went back to big law

[Anonymous User]

What are the timelines on how long you've been at each of those positions?

I’d rather not say - I feel like I’ve given more information than I’d like for purposes of staying semi anonymous at this point. Let’s just say I could be between a fifth and ninth year if I went back to big law

And that's understandable, don't dox yourself. But just to play out how I would view this, let me stick in hypotheticals:

1) big law in major city - 2 years
2) clerk - 1 year
3) “big law” for relevant market - 2 years
4) clerk 1 year
5) boutique in relevant market that is known for doing relevant work - 2 years

To me, this is a lot of bouncing around, with again not counting the clerkships because that's normal. If you're a stellar lawyer who has no problem with interpersonal relationships within the office or with client interactions, you got along with partners and senior associates alike, and you love your work, you can make the case that there's nothing going on here. But you still gotta make the case. If you now add on a 6th position, the case gets even harder. In my opinion.

If the boutique time frame is more like 5 years, maybe you've got some more flexibility.

[ughbugchugplug]

What are the timelines on how long you've been at each of those positions?

I’d rather not say - I feel like I’ve given more information than I’d like for purposes of staying semi anonymous at this point. Let’s just say I could be between a fifth and ninth year if I went back to big law

And that's understandable, don't dox yourself. But just to play out how I would view this, let me stick in hypotheticals:

1) big law in major city - 2 years
2) clerk - 1 year
3) “big law” for relevant market - 2 years
4) clerk 1 year
5) boutique in relevant market that is known for doing relevant work - 2 years

To me, this is a lot of bouncing around, with again not counting the clerkships because that's normal. If you're a stellar lawyer who has no problem with interpersonal relationships within the office or with client interactions, you got along with partners and senior associates alike, and you love your work, you can make the case that there's nothing going on here. But you still gotta make the case. If you now add on a 6th position, the case gets even harder. In my opinion.

If the boutique time frame is more like 5 years, maybe you've got some more flexibility.

Yeah, that’s pretty much what I figured. The uncharitable view on my resume is I look like I’m not returning to firms because they don’t want me back, and a sixth would lend that extra credence. Fair enough. I guess the proper approach is to stick it out for a bit.

[Anonymous User]

What are the timelines on how long you've been at each of those positions?

I’d rather not say - I feel like I’ve given more information than I’d like for purposes of staying semi anonymous at this point. Let’s just say I could be between a fifth and ninth year if I went back to big law

And that's understandable, don't dox yourself. But just to play out how I would view this, let me stick in hypotheticals:

1) big law in major city - 2 years
2) clerk - 1 year
3) “big law” for relevant market - 2 years
4) clerk 1 year
5) boutique in relevant market that is known for doing relevant work - 2 years

To me, this is a lot of bouncing around, with again not counting the clerkships because that's normal. If you're a stellar lawyer who has no problem with interpersonal relationships within the office or with client interactions, you got along with partners and senior associates alike, and you love your work, you can make the case that there's nothing going on here. But you still gotta make the case. If you now add on a 6th position, the case gets even harder. In my opinion.

If the boutique time frame is more like 5 years, maybe you've got some more flexibility.

Not saying you're not entitled to your opinion on this, or that it's not a reasonable opinion, but I think this is a really subjective thing. I look at that timeline, combined with the change in market and then the shift to a more boutique-like experience, and don't have any qualms. Each of those changes to me seems perfectly reasonable. If each job was something like 6 months, then I'd probably get concerned. Or even if each firm was in the exact same location and did the exact same thing - why do you keep changing? But if I were looking at someone who was applying to be an AUSA in NJ, and their first job wasn't in NJ, then they get the "biglaw" job in NJ, then they shift to a boutique-y place that's going to give them much better experience for getting an AUSA job down the line, I wouldn't blink an eye.

Now, I'll fully admit that I feel this way in part b/c I've moved around jobs a lot (mostly in my pre-law career), so to me it's more normal. But I also don't think I'm unique in feeling this way.

Which isn't to say that there aren't other people who share your opinion about changing jobs, so again, it's definitely something to weigh. I just don't think it's a universal opinion.

(I do think, though, that if the OP's concern is how DNJ will view them changing jobs, what job they go to next could definitely be an issue. If it looks really obvious that they went to another biglaw job for the money, that could raise a red flag since USAO also pays way less than biglaw. At the same time, life is short, the USAO may never hire them, and then they could end up 5 years down the road with no USAO gig and no biglaw salary. So everything has a tradeoff.)

[Anonymous User]

Without doxing myself, I will add this to your perfectly respectful and respectable comment that disagrees with mine:

Yes, it's subjective. So is the hiring process in our legal profession.

Also, I'm spending a little bit of energy in responding to these points mainly because they stuck out due to my personal experience. In addition to being a much older lawyer than most of you guys and gals I'm pretty sure, I'm an AUSA who had a few "bounce-around jobs for good reasons" in my first few years also, as a law firm associate. When I became an AUSA years later, with a bunch of trials under my belt and a pretty solid stint at another employer, guess what the only tough questions were during my first round panel interview?

"I notice that you jumped around quite a bit in this early part of your career. Why were you doing that and is this something that should concern us?"

I think my answer to them is pretty telling too: "Yeah, I did jump around, and I can see why you'd be concerned. But... [blah blah blah winning answer]."

I wish all you dudes and dudettes good luck. And as a DOJ guy I will also say: let the truth always prevail!

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, I guess my take on it is that that’s not really a tough question if you have a good answer. I’ve been a lawyer for ~10 years now (currently a fellow AUSA) and had another career before that, and am pretty convinced that as you progress in your field (any field) interviews stop being about your potential and become about justifying your past choices, whatever they were. You can no longer be a blank slate able to sell yourself as whatever the employer wants; you have to explain what you’ve done. Someone who’s had a number of jobs may have to explain that; someone who’s only had one job may have to explain why they haven’t done anything else and why they actually want to leave. Interviewers will also pick stuff off your resume and ask you about it also just to see how you answer.

(I think a lot of people can really struggle with this if their formative experience of interviewing is OCI, because it’s completely artificial and unlike any future interviews, but that’s a bit of a tangent.)

I think we do agree that job-hopping can look bad, though, we just disagree about when it becomes a problem and/or becomes impossible to salvage.

[Anonymous User]

Straight out of two 1-year clerkships, I may have an option to go to an AUSA office in a criminal division. Ultimately, I think I want to prosecute guns, drugs, robbberies, etc. (ie violent crime). The AUSA positions I currently have applied for may offer some, but not all, of that type of work.

Assume I could also go to a firm and make more money for 3 years and that I decide to do that to get financially stable before seeking an AUSA position doing the violent crime prosecution. 2 questions:

First, is this a recommended or acceptable path? Or should I just take the AUSA position now? I’ll note I don’t have a bunch of debt so I can afford either path.

Second, is it going to be tough to get back into violent crime prosecution at the federal level if I go spend time doing civil litigation for 3-5 years and then apply for an AUSA gig at that time?

[Anonymous User]

Straight out of two 1-year clerkships, I may have an option to go to an AUSA office in a criminal division. Ultimately, I think I want to prosecute guns, drugs, robbberies, etc. (ie violent crime). The AUSA positions I currently have applied for may offer some, but not all, of that type of work.

Assume I could also go to a firm and make more money for 3 years and that I decide to do that to get financially stable before seeking an AUSA position doing the violent crime prosecution. 2 questions:

First, is this a recommended or acceptable path? Or should I just take the AUSA position now? I’ll note I don’t have a bunch of debt so I can afford either path.

Second, is it going to be tough to get back into violent crime prosecution at the federal level if I go spend time doing civil litigation for 3-5 years and then apply for an AUSA gig at that time?

If you have the option now, and want to be a federal prosecutor, take it now. Hiring is so dependent on who the current USA is, which means in a few years, the office may not find you as impressive as a candidate. I’m also curious what other crimes you’d be prosecuting in a typical criminal division (unless you’re in a major market). Most USAOs do largely drugs, guns, and child exploitation crimes.

[Anonymous User]

Transferring from civil in private to criminal USAO is very doable, the younger you are. If you wait much, much longer things get a bit awkward, because a USAO might hesitate putting an experienced civil trial litigator into an entry-level street crimes training track, when there are high level civil cases that could very much use your help.

So my answer is that you actually can carry out the plan as you're proposing it here, without too much difficulty. Getting that private sector civil experience can be invaluable for later in your career. As much as I hate private practice (I'm an AUSA now after years in private), there's a lot to be said about knowing how things work in the halls of those law firms. It will help you as a criminal prosecutor, and also later on should you choose to explore different career paths.

Having said that, you have a bird in the hand with that USAO offer right now. It is harder to get in than you might think, so as good as your credentials are, it might take multiple tries in the future. And, that clerkship experience and whatever pedigree your law school holds have diminishing appeal to potential employers as you age. My verdict: If you like the idea of public service, and aren't crushed by loan debt, go for the federal career now.

[Anonymous User]

Transferring from civil in private to criminal USAO is very doable, the younger you are. If you wait much, much longer things get a bit awkward, because a USAO might hesitate putting an experienced civil trial litigator into an entry-level street crimes training track, when there are high level civil cases that could very much use your help.

So my answer is that you actually can carry out the plan as you're proposing it here, without too much difficulty. Getting that private sector civil experience can be invaluable for later in your career. As much as I hate private practice (I'm an AUSA now after years in private), there's a lot to be said about knowing how things work in the halls of those law firms. It will help you as a criminal prosecutor, and also later on should you choose to explore different career paths.

Having said that, you have a bird in the hand with that USAO offer right now. It is harder to get in than you might think, so as good as your credentials are, it might take multiple tries in the future. And, that clerkship experience and whatever pedigree your law school holds have diminishing appeal to potential employers as you age. My verdict: If you like the idea of public service, and aren't crushed by loan debt, go for the federal career now.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone hear from ED Cal? Interviewed a month ago but silence since.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have insight into whether DOJ is relaxing the "no post-bar drug use" policy in light of the legalization wave and administration move to de-schedule cannabis?

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have insight into whether DOJ is relaxing the "no post-bar drug use" policy in light of the legalization wave and administration move to de-schedule cannabis?

That appears to be happening, sort of. The OARM will heavily scrutinize and question any post-bar narcotics use, but if it was not habitual in nature, you should get approved. No one really knows what the policy is though because it's not stated anywhere and there is zero transparency about it. I know what I know because of first-hand experience.

For whatever dumb reason, the OARM forces you to disclose narcotics use that even the FBI does not care about for its national security clearance investigation. The FBI review only requires disclosure of narcotics use within the last 7 years. OARM asks about any use ever, post-bar. I think the OARM needs to be more common sense about this but my name isn't Merrick Garland.

[ughbugchugplug]

I was lucky enough to get an interview at a USAO last Friday. I haven’t heard anything since. Am I done for? I realize this question probably can’t be answered with any accuracy but I would appreciate someone with any tea leaves they can provide chiming in.

[andythefir]

Sweet summer child. Expect months of delays with radio silence in between at every step of the process. The fastest possible timeline would be several weeks between initial interview and USA interview. Slowest timeline could be 6-18 months before you find out because sometimes a hire falls through or they’re hiring more than one person, so they go back through the original applicants.

[Anonymous User]

Sweet summer child. Expect months of delays with radio silence in between at every step of the process. The fastest possible timeline would be several weeks between initial interview and USA interview. Slowest timeline could be 6-18 months before you find out because sometimes a hire falls through or they’re hiring more than one person, so they go back through the original applicants.

This isn’t strictly true.

I do agree that it’s WAY too early to worry about the outcome of an interview last Friday (and that if you haven’t had an interview with the USA yet, you’ll have to do that; keep in mind that they may have done more preliminary interviews since yours, they may have more to do, and they’re going to do all the preliminary interviews before sending people on to the USA. If you did meet with the USA already, they may still have to meet with other candidates, get authorization to make an offer, etc. and USAs have packed schedules. A lot of offices don’t contact references until after at least the preliminary interview, and so on). It definitely *can* take weeks. And they definitely can come back to you later if something falls through or they add a hire, though my current office at least will update candidates about these kinds of things.

But offices can move more quickly: I once had a preliminary interview and was informed that another candidate had been selected for the position 8 days after the interview. For my current job, I had a VTC interview on the 16th of the month, interviewed with the USA on the 30th, and got offered the job something like the 4th of the next month.

So it honestly just depends. You’re absolutely not done for yet though.

[ughbugchugplug]

Ok great, thank you both for the insight. I am very impatient so this is going to be torturous…

[Anonymous User]

I was lucky enough to get an interview at a USAO last Friday. I haven’t heard anything since. Am I done for? I realize this question probably can’t be answered with any accuracy but I would appreciate someone with any tea leaves they can provide chiming in.

AUSA here and here's how I analyzed my process when I went through it.

At the panel interview level, I figured I was maybe 1 out of 5 or so candidates who were interviewed. I already knew at that point that my odds of survival were decent for various reasons, but all things even, my odds were 1 out of 5. Maybe they interviewed more than 5, but that's a lot of time imposed on supervisory-level AUSAs who are busy as hell with cases and other stuff. For your emotional health, you should just focus on that 1 out of 5 figure (or whatever similar figure you think makes sense based on what you know).

Time elapsed between 1st interview and the phone call for the final interview with the U.S. Attorney: in my case, a few weeks. But there is no way to read anything into how short or how long your process is taking, for so many reasons. Maybe the biggest reason: the U.S.Atty plays a politician-like role in the office. That requires him or her to engage in an unbelievable amount of bullshit that is not part of your world: showing up to places to smile and shake hands; secret trips to Washington; speeches; conferences; boring-ass meetings in random other states; the list goes on. The point is that their schedule is busy and chaotic, and requires constant travel unlike most AUSAs. In the middle of this, some junior lawyer hoping to become an AUSA needs to be fit in to their schedule for a probably in-person interview that will last for maybe one hour, along with the FAUSA (First AUSA) whose schedule is also crazy. It could happen soon, or it might take a long time.

As an AUSA I've requested a simple document to be signed by the U.S.Atty that required no thought process or controversy, and it took almost a month to get it back from him.

I wish you good luck. If you don't make it, just try again one day now that you know you're a panel finalist.

[Anonymous User]

Yes, you're absolutely right about some of the factors in play in lining up even just the logistics of hiring at a USAO. This is going to sound grumpy, but I think OCI does a lot of law students a disservice because they tend to assume that that's how hiring is supposed to work, when in fact OCI is pretty artificial and unlike other hiring processes.