AUSA/USAO hiring Forum

[Anonymous User]

I can't comment on how to negotiate these issues with your firm, but about getting on trial teams: as an AUSA, I would consider some trial experience better than no trial experience, even if you didn't stand up in court, just because it should still shed some light on what trial is like, and shows interest in trial. Obviously you'd have to balance being on the trial team with what you'd miss out on doing instead.

[Anonymous User]

Any role or place in AUSA/USAO offices for transactional lawyers? Does anyone here see or hear about transactional attorneys going to these types of roles?

[Anonymous User]

AUSA here - I haven’t seen anyone with a transactional background, if by that you mean no litigation experience at all. In my minimal experience with hiring, transactional attorneys didn’t get a second look. Even the civil AUSAs are 100% litigation so there just isn’t any need for transactional work (DOJ might need/hire transactional people, but it wouldn’t be in a USAO).

So we wouldn’t need you to do transactional work, and I think there’d be a reluctance to hire someone with exclusively transactional experience to do criminal (or civil) litigation - mostly because there are plenty of great candidates with litigation experience, so it’s unlikely you’d stand out enough to be chosen.

Though to be fair, I have always been so immersed in lit that I scarcely understand what transactional attorneys do. Maybe possibly asset forfeiture or financial litigation? But those are pretty specialized so I don’t know.

If you’re early in your career and wanted lit and got stuck in transactional, I think you’d be better off pivoting your current practice before trying to go to a USAO. I’d strongly recommend clerking. And the longer you spend in transactional the less you look able to pivot.

(Edit: I should add that I’ve never worked in an office with significant complex, specialized securities litigation or similar, so I honestly don’t know whether there’s transactional work that would be transferable to those kinds of cases. My suspicion is still that lit people would be preferred, but if others know differently I’d defer to them.)

[Anonymous User]

Anybody know about paid/non-FMLA maternity/paternity leave policies for new AUSAs? In other words, if I plan to have a new kid in my first year at the office, how many weeks off would I be able to get? Does this vary from office to office?

[Anonymous User]

What are the chances of getting an AUSA position when you make it to the third round interview with the USA (i.e., is it basically guaranteed assuming no serious issues or are there still multiple candidates vying for the same position and the USA meets them all and decides)?

[Anonymous User]

Did they ask for and contact references after your US Attorney interview? Reading through this thread I've seen it seems to be the practice of most offices that they don't contact references unless they are 95% certain they are going to make an offer, but I could be wrong and would love for someone to clarify.

[Anonymous User]

Anybody know about paid/non-FMLA maternity/paternity leave policies for new AUSAs? In other words, if I plan to have a new kid in my first year at the office, how many weeks off would I be able to get? Does this vary from office to office?

Assuming you don't have previous federal service, not a lot. Check out:
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversig ... ual-leave/
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversig ... formation/
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversig ... r-care.pdf

But basically, for paid leave, in your first year you'll accrue 4 hours of annual leave and 4 hours of sick leave per biweekly pay period. You can draw on that in advance through the end of the calendar year (you need to get approval I think but it's pretty much always approved), so if you started Jan 1, you'd have 13 days of each to draw on (if you didn't use it for anything else, which is unlikely because you have to use sick leave to take time off for doctor's appointments), but if you start in October, you're kind of screwed (although if you didn't give birth till the following calendar year you'd reset of course).

(Technically, sick leave can only be used for actual medical treatment/issues/incapacitation, and isn't supposed to be used for just staying home to bond with your newborn, but I don't know how or if at all they make you document this. For my colleagues who've actually given birth, none of them seemed to run into any issues with this, but that's in part b/c the pregnancy took up a lot of sick leave for doctor's appointments so they used it up.)

There is a leave donation bank where you can get donations of paid leave, but that's like regular sick leave and only covers medical care/recovery. So it's kind of a nice safety net if (god forbid) you have a complicated pregnancy/preemie requiring medical care, but not a substitute for regular parental leave.

So basically, before the FMLA-based leave we have now, the only way to get paid leave was to save it up as long as possible, and I think many of the women I knew who gave birth took at least some unpaid leave. (I'm specifying women who gave birth b/c I'm not really sure what the non-birthing parents have done).

To my knowledge, this doesn't change at all office to office. I'd imagine some offices might have a more supportive culture than others, but the rules are uniform.

[Anonymous User]

What are the chances of getting an AUSA position when you make it to the third round interview with the USA (i.e., is it basically guaranteed assuming no serious issues or are there still multiple candidates vying for the same position and the USA meets them all and decides)?

This may vary, but in the offices where I've worked, the USA usually interviews the top 3 (or maybe 2) and decides.

[Anonymous User]

Did they ask for and contact references after your US Attorney interview? Reading through this thread I've seen it seems to be the practice of most offices that they don't contact references unless they are 95% certain they are going to make an offer, but I could be wrong and would love for someone to clarify.

My experience was that references were checked before the USA interview, but one of the hiring committee knew one of my references, so I don't know if that made a difference. (I think in my current office they like to check references before passing names along to the USA for the final interview round, so that the final 2-3 have been vetted properly before the USA passes judgment, but again, can't swear that's universal to all offices.)

[Anonymous User]

Did they ask for and contact references after your US Attorney interview? Reading through this thread I've seen it seems to be the practice of most offices that they don't contact references unless they are 95% certain they are going to make an offer, but I could be wrong and would love for someone to clarify.

My experience was that references were checked before the USA interview, but one of the hiring committee knew one of my references, so I don't know if that made a difference. (I think in my current office they like to check references before passing names along to the USA for the final interview round, so that the final 2-3 have been vetted properly before the USA passes judgment, but again, can't swear that's universal to all offices.)

They've asked me for references prior to interview but don't think they've reached out (interview hasn't happened yet so they may still do so before then). I've heard they sometimes offer on the spot, so I would think they would call references in advance but maybe not.

One other question - how long do you typically have to respond to an offer? What if you're simultaneously interviewing with another office?

[Anonymous User]

General question: I have three years in a big city DA's office (economic crimes), two years in big law (litigation) and now a fed clerkship. I thought hitting each area would make me the most marketable for AUSA/DOJ position, but unfortunately no responses to any applications. If at the end of the clerkship, I'm still in the same position, is it smarter to go back to local prosecution, or get into a firm and continue to strengthen my writing skills (and hopefully do some CJA pro bono work on side to stay involved with criminal cases).

Thanks so much.

[Anonymous User]

Honestly, I think that’s up to you. I’m assuming that your 3 years as an ADA got you experience with a bunch of felony trials, and if so, either additional experience is fine.

[Anonymous User]

General question: I have three years in a big city DA's office (economic crimes), two years in big law (litigation) and now a fed clerkship. I thought hitting each area would make me the most marketable for AUSA/DOJ position, but unfortunately no responses to any applications. If at the end of the clerkship, I'm still in the same position, is it smarter to go back to local prosecution, or get into a firm and continue to strengthen my writing skills (and hopefully do some CJA pro bono work on side to stay involved with criminal cases).

Thanks so much.

I’ve been in this boat. I got a look at a similar point to where you are. I then jumped to BL and it was really a fantastic move. I recommend going to a firm. If you go back to Dao, you’re gonna be pigeon holed as a prosecutor for life.

[Anonymous User]

General question: I have three years in a big city DA's office (economic crimes), two years in big law (litigation) and now a fed clerkship. I thought hitting each area would make me the most marketable for AUSA/DOJ position, but unfortunately no responses to any applications. If at the end of the clerkship, I'm still in the same position, is it smarter to go back to local prosecution, or get into a firm and continue to strengthen my writing skills (and hopefully do some CJA pro bono work on side to stay involved with criminal cases).

Thanks so much.

I’ve been in this boat. I got a look at a similar point to where you are. I then jumped to BL and it was really a fantastic move. I recommend going to a firm. If you go back to Dao, you’re gonna be pigeon holed as a prosecutor for life.

I tend to agree, but you make it sound like they don’t have any BL experience, and they do.

[Anonymous User]

General question: I have three years in a big city DA's office (economic crimes), two years in big law (litigation) and now a fed clerkship. I thought hitting each area would make me the most marketable for AUSA/DOJ position, but unfortunately no responses to any applications. If at the end of the clerkship, I'm still in the same position, is it smarter to go back to local prosecution, or get into a firm and continue to strengthen my writing skills (and hopefully do some CJA pro bono work on side to stay involved with criminal cases).

Thanks so much.

I’ve been in this boat. I got a look at a similar point to where you are. I then jumped to BL and it was really a fantastic move. I recommend going to a firm. If you go back to Dao, you’re gonna be pigeon holed as a prosecutor for life.

I tend to agree, but you make it sound like they don’t have any BL experience, and they do.

Yeah fair point (same anon). but I mean how much REAL BL experience are you actually getting years 1-2. I mean yeah you get the experience technically but you’re not running cases, determining strategy, doing OA, etc. I’d go back to biglaw.

In my view, after 18+ months in the das office, you’re getting diminishing returns from a development standpoint. Maybe 2 years.

[Anonymous User]

It sounded like they went DA -> BL, though I presume they’d still count as years 1-2 once they got to BL. That said, IME the brute muscle experience of doing trials is just as important, if not more so, than BL strategizing. Maybe because that’s the part I personally was lacking, and because IME more cases at the USAO are like state criminal cases than they are like biglaw civil litigation.

All that said, I think going back to BL is totally defensible and makes the most sense money-wise. I’d only suggest the OP be able to explain why the reasons they left the DA’s office won’t be reasons they want to leave the USAO. (To be clear, I think there are lots of good ways to explain this, but still something to be prepared for.)

[Anonymous User]

General question: I have three years in a big city DA's office (economic crimes), two years in big law (litigation) and now a fed clerkship. I thought hitting each area would make me the most marketable for AUSA/DOJ position, but unfortunately no responses to any applications. If at the end of the clerkship, I'm still in the same position, is it smarter to go back to local prosecution, or get into a firm and continue to strengthen my writing skills (and hopefully do some CJA pro bono work on side to stay involved with criminal cases).

Thanks so much.

AUSA here. To provide a counterpoint to some of the suggestions that you go back to biglaw, I went fed clerkship > biglaw > DA, and I only got traction on my USAO applications once I accrued some experience actually prosecuting criminal cases and directing investigations as an ADA. New AUSAs usually start out prosecuting run of the mill drug and gun cases, which is not a particularly different experience from prosecuting those cases in state court. And there is something to be said about being able to hit the ground running once you start as an AUSA, particularly with regard to interacting with law enforcement and appearing in court.

But overall, getting an AUSA position isn't guaranteed, so I would suggest choosing the area of employment in which you would be comfortable remaining long-term.

[Anonymous User]

Hello. I have a quick question about transferring from Main Justice to a USAO - has anyone gone through the process and could offer some advice?

[Anonymous User]

General question: I have three years in a big city DA's office (economic crimes), two years in big law (litigation) and now a fed clerkship. I thought hitting each area would make me the most marketable for AUSA/DOJ position, but unfortunately no responses to any applications. If at the end of the clerkship, I'm still in the same position, is it smarter to go back to local prosecution, or get into a firm and continue to strengthen my writing skills (and hopefully do some CJA pro bono work on side to stay involved with criminal cases).

Thanks so much.

I’ve been in this boat. I got a look at a similar point to where you are. I then jumped to BL and it was really a fantastic move. I recommend going to a firm. If you go back to Dao, you’re gonna be pigeon holed as a prosecutor for life.

Awesome, really appreciate the feedback.

[Anonymous User]

General question: I have three years in a big city DA's office (economic crimes), two years in big law (litigation) and now a fed clerkship. I thought hitting each area would make me the most marketable for AUSA/DOJ position, but unfortunately no responses to any applications. If at the end of the clerkship, I'm still in the same position, is it smarter to go back to local prosecution, or get into a firm and continue to strengthen my writing skills (and hopefully do some CJA pro bono work on side to stay involved with criminal cases).

Thanks so much.

AUSA here. To provide a counterpoint to some of the suggestions that you go back to biglaw, I went fed clerkship > biglaw > DA, and I only got traction on my USAO applications once I accrued some experience actually prosecuting criminal cases and directing investigations as an ADA. New AUSAs usually start out prosecuting run of the mill drug and gun cases, which is not a particularly different experience from prosecuting those cases in state court. And there is something to be said about being able to hit the ground running once you start as an AUSA, particularly with regard to interacting with law enforcement and appearing in court.

But overall, getting an AUSA position isn't guaranteed, so I would suggest choosing the area of employment in which you would be comfortable remaining long-term.

Appreciate everyone's input!

[andythefir]

Hello. I have a quick question about transferring from Main Justice to a USAO - has anyone gone through the process and could offer some advice?

I haven’t done this exact thing, but I have had what should have been an ideal resume get rejected over and over because I was out of sync with what the usa wanted in the one office I was applying to (biglaw + fed clerk v ADA). Applying to 5+ USAOs makes you likely to catch on to one. But if there’s only 1 you want, you may age out before they stop hiring the profile they want.

[chillsickdopeill]

I know this is office-dependent but what exactly is the the age/experience cutoff for AUSA positions at the larger offices? 10 years of post-LS experience? 12 years?

I'm in a similar boat as some of the other posters. 3 years of large city BL lit. experience and about 4 years at a prominent state prosecutor's office trying violent felonies. I am seriously considering another stint in BL for the money and to get more WC experience, but I am wondering if I will be too "old" to go AUSA after that.

[Anonymous User]

I know this is office-dependent but what exactly is the the age/experience cutoff for AUSA positions at the larger offices? 10 years of post-LS experience? 12 years?

I'm in a similar boat as some of the other posters. 3 years of large city BL lit. experience and about 4 years at a prominent state prosecutor's office trying violent felonies. I am seriously considering another stint in BL for the money and to get more WC experience, but I am wondering if I will be too "old" to go AUSA after that.

It really depends on the office and the candidate. In my own experience, I haven’t seen “too old” really be a thing. I’ve seen very senior candidates (like 15-20 yrs experience) get hired because they were compelling candidates, and similarly I’ve seen a similarly senior candidate picked for an interview without any reference to salary concerns (all in a small office$. I’ve also seen a lot of people get hired with 7-10ish years of experience (in a large office). That doesn’t mean expense doesn’t cause any problems ever, whether depending on a specific candidate or a specific office’s policy, but I don’t think there’s any hard and fast rule.

[Anonymous User]

What would you do if you’re in market biglaw and crushing hours, then you get an offer from a Usao with a start date in the fall some time…but your bonus doesn’t regularly drop until like second week in January or something like that?

How far could you push off start date at Usao before you lose offer? Given the well known income hit, would the bonus thing be an acceptable reason, or would you need to come up with something better?

Just a situation I’ve been wondering about.

[Anonymous User]

What would you do if you’re in market biglaw and crushing hours, then you get an offer from a Usao with a start date in the fall some time…but your bonus doesn’t regularly drop until like second week in January or something like that?

How far could you push off start date at Usao before you lose offer? Given the well known income hit, would the bonus thing be an acceptable reason, or would you need to come up with something better?

Just a situation I’ve been wondering about.

I think it would be negotiable. Especially if your office has a lot of people who came from biglaw, I think you could speak pretty candidly about it. But I'll be honest, depending on how long you need, it might go over less well with people who came over to the USAO from state prosecution (and it can go over particularly badly with staff). "I would like to get this one last bonus" is a better way to approach it (people get that) than "I need this bonus because of the pay cut I'd take to work for you."

However, most USAOs get authorization to hire because they can document that they really need someone to handle the workload right then, so there will likely be a limit on how far they'll go, especially if they have other good candidates (which they usually do). I have a colleague who was a finalist in one round of hiring but ultimately it didn't work out for that round because they weren't able to move from their current location for I think 4-6 months maybe? (They did get hired in the next round of hiring.)

The other thing is that you're not going to get an offer with a start date "in the fall." You'll get an offer with a start date of "once your background check has cleared sufficiently." In fact, the hiring official in my office very strongly emphasizes to candidates that they *not* give notice until they've cleared the background check, because it can go wrong.

Generally, you can't even really talk start date until you hit a certain point on your background check, because it's so hard to know how long the check will take. I have a colleague who got hired in December/January and ended up starting in June because of Trump's hiring freeze when he took office, but you can't guarantee something like that won't happen; or there's just something in your background check that the powers that be get weird about, or there are a ton of background checks going on and so it takes a while.

There's also recognition that if you can't give notice until your background check has reached a certain point, you may then need additional time before you can start, mostly due to moving. I have seen locals pass the background check and start the following week, but if you can't quit your old job until you get cleared, and you live elsewhere, you obviously can't make final arrangements for new housing and a move until you know for certain the job is yours. I got hired in a different office (so I didn't have to do a background check, but did have to move across country) and arranged to start 8 weeks later.

So it's really going to depend on the exact timing and your circumstances and office culture and so on. I don't think anyone would be pissed off if you raised it (nor would you get an offer pulled or anything like that), but they might not be able/willing to accommodate you, so you'd have to decide whether the job is worth passing on the bonus. (And maybe they would be willing! Again, it will just depend.)