AUSA/USAO hiring Forum

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have any intel on CD Cal hiring right now? I know they are interviewing. Wondering about status, timing, etc.

No intel but applied a few months ago without any word.

[Ohiobumpkin]

Anyone hear any movement from ND CA?

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone heard anything from Criminal HCF recently (last month or so)?

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have any info on how National Security Division hires in CDCAL? The application is with Criminal, but wondering if people are hired into just one or people in Criminal also work in the National Security Division. I really only have an interest in the National Security Division. In fact, I have zero interest in doing any work outside that (if it's a dual role, that's fine, but it's work in NSD or bust). Going to send in an app anyway. Even then, I'm very comfortable in my job, and I probably don't have enough experience - yet. But it's something I figure I'll just keep applying for.

[Anonymous User]

So, I’ve not worked in the CDCAL office, but I found the ad you were looking at. In my experience, based on that ad, they intend that at least one person will get hired directly into the NSD group as opposed to general criminal (no idea how many they want for NSD as opposed to general criminal, nor are they probably required to put anyone in NSD if they don’t get qualified applicants, but that’s their goal). Also based on my experience, once you’re in a specialized group that’s your caseload. There’s certainly a possibility you’d have to do some other cases as necessary, probably on an occasional overflow basis, but overall you’d have a NSD caseload. (Applying directly into a specialized group is somewhat unusual but it’s what the ad indicates.)

Conversely, if you were hired into a general criminal position, you would not normally do NSD work, except again maybe on an occasional overflow basis. Usually, people start in general and then move to a more specialized group (how long that takes depends on experience, interest, need). You could make your interest in NSD known and ask for opportunities to get experience in that work, but you wouldn’t be able to turn down other kinds of cases and hold out only for NSD if you were hired in general criminal.

If you really are interested only in being considered for the NSD division you should probably put that in your cover letter from the start.

I strongly suspect that they will be looking for someone with significant relevant experience for that role, but like I said, I don’t work there so you can take that with a grain of salt.

(I personally find it very weird to say that you’re interested only in NSD and have zero interest in any other work, because looking at what their NSD does, it’s a fairly broad umbrella, and procedurally, they’re not really different from any other criminal cases. Have you done any criminal prosecution before? It might be weird/hard to be in a USAO, culturally, if you are as strongly uninterested in anything else as you sound, but that’s just me butting in.)

[Anonymous User]

So, I’ve not worked in the CDCAL office, but I found the ad you were looking at. In my experience, based on that ad, they intend that at least one person will get hired directly into the NSD group as opposed to general criminal (no idea how many they want for NSD as opposed to general criminal, nor are they probably required to put anyone in NSD if they don’t get qualified applicants, but that’s their goal). Also based on my experience, once you’re in a specialized group that’s your caseload. There’s certainly a possibility you’d have to do some other cases as necessary, probably on an occasional overflow basis, but overall you’d have a NSD caseload. (Applying directly into a specialized group is somewhat unusual but it’s what the ad indicates.)

Conversely, if you were hired into a general criminal position, you would not normally do NSD work, except again maybe on an occasional overflow basis. Usually, people start in general and then move to a more specialized group (how long that takes depends on experience, interest, need). You could make your interest in NSD known and ask for opportunities to get experience in that work, but you wouldn’t be able to turn down other kinds of cases and hold out only for NSD if you were hired in general criminal.

If you really are interested only in being considered for the NSD division you should probably put that in your cover letter from the start.

I strongly suspect that they will be looking for someone with significant relevant experience for that role, but like I said, I don’t work there so you can take that with a grain of salt.

(I personally find it very weird to say that you’re interested only in NSD and have zero interest in any other work, because looking at what their NSD does, it’s a fairly broad umbrella, and procedurally, they’re not really different from any other criminal cases. Have you done any criminal prosecution before? It might be weird/hard to be in a USAO, culturally, if you are as strongly uninterested in anything else as you sound, but that’s just me butting in.)

That's fair. Well, I'm interested in the IP stuff, which from the descriptions appears to be part of the NSD. That's where my experience is, but I feel like I still need around 2 more years at my current firm to be competitive. I don't have criminal prosecution experience employment wise but I have a decent criminal law background (i.e., magistrate clerk dealing with criminal cases). People go into USAO from big law firms all the time without doing criminal stuff. It's not that I don't enjoy it, but I have no interest in litigating drugs and guns my entire life. I'm much more interested in cybercrimes or terrorism. The goal is to either stay at the USAO in NSD forever or leave after at some point in-house IP/privacy or partner at a law firm that way. I'm not dying to be in NSD, I can go my entire life just sticking with firms. But I think it would be fascinating and also a huge step for me. I'm not sure I have what it takes to be partner just because of schmoozing. So, I see my career as basically going only in-house from here, or some government job then back into firms/in-house. A govt job at the FCC would be cool too and I'm certainly looking at that, but I don't see how any USAO general criminal helps me out with what I want to do.

And yes, I take a very practical/tactical approach to my career lol. I got to basically where I need to be to have a job doing IP all my life so I can afford to be picky now.

[Anonymous User]

That's fair. Well, I'm interested in the IP stuff, which from the descriptions appears to be part of the NSD. That's where my experience is, but I feel like I still need around 2 more years at my current firm to be competitive. I don't have criminal prosecution experience employment wise but I have a decent criminal law background (i.e., magistrate clerk dealing with criminal cases). People go into USAO from big law firms all the time without doing criminal stuff. It's not that I don't enjoy it, but I have no interest in litigating drugs and guns my entire life. I'm much more interested in cybercrimes or terrorism. The goal is to either stay at the USAO in NSD forever or leave after at some point in-house IP/privacy or partner at a law firm that way. I'm not dying to be in NSD, I can go my entire life just sticking with firms. But I think it would be fascinating and also a huge step for me. I'm not sure I have what it takes to be partner just because of schmoozing. So, I see my career as basically going only in-house from here, or some government job then back into firms/in-house. A govt job at the FCC would be cool too and I'm certainly looking at that, but I don't see how any USAO general criminal helps me out with what I want to do.

And yes, I take a very practical/tactical approach to my career lol. I got to basically where I need to be to have a job doing IP all my life so I can afford to be picky now.

Sure, people go from biglaw to USAOs all the time without prosecution experience, but my point was more about going directly into NSD - it is much less likely to go directly into a specialized group with no prosecution experience, you'd be much more likely to start in a general group to get a grounding in prosecution before you'd be put into NSD. It may depend a little on your current experience, but unless you're doing white collar work already, I'm not sure how civil IP litigation will translate to criminal IP stuff (in part because, commonly, cybercrime stuff is going to be overwhelmingly CP and computer-enabled economic crime, rather than specifically related to IP like IP theft. That said, it's true that CDCA will likely have more of the latter than some other districts).

You're right that if you want to go back to a firm at some point, the kinds of drugs/gun cases typical to general criminal aren't really pertinent. I'm mostly saying that you may have to do general criminal before you can get into the NSD.

This may not work for you geographically, but if you're that focused in terms of practice area, a longer-term thing to consider is working for CCIPS in main justice (the computer crime and intellectual property section). The different components in main justice tend to specialize much more than in USAOs. I say longer term b/c most people I know in such jobs made the jump after getting line AUSA experience, but I can't say I know that's the only route into those jobs.

[Anonymous User]

Interviewed at a large office (asked to submit writing sample and give references). Is it possible they will send offer/rejection without second round of interviews? There was no mention of a second round.

[Anonymous User]

Did you meet with the USA already? I've never heard of anyone being hired without meeting the USA, so if that hasn't happened, there's likely going to be another round of some kind. If you did meet with the USA, sure, it's possible they'll go straight to offer.

[Anonymous User]

Not yet. I’m guessing there will be another round to meet with the USA. There was an indication that the process should be over in 4-6 weeks. Thanks for your help!

[Anonymous User]

Not yet. I’m guessing there will be another round to meet with the USA. There was an indication that the process should be over in 4-6 weeks. Thanks for your help!

Can you give an indication of which office/where geographically the office is? No worries if not.

[Anonymous User]

Can anyone give any insight about the regularity of pay raises as an AUSA? I've recently accepted a position and was offered a salary based on my experience level. The pay tables show the salary ranges based on years of experience. Does this mean I can expect a raise every year? It would be awesome to do so but it seems too good to be true!

[Anonymous User]

You move up the payscale based on your years of experience, so yes, there will be a stretch (from 5 years’ to 9 years’ experience) where you get a salary increase each year when you tick over to one more year of seniority. It caps out at 9 years’ experience unless you take on a supervisory role.

(I’m not calling it a raise because going up a payscale isn’t discretionary/based on merit - but what percentile you’re paid at is discretionary. Once you’re capped at AD-29 you can still get a salary increase up the payscale, but that’s also discretionary and depends on funding and performance and such.)

[Anonymous User]

Can an AUSA or someone with knowledge answer the following?

What’s the difference between an AUSA and a Crim Division Trial Attorney? Don’t they both prosecute federal crimes? Why does the Crim Division hire more Honors Program students straight from law school or a clerkship whereas an AUSA is rare (especially straight out of law school)?

Anon bc I am happily employed where I am but was just always curious about this.

[Anonymous User]

Main justice attorneys are paid more because they're on the GS scale. They also get first crack at which cases to take, with the remainder going to the USAOs. From what I could tell during my round of interviews with USAOs and main justice, the credentials of the attorneys in main justice are just a step above. Almost everyone in the main justice office had a COA clerkship, for example, whereas that wouldn't be the norm at a USAO. I don't know why the hiring practices are different, but it could just be that over time USAOs valued experience over credentials and gradually moved away from hiring directly out of law school. USAOs used to hire straight out of law school with some frequency some 20ish years ago.

[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).

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have any insight on standard time between first and second round interviews? I know every office and every situation is different, but is two weeks a long time to go without hearing anything after a first round? I went in on 8/5 and thought it went pretty well, but of course there's been nothing but radio silence since. I'm starting to get the feeling they moved on without me, but maybe these things really do just take a lot longer than I'm used in law firm world. Any advice or anecdotes are appreciated.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have any insight on standard time between first and second round interviews? I know every office and every situation is different, but is two weeks a long time to go without hearing anything after a first round? I went in on 8/5 and thought it went pretty well, but of course there's been nothing but radio silence since. I'm starting to get the feeling they moved on without me, but maybe these things really do just take a lot longer than I'm used in law firm world. Any advice or anecdotes are appreciated.

Might help if you could specify if it's a small vs. large office. Smaller offices tend to move faster as they're trying to fill a particular spot. Larger offices might be interviewing batches of people at any given time and move at their own speed (which is to say, glacial).

[Anonymous User]

If you were the first person interviewed, and say they're interviewing 6-10 people, and say not everyone was available during the first week and interviews went into the second week, then the hiring committee has to get together and decide who to bring to a second round, and maybe someone whose opinion matters a lot was on leave for a bit (in my district a lot of people are taking leave these days), they could easily not be done with that yet.

If you were the last person interviewed and the hiring committee met the next day, you're probably not going to the next round.

Which is to say, there is no way to know from the outside which of these is happening, unless they told you something more specific. (I also agree with the distinction between "hiring for an immediate opening" and "reviewing batches to see what's there.") I do think it's safe to say that it's a much slower process than law firm hiring, though.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have any insight on standard time between first and second round interviews? I know every office and every situation is different, but is two weeks a long time to go without hearing anything after a first round? I went in on 8/5 and thought it went pretty well, but of course there's been nothing but radio silence since. I'm starting to get the feeling they moved on without me, but maybe these things really do just take a lot longer than I'm used in law firm world. Any advice or anecdotes are appreciated.

Might help if you could specify if it's a small vs. large office. Smaller offices tend to move faster as they're trying to fill a particular spot. Larger offices might be interviewing batches of people at any given time and move at their own speed (which is to say, glacial).

Thanks. It was a (very) small office.

[Anonymous User]

If you were the first person interviewed, and say they're interviewing 6-10 people, and say not everyone was available during the first week and interviews went into the second week, then the hiring committee has to get together and decide who to bring to a second round, and maybe someone whose opinion matters a lot was on leave for a bit (in my district a lot of people are taking leave these days), they could easily not be done with that yet.

If you were the last person interviewed and the hiring committee met the next day, you're probably not going to the next round.

Which is to say, there is no way to know from the outside which of these is happening, unless they told you something more specific. (I also agree with the distinction between "hiring for an immediate opening" and "reviewing batches to see what's there.") I do think it's safe to say that it's a much slower process than law firm hiring, though.

Good insight, much appreciated. If it matters, I was told they were interviewing 17 people for two positions, one general crimes and one white collar. (I only applied for, and only interviewed for, the white collar role.) I know 8/5 was the second day of interviews, but I believe they were done by 8/7 based on the dates and time slots I was offered. But you're right, it's possible someone wasn't available and interviews continued into the next week.

Follow-up Question: Is it ever appropriate to follow up, even just to restate interest? If so, how long do I wait? Does the fact that I've interviewed elsewhere factor in? (I'm assuming it's okay to reach out if I get another offer, though someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

[Anonymous User]

I don’t think expressing continued interest will do anything. It probably won’t hurt you unless you say something stupid (and I have totally done that before), but it won’t make a difference and you probably won’t get any useful information. If you were given any kind of a timeline (like “we hope to conclude this in the next x weeks”), you could check in after that. My office tends to say “we hope to move quickly” though precisely bc we don’t know how long things will take!
But they’re not going to forget about you and we assume someone who interviewed is in fact interested until/unless you actually withdraw. A thank you note soon after would have been fine, but later it’s not going to serve any purpose.

Yes, if you get an offer with a deadline definitely tell them, but the fact that you’ve interviewed elsewhere won’t matter until you get an offer. To be blunt, whether other people want to interview them doesn’t really affect how we think of applicants (I think we already assume we’re interviewing people who are strong candidates for lots of positions).

As for time slots you were offered - a very small office is *very* unlikely to have interviewed 17 people in 4 days. I don’t think you should assume interviews were over on 8/7. The fact that it’s 2 positions makes it more complicated as well because there will probably be some overlap in applicants and that entails more discussion.

I’m just going to make a general observation and it’s not meant to be directed at you personally: applicants often seem to have this fear that somehow an employer has forgotten about them or forgotten about the hiring process and that checking in with the employer will accomplish something. If you get interviewed, no one is forgetting that you exist or forgetting to update you or just letting the hiring process slide; there are just a million other things that need to get done that get in the way and slow things down. You, the applicant, can’t do anything about that, and it sucks, but that’s just the way the process works.

To be fair, there are some employers who will ghost you, but they’re just assholes who figure that if you never hear from them again, you’ll get the picture.

My personal take (which I know no one needs but I’ll throw it out there) is that you don’t have a job until you have the job. Apply, interview, and move on - assume you haven’t got it and act as if you haven’t. Obviously if you get another offer and want the first job more, you contact them and see what happens, but try not to get emotionally invested and put your life on hold over one job. /soapbox

[Anonymous User]

I don’t think expressing continued interest will do anything. It probably won’t hurt you unless you say something stupid (and I have totally done that before), but it won’t make a difference and you probably won’t get any useful information. If you were given any kind of a timeline (like “we hope to conclude this in the next x weeks”), you could check in after that. My office tends to say “we hope to move quickly” though precisely bc we don’t know how long things will take!
But they’re not going to forget about you and we assume someone who interviewed is in fact interested until/unless you actually withdraw. A thank you note soon after would have been fine, but later it’s not going to serve any purpose.

Yes, if you get an offer with a deadline definitely tell them, but the fact that you’ve interviewed elsewhere won’t matter until you get an offer. To be blunt, whether other people want to interview them doesn’t really affect how we think of applicants (I think we already assume we’re interviewing people who are strong candidates for lots of positions).

As for time slots you were offered - a very small office is *very* unlikely to have interviewed 17 people in 4 days. I don’t think you should assume interviews were over on 8/7. The fact that it’s 2 positions makes it more complicated as well because there will probably be some overlap in applicants and that entails more discussion.

I’m just going to make a general observation and it’s not meant to be directed at you personally: applicants often seem to have this fear that somehow an employer has forgotten about them or forgotten about the hiring process and that checking in with the employer will accomplish something. If you get interviewed, no one is forgetting that you exist or forgetting to update you or just letting the hiring process slide; there are just a million other things that need to get done that get in the way and slow things down. You, the applicant, can’t do anything about that, and it sucks, but that’s just the way the process works.

To be fair, there are some employers who will ghost you, but they’re just assholes who figure that if you never hear from them again, you’ll get the picture.

My personal take (which I know no one needs but I’ll throw it out there) is that you don’t have a job until you have the job. Apply, interview, and move on - assume you haven’t got it and act as if you haven’t. Obviously if you get another offer and want the first job more, you contact them and see what happens, but try not to get emotionally invested and put your life on hold over one job. /soapbox

Thank you, and great advice. You're definitely right about trying not to get emotionally invested re: one job, as I clearly have. I think that's my cue to stop saving homes in that district on Zillow.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, don't get me wrong, I do totally totally get the impulse to do that.

[lawskewl]

I want to point out that some AUSA/DOJ posts are not on USA Jobs, but can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/legal-careers/a ... -vacancies

I accepted an offer for a position that was NOT posted on USA Jobs and made it to the final round for another position that was not posted on USA Jobs.