Top Law Schools

Curious if anyone knows what to expect in terms of screening for previous drug use when interviewing for AUSA. I have done a fair amount of drugs in the past, including cocaine and LSD, but that was more than five years ago. I haven’t done anything since passing the bar and may have smoked marijuana once in law school but that’s about it. Will this be a problem?

In my experience, they didn't ask me directly about drug use in the interview, but they brought up the background check and told me that post-bar drug use would be a dealbreaker (keep in mind I applied fairly close to finishing law school, so I don't know if "post-bar" is a firm timeline for all applicants), basically I think to allow me to bail if that was going to be a problem.

The actual form you fill out (SF-86) will ask, "In the last seven (7) years, have you illegally used any drugs or controlled substances?" I have heard that some offices ask you about any illegal drug use, ever, but that hasn't been my experience. But also I have a very boring background and can't even remember what the actual interviewer asked in my interview (because I wouldn't have had anything to answer).

I would be surprised if smoking marijuana once in law school would be an issue. The cocaine and LSD would be more troublesome, especially since it sounds like you can't just say you experimented once?, but really truly, they want to make sure you're being honest more than they want to ding you for drug use. The further you get from those experiences, the less they'll care. The mindset is more, if you'll lie about this out of self-interest, what other things might you lie about in the future?

(They'll also urine test you, but obviously that shouldn't be an issue for you now.)

OP here, thanks for the advice. Do you think this would be a big enough issue that I should hold off applying until seven years have gone by since the harder drug use? After thinking it over I realized it would really only mean waiting for a year. At that point I’d still have to admit to drug use within the past seven years, but it would be extremely infrequent marijuana use that ended several years ago. What’s funny is I don’t even drink alcohol anymore - after a frank look at my personal and family history with addictive substances I decided everything had to go. Wish I’d made that decision a few years sooner...

Honestly, I don't know if it will make a difference - like I said, I've led such a boring life, I haven't had to deal with it personally and it's never come up with anyone I know. My sense, from my conversation with my last interviewer, is that full disclosure with an explanation for why you used then and when you stopped and why and why you have no intention of using again, would go a long way, but that's absolutely just a hunch.

Of course, depending what you're doing now and how senior you are, holding off for a year is only going to make you a stronger candidate anyway. More experience is virtually always better (unless it's going to push you into "too expensive to hire b/c of pay grade," but that doesn't sound like it's the case since I think you'd have to be pushing more like 9-10 years out, and it sounds like law school was within the last 5 years or so?). The flip side of this argument is that you can't control when positions become available and so if something opens up in a location where you want to be, it's hard to pass on it.*

*Of course if you're only really thinking about offices that take rolling applications that's a different situation; most offices don't, and only consider applicants when they have an opening, though TBF I think the offices that take rolling apps tend to be some of the most selective/desirable (SDNY, EDNY, DMass, CDCA). But there's also no guarantee about when an office will respond to a rolling app - for instance, EDNY takes apps all year round but only interviews when a vacancy comes up (at least according to their website).

I have heard from several people, including two friends who are AUSAs in different districts, that post-bar drug use is an autoding.

I would wait until you can honestly answer "no" to the drug use question within seven years. The interview isn't the issue, it's the OPM background check. They'll ask your friends about drug use, and then ask your friends to provide the name of other friends. I'm assuming that if you're caught lying on the SF-86, that you'll never be able to pass the background check?

USAO-DC asks about any history of illegal drug use, regardless of time. I was surprised when I saw the question during the in-person interview materials.

One of my friends (ADA) failed the background check because of post-bar marijuana use. It's legal in our state. I don't know how recent his use was. This topic comes up occasionally on TLS, and it seems like there's no consensus. Many jurisdictions seem to auto-disqualify for any post-bar drug use, and others supposedly only care about post-bar drug use occurring within the last 4-5 years.

My opinion is that you should wait. You'll only be a stronger applicant with more experience. Don't rush it, especially if there is a chance you'll fail the background check and be shut out of other DOJ/fed jobs going forward. I went on a handful of AUSA and SAUSA interviews last year. After a lot of research, I convinced myself it wouldn't be worth the risk (I'm about 5 years from anything that might cause issues). I canceled two upcoming interviews I had at fairly large east coast offices and ate the airfare. To me it was the safer option. To put that in perspective, I tried something one time that I think was probably a hard substance, and smoked marijuana a few times before law school and after. I'm pretty square, but I'm not sure that some of that wouldn't come out if someone asked my ex-girlfriend.

I interviewed for an AUSA entry level gig when I was one year out of law school. I had lots of experience with the local office as it was in the jurisdiction where I went to law school.

My interview consisted of a panel of five AUSA including the criminal chief and the first assistant. They straight up asked me about drug use in the past five years, which would have obviously stretched not only pre-bar and during law school and into undergrad. I told them that I had occasionally smoked weed during undergrad. I can’t say for sure but I’m relatively confident that was an auto-ding. I also was in a jurisdiction with heavy drug trafficking activity so I don’t know if they were being extra sensitive.

No idea what you should do but wanted to put my experience as a bit of a cautionary tale.

Absolutely worth taking note of that cautionary tale.

My co-worker who was non-offered (after being selected by office, cross-deputized position) for disclosing prior marijuana use, it was in a very liberal jurisdiction where marijuana is legal at the state level.

Just wanted to chime in and say that my law school's Career Office announced that students should refrain from applying to certain positions in the Fed Gov if they have used drugs (marijuana included) in the past 5 years. Disclosure used to be enough and would not be an auto-ding, but this administration doesn't feel that way. Might be best to wait a couple years (fingers crossed).

Yeah, I’m one of the anons above. I got interviewed under a different administration - no idea if that made a difference. I also don’t know to what extent individual USAs set these preferences, but they certainly could (and this admin would probably pick USAs who are more likely to care).

Anonymous User wrote:They straight up asked me about drug use in the past five years, which would have obviously stretched not only pre-bar and during law school and into undergrad.

Only if you’re K-JD, though (plus a lot of offices require at least 3 years’ experience).

I understand that each USAO has discretion on the drug use issue.

However, it makes sense that the the administration appointed people who are more likely to view older marijuana use more harshly. For example, in the western district of Washington (Seattle), people are getting dinged for it. It's legal here at the state level, so you'd think that the feds would be a little more understanding. But the US Attorney was a former prosecutor in the very conservative, eastern side of the state.

Yeah, I think any of the USAs under this administration are likely to share that attitude about MJ, especially since they should all have been put in place under Sessions. And I don’t think local laws are going to make a difference, I’m afraid, until/unless the federal laws change, and/or legal MJ is so widespread that they literally can’t find anyone who hasn’t smoked in the requisite period.