AUSA/USAO hiring Forum

[Anonymous User]

AUSA here. Only limited knowledge bc I haven’t been a Crim attorney, but my impression is that the Crim division is 1) more specialized and 2) does a lot more advising/policy-setting. So for instance I know people who’ve gone from USAOs to work for Crim in the national security section, the child exploitation and obscenity section, and the computer crime section. The people I know have actually had pertinent experience, although it’s true that the honors program may have more Crim openings than USAO openings. Being in a specialized section that’s nation wide is going to be much more specialized than focusing on those areas in a USAO.

Crim trial attorneys (to my knowledge) also travel around the country to try cases with local USAOs, which makes sense since there is a DC USAO to handle local cases. There are certain kinds of cases that USAOs have to consult with main justice about/get approval before charging, and those are the cases where a Crim trial attorney will join and co-try the case in the local district. (I believe there are national cases that Crim works up from scratch and tries in DC, as opposed to just joining local USAO cases, but again, can’t speak to how that works.)

I think part of the purpose of having Crim attorneys travel to USAOs comes from Crim’s role in setting policy/providing guidance. First, it can offer resources/depth of knowledge that local USAOs may not have (someone who has done nothing but computer/internet crime for the last 10 years is going to have a different pool of knowledge than someone who does whatever computer/internet crime happens to come in the door in a given district along with a steady dose of guns/drugs/white collar). Second, it can ensure that approaches to certain legal issues are uniform around the country (or as uniform as they can be given different caselaw in different jurisdictions). You see this also with Crim appellate - the USAOs handle the vast majority of their own appeals, but when you get cases that have the potential to change the law (where the issue is more, what is the law? rather than just, did this particular case/trial comply with clearly-established law?), Crim appellate is likely to take them; in part probably because of their perception of their own skill but more to offer a response based on goals for national criminal policy, which they have a better knowledge of than someone in the local USAO.

So from my perspective, Crim has more of a 10,000 feet up perspective, while a USAO is just handling what’s on the ground and comes in the door. A Crim trial attorney may well spend their time traveling around the country to try specific local cases, but more as a subject matter expert than an AUSA is.

Re: hiring differences - I do think USAOs now like hiring for experience and looking for people who can hit the ground running trying a case; they tend to believe that if you can run a case you can learn the different law needed to run different kinds of them. I think Crim probably has a tradition of hiring smart people through honors and training them up in whatever field they specialize in. But Crim also hires a lot of more senior people. I think it’s just that honors has been around for a long time and a lot of people in DOJ are committed to it as a way to attract/train good people to government work. It’s by no means the bulk of hiring in any DOJ division (even EOIR).

Anon who asked before, just wanted to say thanks for this in-depth explanation. I had a hunch that Crim serves more of a subject-matter specialty than AUSA’s.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone know what C.D. Cal's interview process is like?

[Anonymous User]

Wanted to provide some info on interviewing and timeline now that I've gone through the hiring process.

E.D. Wisc. (Milwaukee): Two rounds of interviews. First round with hiring committee (five AUSAs). Two weeks later received a call to schedule an interview with USA. Dinged two months passed before hearing back.

D. Conn. (New Haven): Two rounds. Two panels in first round. Hiring committee is one panel and another panel with line AUSAs. Two weeks later, heard about scheduling second round. Second round is with crim chief, chief of appeals and USA.

D. Nev. (Las Vegas): All interviews in one day. Three panels, each is 5-6 people. Hiring committee panel, criminal division chiefs, and senior leadership of the office, including USA. Moved very fast - called references next day.

W.D. Tex. (Austin): One-round and one big half-hour panel including the USA. Dinged a few weeks later, but have heard that they will hire a day or two after interviewing.

N.D. Tex. (Dallas): (I think) three rounds. First round is hiring committee with questions about why AUSA, experience and personal and a 5-7 minute opening statement. Heard back after about a week with a ding.

Main Justice (Healthcare fraud): Seems like they don't have a very formal interview structure. I have heard multiple interview structures and rounds differing.

If you have questions, I can answer. People always want to know "stats." I can share more if you want to talk via DM. Briefly, CCN law school, 5+ years in big law, no clerking.

[Anonymous User]

How long after being referred on USAJobs does the hiring manager/panel reach out to schedule an interview?

[Anonymous User]

In my experience it’s been 10 days to 2 weeks, but it can totally depend.

[Anonymous User]

Wanted to provide some info on interviewing and timeline now that I've gone through the hiring process.

E.D. Wisc. (Milwaukee): Two rounds of interviews. First round with hiring committee (five AUSAs). Two weeks later received a call to schedule an interview with USA. Dinged two months passed before hearing back.

D. Conn. (New Haven): Two rounds. Two panels in first round. Hiring committee is one panel and another panel with line AUSAs. Two weeks later, heard about scheduling second round. Second round is with crim chief, chief of appeals and USA.

D. Nev. (Las Vegas): All interviews in one day. Three panels, each is 5-6 people. Hiring committee panel, criminal division chiefs, and senior leadership of the office, including USA. Moved very fast - called references next day.

W.D. Tex. (Austin): One-round and one big half-hour panel including the USA. Dinged a few weeks later, but have heard that they will hire a day or two after interviewing.

N.D. Tex. (Dallas): (I think) three rounds. First round is hiring committee with questions about why AUSA, experience and personal and a 5-7 minute opening statement. Heard back after about a week with a ding.

Main Justice (Healthcare fraud): Seems like they don't have a very formal interview structure. I have heard multiple interview structures and rounds differing.

If you have questions, I can answer. People always want to know "stats." I can share more if you want to talk via DM. Briefly, CCN law school, 5+ years in big law, no clerking.

Can attest to this. Bash moves fast. If they want to hire you, they'll immediately reach out to your references. Depending on how quickly your references get back to them, it could be 24 hours from interview to offer.

[Anonymous User]

How long after being referred on USAJobs does the hiring manager/panel reach out to schedule an interview?

General rule of thumb is within two weeks if you're selected for an interview. If you've been listed as "referred" going on a month, I think it's likely that you didn't make the cut. I have been listed as referred for some postings for over 6 months.

[Shaps191231]

Did anyone here apply for the N.D. Tex. health care fraud unit position? If so, heard anything? Thanks

[Anonymous User]

Didn't apply to HCF post, but applied to two other AUSA postings in that office. I received interview invitations within a week of being referred for both positions.

[Shaps191231]

Didn't apply to HCF post, but applied to two other AUSA postings in that office. I received interview invitations within a week of being referred for both positions.

Good to know, thank you

[Anonymous User]

Starting to get pretty discouraged with the hiring process. Applied to about 30 different offices for criminal positions over the past 4 months, only had one interview in a large office. It's been over a month since the second round interview, so I'm assuming no by now. It doesn't help that so many offices move glacially slow with the hiring process.

I have good credentials but no prosecuting experience. The problem is that with the current market, there aren't any state DAs offices hiring in the state I'm barred (NY) to even get that experience.

[Anonymous User]

You don’t need prosecution experience, but the more in-court experience you can get, the better. Also, how many years of experience do you have? There are just a lot of applicants for these jobs and you may just need to keep applying for a while.

[Anonymous User]

You don’t need prosecution experience, but the more in-court experience you can get, the better. Also, how many years of experience do you have? There are just a lot of applicants for these jobs and you may just need to keep applying for a while.

Three. I'm coming off a two year district court Article III clerkship (flyover state), and I know it's not common for clerks to go straight into a crim AUSA position. I was told during an interview that over 100 people applied for the one position, so I know they're hyper competitive. But from my limited perspective, I think I've almost certainly done far more substantive work, especially with criminal cases, than someone who's worked in a biglaw for a year or two. I just don't see how that's a "requirement" from a practical perspective.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, I understand why you might feel that way, but it’s not up to you. Clerking is valuable (almost a requirement), but it’s not a direct substitute for practice experience in or out of the courtroom. Unfortunately you’re going to be competing with a lot of people who have the same clerkship experience and much more pertinent practice experience, whether biglaw or not. Keep in mind that someone who’s worked in biglaw “for a year or two” almost certainly isn’t competitive either.

From my own experience as an AUSA, the only people I’ve seen get hired with a clerkship and one year work experience were hired in high volume border districts. Otherwise, everyone’s had 5+ years, sometimes in biglaw only, sometimes in state prosecution only, sometimes in both, sometimes in other USAOs. You’re just going to have to be patient.

[Anonymous User]

Starting to get pretty discouraged with the hiring process. Applied to about 30 different offices for criminal positions over the past 4 months, only had one interview in a large office. It's been over a month since the second round interview, so I'm assuming no by now. It doesn't help that so many offices move glacially slow with the hiring process.

I have good credentials but no prosecuting experience. The problem is that with the current market, there aren't any state DAs offices hiring in the state I'm barred (NY) to even get that experience.

Sorry to hear this - if it makes you feel better at all, I myself and a lot of people in the same boat. It's the nature of the process. Can I ask which geographic area you had your interview in?

[Anonymous User]

Starting to get pretty discouraged with the hiring process. Applied to about 30 different offices for criminal positions over the past 4 months, only had one interview in a large office. It's been over a month since the second round interview, so I'm assuming no by now. It doesn't help that so many offices move glacially slow with the hiring process.

I have good credentials but no prosecuting experience. The problem is that with the current market, there aren't any state DAs offices hiring in the state I'm barred (NY) to even get that experience.

I applied for AUSA positions for 9 months before landing a spot. The process is brutal. I know that it doesn't help to hear, but getting an interview really is an accomplishment. One HR rep at an office in a flyover city told me that they received hundreds of applications for a spot in that office when I came into interview.

I remember not getting one position where I thought I crushed the interview and loved the office. I checked LinkedIn a couple of months and saw that they had hired the former EIC of a T-14 Law Review, big law alum and COA clerk. You are going up against people with a lot of "horsepower." This is a really hard job to get and you have to offer something that distinguishes you that shows up in your resume or cover letter.

Prosecution experience is not necessary. That's especially true in the NY-area. I think it's helpful in other districts, but it's far from fatal if you don't have that experience. If you can get some trial experience, ANY trial experience, that is enormously helpful. I was able to point to depositions and direct-examinations that I had done in pro bono cases and then talked how I had helped prep on pay client trials.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, I understand why you might feel that way, but it’s not up to you. Clerking is valuable (almost a requirement), but it’s not a direct substitute for practice experience in or out of the courtroom. Unfortunately you’re going to be competing with a lot of people who have the same clerkship experience and much more pertinent practice experience, whether biglaw or not. Keep in mind that someone who’s worked in biglaw “for a year or two” almost certainly isn’t competitive either.

From my own experience as an AUSA, the only people I’ve seen get hired with a clerkship and one year work experience were hired in high volume border districts. Otherwise, everyone’s had 5+ years, sometimes in biglaw only, sometimes in state prosecution only, sometimes in both, sometimes in other USAOs. You’re just going to have to be patient.

I know, it's just that I've seen/heard so many people with 1-3 years of Biglaw with no clerkship experience transition into AUSA positions that it seems to be a very common route. I've just never really understood why three years of Biglaw with no courtroom or depo experience somehow trumps three years of clerking. Part of it is sour grapes for sure, but the other part is genuine confusion as to why the two are treated so differently. I get that there's going to be people with 7+ years who are obviously way better candidates than I am. For instance, one of the interviewers told me that had just interviewed a state prosecutor for the same position who's had over 100 jury trials. There's no way I could compare to him.

FWIW, I've been applying to the open positions in the high volume border districts (most recently the several in D. AZ) that have come up, but nothing so far from them.

Sorry to hear this - if it makes you feel better at all, I myself and a lot of people in the same boat. It's the nature of the process. Can I ask which geographic area you had your interview in?

Yeah, it really sucks. This process is a lot worse than applying for clerkships, which I already thought was pretty bad. My interview was in a 9th Circuit district.

I applied for AUSA positions for 9 months before landing a spot. The process is brutal. I know that it doesn't help to hear, but getting an interview really is an accomplishment. One HR rep at an office in a flyover city told me that they received hundreds of applications for a spot in that office when I came into interview.

I remember not getting one position where I thought I crushed the interview and loved the office. I checked LinkedIn a couple of months and saw that they had hired the former EIC of a T-14 Law Review, big law alum and COA clerk. You are going up against people with a lot of "horsepower." This is a really hard job to get and you have to offer something that distinguishes you that shows up in your resume or cover letter.

Prosecution experience is not necessary. That's especially true in the NY-area. I think it's helpful in other districts, but it's far from fatal if you don't have that experience. If you can get some trial experience, ANY trial experience, that is enormously helpful. I was able to point to depositions and direct-examinations that I had done in pro bono cases and then talked how I had helped prep on pay client trials.

I sent out about 250 applications and had around a dozen interviews when I was looking for both of my clerkships. I wasn't too discouraged during those processes because at least I was getting interviews (I'm a poor interviewer, so it took me a while). But here, absent one random interview that I still don't know how I got, I've gotten complete radio silence. It's hard to judge if I'm even a competitive candidate and have been just wasting my time for the past several months applying for positions I don't have a chance to get.

I know that there are people applying for these positions like the one you described. I graduated at the top of my class, but I didn't go to anything close to a prestigious law school. I have two clerkships, but they aren't "prestigious" ones in glamorous districts. But it's good to hear that all your hard work applying paid off. Do you mind mentioning what kind of area you finally landed in and if you had any prior connections there?

[Anonymous User]

I know, it's just that I've seen/heard so many people with 1-3 years of Biglaw with no clerkship experience transition into AUSA positions that it seems to be a very common route. I've just never really understood why three years of Biglaw with no courtroom or depo experience somehow trumps three years of clerking.

So I don’t know where you are or who you’ve been talking to, but I’m the AUSA who commented earlier, and getting an AUSA gig with 1-3 years of biglaw and no clerkship actually isn’t remotely common at all. I can’t say it never happens - especially if someone has the right connections, like former AUSAs in their firm pulling for them - but it’s not the standard path. Most offices require 3 years of experience even to apply, and people with that amount of experience just aren’t normally very competitive compared to people with more experience. And I haven’t seen anyone get hired out of biglaw who hadn’t also done a clerkship. (I’ve seen such people get interviewed so I’m not saying it couldn’t ever happen, but clerking has become almost required for biglaw people, unless like you’re currently a partner or something.)

And the other thing is that unless you’re being hired through the honors program, some practice experience is considered valuable, because it’s an advocacy role and clerking isn’t. Clerking is of course really important (the only people I’ve seen get hired without clerkships are people with lots of state prosecution experience, like your 100 trial guy, and even they need to show they can write and research), but only clerking probably isn’t going to cut it.

And some of it just the usual legal profession elitism. I went to an ordinary school and clerked in a flyover district, so fanciness certainly isn’t required everywhere, but someone who clerked for three years (unless in the same district as the USAO) from an ordinary school isn’t going to leap to the top of the pile, especially in districts where the leadership and most of the office all went to fancy schools (luckily for me my bosses and coworkers went to a lot of different places) and/or came out of biglaw. Getting an interview at all at this point is a good sign. But it’s also worth keeping in mind that a lot of offices want to hire people out of biglaw and fancy schools, because that’s where they came from, and there’s not much you can do about that. It’s not especially fair or logical, but when there are too many applicants, credentials become one way to narrow the field and to the extent you can, the best thing is not to waste emotional energy on that.

So no offense, but you’re not really a very competitive candidate right now and I wouldn’t read anything into the current rejections. I’m not saying the applications were a waste of time - you got the interview experience which is really helpful, and nothing is certain; it’s always worth trying. But I also wouldn’t count on an AUSA gig coming through and would advise you to work on getting the best experience you can and applying again in a couple of years.

Re: the border districts - if you’re applying from NY (you mentioned that’s where you’re barred), you’re going to have to really sell them on you wanting to be there. Lots of people from NY don’t really find Tucson or El Paso or Brownsville very appealing. There’s a lot of turnover in those districts so they understand that not everyone will stay, but they do want to try to minimize that turnover so you need to make a good pitch (both for the region and the kinds of cases they do).

[Anonymous User]

So I don’t know where you are or who you’ve been talking to, but I’m the AUSA who commented earlier, and getting an AUSA gig with 1-3 years of biglaw and no clerkship actually isn’t remotely common at all. I can’t say it never happens - especially if someone has the right connections, like former AUSAs in their firm pulling for them - but it’s not the standard path. Most offices require 3 years of experience even to apply, and people with that amount of experience just aren’t normally very competitive compared to people with more experience. And I haven’t seen anyone get hired out of biglaw who hadn’t also done a clerkship. (I’ve seen such people get interviewed so I’m not saying it couldn’t ever happen, but clerking has become almost required for biglaw people, unless like you’re currently a partner or something.)

And the other thing is that unless you’re being hired through the honors program, some practice experience is considered valuable, because it’s an advocacy role and clerking isn’t. Clerking is of course really important (the only people I’ve seen get hired without clerkships are people with lots of state prosecution experience, like your 100 trial guy, and even they need to show they can write and research), but only clerking probably isn’t going to cut it.

And some of it just the usual legal profession elitism. I went to an ordinary school and clerked in a flyover district, so fanciness certainly isn’t required everywhere, but someone who clerked for three years (unless in the same district as the USAO) from an ordinary school isn’t going to leap to the top of the pile, especially in districts where the leadership and most of the office all went to fancy schools (luckily for me my bosses and coworkers went to a lot of different places) and/or came out of biglaw. Getting an interview at all at this point is a good sign. But it’s also worth keeping in mind that a lot of offices want to hire people out of biglaw and fancy schools, because that’s where they came from, and there’s not much you can do about that. It’s not especially fair or logical, but when there are too many applicants, credentials become one way to narrow the field and to the extent you can, the best thing is not to waste emotional energy on that.

So no offense, but you’re not really a very competitive candidate right now and I wouldn’t read anything into the current rejections. I’m not saying the applications were a waste of time - you got the interview experience which is really helpful, and nothing is certain; it’s always worth trying. But I also wouldn’t count on an AUSA gig coming through and would advise you to work on getting the best experience you can and applying again in a couple of years.

Re: the border districts - if you’re applying from NY (you mentioned that’s where you’re barred), you’re going to have to really sell them on you wanting to be there. Lots of people from NY don’t really find Tucson or El Paso or Brownsville very appealing. There’s a lot of turnover in those districts so they understand that not everyone will stay, but they do want to try to minimize that turnover so you need to make a good pitch (both for the region and the kinds of cases they do).

It's just from my anecdotal experiences, which I know aren't worth a whole lot, but several of the AUSAs I've encountered during my clerkships got their positions after a few (i.e. < 3) years of Biglaw. I don't know how many of them had clerkships, but several did. I did try to apply for the Honors Program, but I didn't even get an interview.

I know that when compared to people with 5+ years of experience that includes clerkships and trial work, I'm not a competitive candidate. But the weird thing is that prior to me accepting the A3 clerkship I just finished (worst timing ever ), I had two interviews scheduled for crim AUSA positions. One of them was not glamorous at all, but one was for D.C. Just seems super random that I can get those with way less experience but I'm having a tough time now.

And while I'm barred in New York, I'm not originally from there, and I've moved around the country for the past three years for my clerkships. None of them have been sexy places to live when compared to NYC or LA, and I'm currently in one of them now while applying. I hope that someone would see that if I would be happy to live where I'm at now, I would be happy to move to Tucson or Albuquerque (which I would be). I also have a lot of experience (for a law clerk) working on illegal reentry cases, which I try to highlight with my writing sample and resume.

[Anonymous User]

So here's a strange one. I got an email Monday re: interviewing for a trial attorney position with the HCF strike force. It was clearly a BCC blast sent to all interviewees and asking for additional materials (writing sample, transcripts, and geographic preference), which I provided on Tuesday morning. But 72 hours later, I still haven't heard back about getting the interview scheduled.

Anyone else with a similar experience? I'm getting ready to write back to the paralegal who sent the email with a "just want to make sure I didn't miss anything from you" follow-up, but thought I'd ask here first.

[Anonymous User]

So here's a strange one. I got an email Monday re: interviewing for a trial attorney position with the HCF strike force. It was clearly a BCC blast sent to all interviewees and asking for additional materials (writing sample, transcripts, and geographic preference), which I provided on Tuesday morning. But 72 hours later, I still haven't heard back about getting the interview scheduled.

Anyone else with a similar experience? I'm getting ready to write back to the paralegal who sent the email with a "just want to make sure I didn't miss anything from you" follow-up, but thought I'd ask here first.

I interviewed with the strike force and know a couple of other folks who interviewed and that currently work there. Of the five of us, none had the same interview rounds and structure, so interviewing there was pretty haphazard and ever-changing even before COVID. It will not hurt your chances to follow-up, but you they might say that they are still reviewing materials and there is no interview to schedule.

[Anonymous User]

I applied for AUSA positions for 9 months before landing a spot. The process is brutal. I know that it doesn't help to hear, but getting an interview really is an accomplishment. One HR rep at an office in a flyover city told me that they received hundreds of applications for a spot in that office when I came into interview.

I remember not getting one position where I thought I crushed the interview and loved the office. I checked LinkedIn a couple of months and saw that they had hired the former EIC of a T-14 Law Review, big law alum and COA clerk. You are going up against people with a lot of "horsepower." This is a really hard job to get and you have to offer something that distinguishes you that shows up in your resume or cover letter.

Prosecution experience is not necessary. That's especially true in the NY-area. I think it's helpful in other districts, but it's far from fatal if you don't have that experience. If you can get some trial experience, ANY trial experience, that is enormously helpful. I was able to point to depositions and direct-examinations that I had done in pro bono cases and then talked how I had helped prep on pay client trials.

I sent out about 250 applications and had around a dozen interviews when I was looking for both of my clerkships. I wasn't too discouraged during those processes because at least I was getting interviews (I'm a poor interviewer, so it took me a while). But here, absent one random interview that I still don't know how I got, I've gotten complete radio silence. It's hard to judge if I'm even a competitive candidate and have been just wasting my time for the past several months applying for positions I don't have a chance to get.

I know that there are people applying for these positions like the one you described. I graduated at the top of my class, but I didn't go to anything close to a prestigious law school. I have two clerkships, but they aren't "prestigious" ones in glamorous districts. But it's good to hear that all your hard work applying paid off. Do you mind mentioning what kind of area you finally landed in and if you had any prior connections there?

Wound up in a district where my sister-in-law lives, but the office did not especially care about regional ties. Every other district I applied to asked about connections I had. I applied to one fly-over district where regional ties were very very important to the hiring committee and USA (my wife had a family connection to the district). I interviewed at one Ninth Circuit district where I had absolutely no connections and told the USA that the cost of living and weather were better for my young family before quickly providing unique criminal law issues that I thought were interesting that affect the city where I interviewed. That was enough.

Not sure where you went to law school, but I would apply in that district. Even if not "anything close to prestigious," someone on the hiring committee may have gone there and will pick out your resume. Everyone needs good luck in the hiring process. My resume stuck out to one USA because the judge he clerked for went to my small liberal arts college.

[Anonymous User]

I interviewed at one Ninth Circuit district where I had absolutely no connections and told the USA that the cost of living and weather were better for my young family before quickly providing unique criminal law issues that I thought were interesting that affect the city where I interviewed. That was enough.

Yeah, to be clear, you don't have to have deep long-term ties, you just need to look like you've really thought about the office and why you want to be there. My first office, I had no connections to the area and had never been there. I was able to tell them that my spouse loves the state (true) and hit my interest in kinds of cases specific to the office. I also have a LONG history of moving around for jobs and I told them that specifically. I will note that in my current office, everyone hired since I've got here is either local, or has pretty strong family ties to the area.

(OP, it sounds like you have kind of addressed this to the extent you can, I just brought it up in case it was relevant.)

[Anonymous User]

Wound up in a district where my sister-in-law lives, but the office did not especially care about regional ties. Every other district I applied to asked about connections I had. I applied to one fly-over district where regional ties were very very important to the hiring committee and USA (my wife had a family connection to the district). I interviewed at one Ninth Circuit district where I had absolutely no connections and told the USA that the cost of living and weather were better for my young family before quickly providing unique criminal law issues that I thought were interesting that affect the city where I interviewed. That was enough.

Not sure where you went to law school, but I would apply in that district. Even if not "anything close to prestigious," someone on the hiring committee may have gone there and will pick out your resume. Everyone needs good luck in the hiring process. My resume stuck out to one USA because the judge he clerked for went to my small liberal arts college.

Unfortunately there are very few districts I haven't lived in where I could plausibly say I have connections. As for where I went to law school, it's in a district with a major city (i.e. LA, Chicago, NYC), and I have applied there recently with no success.

[Anonymous User]

So here's a strange one. I got an email Monday re: interviewing for a trial attorney position with the HCF strike force. It was clearly a BCC blast sent to all interviewees and asking for additional materials (writing sample, transcripts, and geographic preference), which I provided on Tuesday morning. But 72 hours later, I still haven't heard back about getting the interview scheduled.

Anyone else with a similar experience? I'm getting ready to write back to the paralegal who sent the email with a "just want to make sure I didn't miss anything from you" follow-up, but thought I'd ask here first.

I interviewed with the strike force and know a couple of other folks who interviewed and that currently work there. Of the five of us, none had the same interview rounds and structure, so interviewing there was pretty haphazard and ever-changing even before COVID. It will not hurt your chances to follow-up, but you they might say that they are still reviewing materials and there is no interview to schedule.

To be clear, the email from the strike force says "We would like for you to virtually interview for this position. In order to schedule this interview, though, I will need the following information from you:[writing sample, transcript, strike force preference]." So they've at least indicated that there will be an interview to schedule. I suppose it's possible that they hate my writing sample (same one I've used to get several other interviews) or the fact that I made a B- in Corporations so much that they're having second thoughts, but short of that I find it weird that I got the email Monday and then the week ended without anything getting scheduled.