AUSA/USAO hiring Forum

[Anonymous User]

What’s the story with the “this is a 14 month TERM position but may be made permanent without further competition” type gigs?

More specifically:

1. Are these people sort of second class citizens or are they the same as other ausas

2. How does the decision get made at the end of the 14 months? How much notice do you get either way?

3. How often are these people out on their butts at the end? I’m picturing the vast majority ending up permanent but I don’t know.

[Anonymous User]

What’s the story with the “this is a 14 month TERM position but may be made permanent without further competition” type gigs?

More specifically:

1. Are these people sort of second class citizens or are they the same as other ausas

2. How does the decision get made at the end of the 14 months? How much notice do you get either way?

3. How often are these people out on their butts at the end? I’m picturing the vast majority ending up permanent but I don’t know.

All AUSAs begin on 14 month terms so that they can fire you if you fail the full background. If you pass background, you become like someone at Social Security or some other federal job where you do a term of probation. Then if you finish probation, you become harder to fire. None of those steps involve competition. There are some other kinds of jobs like SAUSAs or maybe grant-funded spots that could have some kind of time limitations I guess.

[Anonymous User]

What’s the story with the “this is a 14 month TERM position but may be made permanent without further competition” type gigs?

More specifically:

1. Are these people sort of second class citizens or are they the same as other ausas

2. How does the decision get made at the end of the 14 months? How much notice do you get either way?

3. How often are these people out on their butts at the end? I’m picturing the vast majority ending up permanent but I don’t know.

All AUSAs begin on 14 month terms so that they can fire you if you fail the full background. If you pass background, you become like someone at Social Security or some other federal job where you do a term of probation. Then if you finish probation, you become harder to fire. None of those steps involve competition. There are some other kinds of jobs like SAUSAs or maybe grant-funded spots that could have some kind of time limitations I guess.

There is a 14-month probationary period, but all AUSAs face that, and not all AUSA jobs include the “this is a 14 month TERM position” language - those aren’t the same thing. A term position is different from a permanent position (the latter often reference the 14 month probationary period but don’t refer to a term position).

As for the original questions:

1) my experience has been that any AUSA while in the office is treated pretty much like any other AUSA. I haven’t been in the term position so can’t say from the inside, but my experience of having term AUSAs is that they’re full AUSAs like everyone else. They might be hired to address a specific problem, in which case their case load will probably be specialized, but that’s about it as far as distinctions I’ve seen.

2 & 3) my experience is that the language in question means the office has identified a need for a specific term - maybe someone is out on detail or for some other reason or the office got a grant or there’s some particular need for a particular legal program - and therefore has authorization to hire for a term, but the office would probably like to keep the position around if possible and the person works out. So it’s really a question of whether the office can continue to justify the funding. The office I’m in right now actively tries to convert temp people to permanent (assuming they’ve been a good fit), though I can’t guarantee all offices do that. We’ve managed to keep pretty much everyone we’ve hired as temps, though I can’t speak to other offices.

I don’t know how much notice you get but my impression is that the managers in my office are very transparent about this and very happy to keep the temp person in the loop. But it may be that you don’t get a ton of notice because it may be more about what EOUSA decides about funding than what the local office wants.

Tl;dr - nothing is guaranteed but if the position says it may be converted to permanent, IME you have a decent chance of that happening. My office at least tries to be humane and transparent about a person’s status but you probably have to be willing to take some risk.

[Anonymous User]

Hello. I’m looking for information about the District of Arizona? Wondering about the work generally, work/life balance, case composition, etc. Is there model experience the office prefers so that I can set myself up to get hired? The more details about the office, the better!

Thanks for any wisdom.

[Anonymous User]

Hello. I’m looking for information about the District of Arizona? Wondering about the work generally, work/life balance, case composition, etc. Is there model experience the office prefers so that I can set myself up to get hired? The more details about the office, the better!

Thanks for any wisdom.

Which office? Tucson and Phoenix vary somewhat. (I don't think you're talking about Yuma or Flagstaff b/c those offices are tiny.) The work in Tucson is heavily dominated by border offenses and you will start off and spend quite a bit of time doing cases involving illegal reentry, smuggling migrants into the country, and reactive drug offenses (people caught bringing drugs across the border). There are more specialized groups (violent crime, white collar, etc), but you will have to put in time doing the general border stuff before you can move into the other groups. If you don't have prosecution experience already, the border stuff is as good a way to get it as any.

Work/life balance depends on the office caseload, and what the office caseload looks like varies by administration nationally/the aspirations of the USA locally (the primary issue is volume - there are always more of essentially the exact same cases so a lot depends on how willing the top brass in the office are to set reasonable limits on intake and/or on whether the current admin is a "tough on immigration" regime or not).

But if you're not in a "prosecute EVERY illegal entry" kind of timeline, work/life balance is a little what you make of it. When you are preparing for trial you'll work nights/weekends, when you're in trial you'll do nothing but work, when neither of those are the case I think an average of 45-50 hours is pretty doable. How often you go to trial depends a lot on the overall policies again, but 1-2/yr was relatively common.

Tons of people in the office have kids and understand/expect people to need time for kid-related stuff, and as long as you are covering your court hearings and getting your work done, no one will have an issue with you taking time off for said kid (or doctor's appointments or getting your car fixed or whatever else you have in your life). You need to put in leave for that time, but as long as you have the leave no one will care that you're using it. Vacation is respected.

There's a reasonable amount of turnover b/c the office tends to be part locals (often coming from state prosecution jobs) who will never leave, and people who want to get into a USAO but aren't local and decide they want to get out as soon as they get enough experience to leave (like I had one colleague who had grown up in one northern corner of the US and then went to law school and worked in the other northern corner of the US. They never adjusted to the weather and left after about 5 years). The flip side of this is that there are often openings, and Tucson is usually pretty willing to train newer attorneys.

Phoenix is different from Tucson in that it has more standard "big city" stuff. It still gets a lot of reactive border-related stuff, but I think there will be a more general mix. I think the culture overall is relatively similar to Tucson, though, although the hiring might be less so.

In terms of model experience, it can depend on the USA quite a bit. There's usually a good mix of local prosecutors with lots of felony trial experience, and people who come from biglaw with the standard credentials that entails. There are a lot of U of A and ASU grads, and I have found the offices generally not to be school snobs (probably partly the result of not having any local top ranked schools), but again, a given USA may have different priorities so that could change. There is a lot of Indian country in AZ and it is under federal jurisdiction, which is one reason why local prosecutors get hired - a lot of the Indian country crime is violent crime and the kinds of offenses normally handled by the state, not the feds (DUI, assault, sexual abuse, homicide).

i knew a lot of really great people in both offices and think it was a good community for starting as a prosecutor. But you do have to be willing to start off dealing with a bunch of very very routine cases with overwhelmingly similar facts.

[Anonymous User]

Hello. I’m looking for information about the District of Arizona? Wondering about the work generally, work/life balance, case composition, etc. Is there model experience the office prefers so that I can set myself up to get hired? The more details about the office, the better!

Thanks for any wisdom.

Which office? Tucson and Phoenix vary somewhat. (I don't think you're talking about Yuma or Flagstaff b/c those offices are tiny.) The work in Tucson is heavily dominated by border offenses and you will start off and spend quite a bit of time doing cases involving illegal reentry, smuggling migrants into the country, and reactive drug offenses (people caught bringing drugs across the border). There are more specialized groups (violent crime, white collar, etc), but you will have to put in time doing the general border stuff before you can move into the other groups. If you don't have prosecution experience already, the border stuff is as good a way to get it as any.

Work/life balance depends on the office caseload, and what the office caseload looks like varies by administration nationally/the aspirations of the USA locally (the primary issue is volume - there are always more of essentially the exact same cases so a lot depends on how willing the top brass in the office are to set reasonable limits on intake and/or on whether the current admin is a "tough on immigration" regime or not).

But if you're not in a "prosecute EVERY illegal entry" kind of timeline, work/life balance is a little what you make of it. When you are preparing for trial you'll work nights/weekends, when you're in trial you'll do nothing but work, when neither of those are the case I think an average of 45-50 hours is pretty doable. How often you go to trial depends a lot on the overall policies again, but 1-2/yr was relatively common.

Tons of people in the office have kids and understand/expect people to need time for kid-related stuff, and as long as you are covering your court hearings and getting your work done, no one will have an issue with you taking time off for said kid (or doctor's appointments or getting your car fixed or whatever else you have in your life). You need to put in leave for that time, but as long as you have the leave no one will care that you're using it. Vacation is respected.

There's a reasonable amount of turnover b/c the office tends to be part locals (often coming from state prosecution jobs) who will never leave, and people who want to get into a USAO but aren't local and decide they want to get out as soon as they get enough experience to leave (like I had one colleague who had grown up in one northern corner of the US and then went to law school and worked in the other northern corner of the US. They never adjusted to the weather and left after about 5 years). The flip side of this is that there are often openings, and Tucson is usually pretty willing to train newer attorneys.

Phoenix is different from Tucson in that it has more standard "big city" stuff. It still gets a lot of reactive border-related stuff, but I think there will be a more general mix. I think the culture overall is relatively similar to Tucson, though, although the hiring might be less so.

In terms of model experience, it can depend on the USA quite a bit. There's usually a good mix of local prosecutors with lots of felony trial experience, and people who come from biglaw with the standard credentials that entails. There are a lot of U of A and ASU grads, and I have found the offices generally not to be school snobs (probably partly the result of not having any local top ranked schools), but again, a given USA may have different priorities so that could change. There is a lot of Indian country in AZ and it is under federal jurisdiction, which is one reason why local prosecutors get hired - a lot of the Indian country crime is violent crime and the kinds of offenses normally handled by the state, not the feds (DUI, assault, sexual abuse, homicide).

i knew a lot of really great people in both offices and think it was a good community for starting as a prosecutor. But you do have to be willing to start off dealing with a bunch of very very routine cases with overwhelmingly similar facts.

This was a phenomenal explanation. Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

Any knowledge on the interview process for D. MD under the new U.S. Attorney? It looks like the process no longer starts with an interview with the U.S. Attorney and First Assistant.

That's correct. The current USA has shifted to the "more traditional" method. The office now conducts interview rounds with line attorneys and management before candidates meet with the FAUSA and USA.

In case the original poster was still looking, the office recently posted again for AUSA spots, and there's a big hiring push for term position SAUSAs, who will be employed by the state AG's office.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have info on the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago)? Work/life balance, office culture, relationship with judiciary and defense bar, etc.? Current AUSA considering a lateral move down the line.

[Anonymous User]

Any movement in SDNY or EDNY hiring? I’ve had an application in with SDNY for close to a year. Not a word. Wondering if I should submit an update letter.

[Anonymous User]

I’m in a clerkship and want to apply for an AUSA position following the clerkship for next July or August. How far in advance is it ok to start applying to various offices?

In other words, can I start applying now for positions in July/August, or do I need to wait until later? And if not, when is the appropriate time to start applying?

[randytherealist]

Since this thread was helpful for me during my process, I wanted to post my hiring timeline for a large costal office similar to N.D. Cal./C.D. Cal./E.D.V.A. or E.D.N.Y.

Dates all approximate. My background is HYS, DJ Clerkship, and a few years in biglaw. I feel ridiculously lucky this worked out.

Early March - Submitted App
March 13 - Interview Request
March 29 - First Round Interview
April 5 - Second Round Interview Request
April 13 - Second Round Interview
April 27 - Phone Offer

[Anonymous User]

Back on the district of Arizona, I’m wondering how sensitive other USAOs would be to the fact that a prosecutor’s experience is only 3 years of doing immigration? In other words, assume I prosecute immigration cases for three years and then want to change subject matter (ie, prosecute white collar, drugs, guns, bank robberies, etc.), whether in Arizona or another office. Will those other offices be unlikely to hire given the only experience would be immigration, which may not relate to the subject matter i’m seeking?

Ultimately, the concern is just that I wouldn’t want to pigeonhole myself into doing immigration work indefinitely given it’s its own monster and doesn’t directly relate to other types of cases. (As an aside, I’ve never done immigration, and very well may love it—I’m just concerned with the pigeonholing effect in the event I don’t.)

Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

Back on the district of Arizona, I’m wondering how sensitive other USAOs would be to the fact that a prosecutor’s experience is only 3 years of doing immigration? In other words, assume I prosecute immigration cases for three years and then want to change subject matter (ie, prosecute white collar, drugs, guns, bank robberies, etc.), whether in Arizona or another office. Will those other offices be unlikely to hire given the only experience would be immigration, which may not relate to the subject matter i’m seeking?

Ultimately, the concern is just that I wouldn’t want to pigeonhole myself into doing immigration work indefinitely given it’s its own monster and doesn’t directly relate to other types of cases. (As an aside, I’ve never done immigration, and very well may love it—I’m just concerned with the pigeonholing effect in the event I don’t.)

Thanks!

Working border cases will be much more meaningful to DAZ than other offices, since that office knows exactly what they entail. Other offices will look at it as less prestigious than white collar in SDNY or even gun crime in SDOH, but more salient than state prosecution or other kinds of lawyering. Moving from a branch to a main office is a much better bet than moving across USAOs, especially on the border. If your end game is to work white collar in Phoenix, then immigration in DAZ is your best bet. If you want to eventually work other kinds of cases in other districts, it’s a much less sure thing.

[Anonymous User]

Back on the district of Arizona, I’m wondering how sensitive other USAOs would be to the fact that a prosecutor’s experience is only 3 years of doing immigration? In other words, assume I prosecute immigration cases for three years and then want to change subject matter (ie, prosecute white collar, drugs, guns, bank robberies, etc.), whether in Arizona or another office. Will those other offices be unlikely to hire given the only experience would be immigration, which may not relate to the subject matter i’m seeking?

Ultimately, the concern is just that I wouldn’t want to pigeonhole myself into doing immigration work indefinitely given it’s its own monster and doesn’t directly relate to other types of cases. (As an aside, I’ve never done immigration, and very well may love it—I’m just concerned with the pigeonholing effect in the event I don’t.)

Thanks!

Working border cases will be much more meaningful to DAZ than other offices, since that office knows exactly what they entail. Other offices will look at it as less prestigious than white collar in SDNY or even gun crime in SDOH, but more salient than state prosecution or other kinds of lawyering. Moving from a branch to a main office is a much better bet than moving across USAOs, especially on the border. If your end game is to work white collar in Phoenix, then immigration in DAZ is your best bet. If you want to eventually work other kinds of cases in other districts, it’s a much less sure thing.

FWIW, there isn’t a lot of transferring between Phoenix and Tucson. There’s definitely some, and if being in Phoenix over Tucson is your burning passion, being in the same district will help, but it doesn’t happen that regularly (also Tucson doesn’t like to be considered the “branch” office ).

And FWIW, I know a number of people who went from Tucson to non-border districts after doing almost exclusively border crime (including myself), and more often than transferring to Phoenix. Narrow experience can be an issue, but you still learn a lot about being a federal prosecutor and can still sell yourself as such. The head of my current office was concerned that I hadn’t done a wiretap, for instance, and my (Tucson) mentor’s response was that I was smart and could learn to do one. (So in that respect, leaving earlier is a little easier than leaving later when you’re “senior” having done nothing but immigration crime.) You actually will have a learning curve in a new office, but nothing you won’t be able to handle.

One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of “border crime” is actually drug crime, so you will get quite a lot of experience with that. It’s true that the circumstances of drug crime across the border are different from those of drug crime in, say, NYC, but drug crime in Nebraska is also different from drug crime in NYC - you’re still working drug cases.

And you can often get some experience in non-immigration/drug crime in Tucson even before you can get into a more specialized group - if you tell your supervisor about your interests, they’ll usually try to accommodate you if possible. (As for moving into the more specialized groups within the same office, only doing border crime won’t be a problem because those groups select from current AUSAs and everyone there starts doing general border crime before doing something more specialized. Sometime a state prosecutor with lots of previous relevant experience can jump the queue a bit, but generally you’ll be competing against other people who only do border crime, so it’s much more about seniority, quality of work, and who in the office wants to work with you.)

I will say that most people I know who’ve left AZ for non-border districts went to districts where they had some kind of ties, and unless you already have the qualifications for (say) SDNY, working 3 years in AZ isn’t going to transform you into a candidate who will wow SDNY. But I think that’s probably the case for most “flyover” districts even if they’re not on the border. Conversely, getting good experience on sophisticated or complex cases is valuable no matter where you get it (and there will be some of that even in AZ). Certainly I know a number of Tucson AUSAs who’ve gone to main justice, in more specialized sections of the criminal division, where they had some relevant experience but not tons (like a few cases).

Also worth noting that if you go from AZ to a non-border district you might continue to handle immigration crime there because all districts have at least some level of immigration crime and you will have more experience in it than anyone else.

Tl;dr - experience in AZ can be transferable to other districts if you take care to sell it as such, though it’s not a golden ticket to anywhere in the country.

[Anonymous User]

Just to chime in as a more experienced AUSA here:

The generalizations about how hard or easy it is to transfer from USAO X to USAO Y are probably helpful guides. But don't over-value these generalizations. Treat your peers (and staff) well. Be an ethical lawyer. Do good work. Be a careful and detail-oriented person. If you're an AUSA in any little forgettable corner of the country who is nonetheless doing all that, you can literally rise to the top and end up wherever the hell you want, in due course.

Sorry for the cliche. But I'm reacting to what strikes me as a little too much weight being put on the prestige level of one office over another. It matters a little, but not that much. If you're an incompetent asshole from SDNY, your future is still not going to be very bright. Conversely, if you're an AUSA in rural Nebraska and really want to end up at Main Justice doing national security work one day (or whatever), you can get there. Focus more on your personal and professional ethics than on supposed prestige.

[Anonymous User]

Just to chime in as a more experienced AUSA here:

The generalizations about how hard or easy it is to transfer from USAO X to USAO Y are probably helpful guides. But don't over-value these generalizations. Treat your peers (and staff) well. Be an ethical lawyer. Do good work. Be a careful and detail-oriented person. If you're an AUSA in any little forgettable corner of the country who is nonetheless doing all that, you can literally rise to the top and end up wherever the hell you want, in due course.

Sorry for the cliche. But I'm reacting to what strikes me as a little too much weight being put on the prestige level of one office over another. It matters a little, but not that much. If you're an incompetent asshole from SDNY, your future is still not going to be very bright. Conversely, if you're an AUSA in rural Nebraska and really want to end up at Main Justice doing national security work one day (or whatever), you can get there. Focus more on your personal and professional ethics than on supposed prestige.

This is true, and the mechanics of going from Nebraska to another USAO are very different than going from Laredo to Houston, for example. Laredo>Dallas means competing with every applicant out there because they’re different districts. Laredo>Houston is an email from either you or your boss to upper management.

[Anonymous User]

Just to chime in as a more experienced AUSA here:

The generalizations about how hard or easy it is to transfer from USAO X to USAO Y are probably helpful guides. But don't over-value these generalizations. Treat your peers (and staff) well. Be an ethical lawyer. Do good work. Be a careful and detail-oriented person. If you're an AUSA in any little forgettable corner of the country who is nonetheless doing all that, you can literally rise to the top and end up wherever the hell you want, in due course.

Sorry for the cliche. But I'm reacting to what strikes me as a little too much weight being put on the prestige level of one office over another. It matters a little, but not that much. If you're an incompetent asshole from SDNY, your future is still not going to be very bright. Conversely, if you're an AUSA in rural Nebraska and really want to end up at Main Justice doing national security work one day (or whatever), you can get there. Focus more on your personal and professional ethics than on supposed prestige.

Long winded Tucson person here, and I completely agree with this. I tend to use SDNY as an example of an office looking for very specific qualifications, but don’t mean to suggest that working at SDNY is golden ticket to anywhere, either. If you do good work you definitely can make your way to other positions, and if you don’t, you won’t.

[Anonymous User]

I have a second round interview coming up. I have had other first round panel interviews but never advanced to second round and I am not sure what to expect. It is a branch office (not a high profile district). Looks like senior management will be on this panel. Is it likely to be a good-fit interview or will it be a pressure interview with hypos? Should I expect there to be a third round even though all the decision makers will be on this panel, i.e, do USAOs prefer to do 3 rounds (Panel, Sr. Panel, US Atty) even where the decision makers are in the room at 2nd round? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[Anonymous User]

Honestly it’s hard to guarantee. My experience has been that there are 2 rounds as long as the USA is in one of them, I can’t say that’s universal. (If by senior management you mean everyone but the USA, you will probably have to meet with the USA before an offer). I would also not expect high-pressure hypos, but can’t guarantee that either just depending on what the powers that be in that office prefer.

So I think typically it would be 2 rounds and no high pressure hypos at this point, but I’d be prepared just in case.

[ughbugchugplug]

How long should it take to hear from a USAO, particularly DNJ? I applied last year and it took them 4 months to call for an interview, which I had to decline cuz I already took another job. Now I applied in June and radio silence. Should I despair and give up on USAO or is this typical? Should I send in an updated resume?

[Anonymous User]

How long should it take to hear from a USAO, particularly DNJ? I applied last year and it took them 4 months to call for an interview, which I had to decline cuz I already took another job. Now I applied in June and radio silence. Should I despair and give up on USAO or is this typical? Should I send in an updated resume?

Was there a deadline to apply? IME, when an office actually needs to hire and gets approval to hire (replacing someone who's left or caseload justifies additional hires), they post the position on USAJobs with a deadline and then starts reviewing applications/getting the interview process underway pretty much as soon as the deadline closes. They can wrap the whole process in 6-8 weeks easily.

That said, it looks like DNJ takes applications on a rolling basis (there's a reference to specific postings for more specialized positions). I don't think there's any way to predict when those applications will get acted upon - the office will still need to get approval to make any actual hires, and my sense is that rolling apps get held until circumstances require and will allow them to get that approval. DNJ is a big enough office they may need people/get approval more often than the offices where I've worked, but I still don't think the timeline is predictable.

So I think your experience is typical of USAOs that take rolling applications, but I also think you have to just go about your job search/life as you would as if you hadn't submitted the application. You can send an updated resume if you have something material to update, but I don't think you haven't heard from them because they're not interested - it's more likely that you haven't heard from them because they haven't actually needed to hire since you applied. I'm not really sure why offices like to build up a reservoir of applications that they don't have an immediate need to act upon, but some seem to.

(It is of course possible that for the right candidate, they drop everything and get the hiring process underway when that special application comes in, and you're just not special enough. But from what I know of how hiring approval works, they just haven't been hiring yet.)

[ughbugchugplug]

How long should it take to hear from a USAO, particularly DNJ? I applied last year and it took them 4 months to call for an interview, which I had to decline cuz I already took another job. Now I applied in June and radio silence. Should I despair and give up on USAO or is this typical? Should I send in an updated resume?

Was there a deadline to apply? IME, when an office actually needs to hire and gets approval to hire (replacing someone who's left or caseload justifies additional hires), they post the position on USAJobs with a deadline and then starts reviewing applications/getting the interview process underway pretty much as soon as the deadline closes. They can wrap the whole process in 6-8 weeks easily.

That said, it looks like DNJ takes applications on a rolling basis (there's a reference to specific postings for more specialized positions). I don't think there's any way to predict when those applications will get acted upon - the office will still need to get approval to make any actual hires, and my sense is that rolling apps get held until circumstances require and will allow them to get that approval. DNJ is a big enough office they may need people/get approval more often than the offices where I've worked, but I still don't think the timeline is predictable.

So I think your experience is typical of USAOs that take rolling applications, but I also think you have to just go about your job search/life as you would as if you hadn't submitted the application. You can send an updated resume if you have something material to update, but I don't think you haven't heard from them because they're not interested - it's more likely that you haven't heard from them because they haven't actually needed to hire since you applied. I'm not really sure why offices like to build up a reservoir of applications that they don't have an immediate need to act upon, but some seem to.

(It is of course possible that for the right candidate, they drop everything and get the hiring process underway when that special application comes in, and you're just not special enough. But from what I know of how hiring approval works, they just haven't been hiring yet.)

Very helpful insight, thanks. It was for a general position so I guess I’m just in a holding pattern. I really only want DNJ so I guess I’ll just have to sit tight for a while. I’ve considered moving jobs (my current job is great but doesn’t pay much) but I don’t want to switch around too much while waiting to hear from DNJ because it might make me look flighty. I guess if I don’t hear from them/get an offer over the next few years I’ll just have to come up with a new plan or try make partner where I am

[Anonymous User]

I wouldn't let wanting to work at the USAO keep you from making career changes you'd otherwise make. If changing jobs makes sense for you and your priorities, that's not going to look flighty. Obviously flaming out of multiple jobs is an issue, but not just following what's best for you.

[ughbugchugplug]

I wouldn't let wanting to work at the USAO keep you from making career changes you'd otherwise make. If changing jobs makes sense for you and your priorities, that's not going to look flighty. Obviously flaming out of multiple jobs is an issue, but not just following what's best for you.

My situation might be a bit unique. My career path has been firm/clerk/firm/clerk/firm, and none of the firms have been the same. There were good reasons for each switch and I have references from each firm to support me/show I wasn’t canned or anything, but at some point I feel like that many changes have to raise red flags, especially if I add a 6th job now.

[Anonymous User]

I wouldn't let wanting to work at the USAO keep you from making career changes you'd otherwise make. If changing jobs makes sense for you and your priorities, that's not going to look flighty. Obviously flaming out of multiple jobs is an issue, but not just following what's best for you.

My situation might be a bit unique. My career path has been firm/clerk/firm/clerk/firm, and none of the firms have been the same. There were good reasons for each switch and I have references from each firm to support me/show I wasn’t canned or anything, but at some point I feel like that many changes have to raise red flags, especially if I add a 6th job now.

You are right to be concerned. In my first few years out of law school I also had more than an average amount of job changes. That fact has continued to haunt me throughout the rest of my career many years later, even with a solid track record and a bunch of career accomplishments. "Haunt" might be too strong a word, because I have overcome it and have not lost a job opening I really wanted because of it. But it is always asked about. If I didn't have a better verbal explanation that walks the interviewers through why the job hopping isn't a negative factor for me, I'd be screwed. So, lessen the impact of this at your early career stage if you can.