Top Law Schools

I have a Research&Writing Attorney interview with a Fed PD office coming up.

I've read on these forums that PD interviews include hypos.... This really worries me because I don't have enough knowledge of criminal law and professional ethics standards to answer such questions. I'm not the type of person who memorizes laws. In all my previous positions, when a legal or ethical issue comes up, I would research and reference it. I would not know it off the top of my head.

Is this not accepted in PD offices? Do they need you to have stuff memorized? Do I need to study crim outlines and the Ethics Manual to prepare for the interview?

I've been on a number of public defender interviews, although only at the county/state level. The hypotheticals usually consisted of a fact pattern (written or verbal), and then a sample opening/closing argument. Usually I'd get a few minutes to prepare. Other times they wanted me to start providing some analysis (but not a full opening/closing) immediately about different legal or factual issues that I identified.

I have had federal prosecutor interviews that involved hypos as well. Usually I'd receive a 5-15 page fact pattern and have 30 minutes to create an opening/closing. I was expected to have a strong understanding of the rules of evidence / professional responsibility, particularly in regard to what type of evidence would be admitted/suppressed and what I should/shouldn't reveal about my client's situation. I was not provided any sample caselaw or evidence rules. You're probably not going to need to cite specific cases or rules of evidence by name/number, but you'll probably need to know the holdings from some of the big cases like Brady, Crawford, etc.

In my LA PD interview, the hypos were much more professional responsibility based. Main takeaways -- don't ever reveal anything, no matter how small, that might harm your client, such as if the prosecutor doesn't know their true name, criminal history, etc. Basically don't cooperate at all with the prosecution, even in minor ways. It was like splitting hairs by the end.

I would say that the level of outside knowledge I was expected to have was MUCH more than most people would have from law school or bar exam study, but probably less than the average trial attorney would have acquired in five years.

Thanks so much! If I end up getting a question for which I don't know the applicable rule/law, what would be the best way to respond? To just say Sorry I don't know the law?

Anonymous User wrote:Thanks so much! If I end up getting a question for which I don't know the applicable rule/law, what would be the best way to respond? To just say Sorry I don't know the law?

Good question. Try to tie it to a default, guiding principle. That may be more applicable to trial hypotheticals than appellate ones though. When I was interviewing for state prosecutor jobs, if I didn't know the answer, I'd always say "whatever preserves the integrity and reputation of the office." They seemed to like that.

For fed jobs in general, they seem to be focused on integrity, professionalism, and I think conservative decisions (in the cautious, well thought out sense).

If they want something more substantive in the answer and you don't know, I think it's fine to resort to something like this: "I think X, because of Y reasoning, but I would always research and staff it first." The thought process and level-headedness is often more important than the specific answer.

In the interviews I did for PD offices (all county-level) the hypos were typically ethical dilemmas. Like the other poster said, usually about whether you would reveal client information (i.e. the prosecutor is offering your client a really good deal because they missed that your client has a prior for the same offense. Would you correct them? lol no). They basically want to see what your instincts are. They also want to see you sweat a little - I got grilled on my answers sometimes because I think they want to see how you would hold up if say, a judge was questioning you.

I've also had interviews where they give you a fact pattern and you have to prepare a closing argument, or suppression motion, or say how you would investigate the case.

In either scenario, I don't think there's much you can do to prepare beyond having worked in a PD office, taking crim pro, doing mock trial, etc... basically you already learned this stuff or you didn't. For the fact pattern interviews I would have a basic outline of a closing argument ready and some broad themes, and practice my 'set pieces' (aka the three pillars aka standard speech about presumption of innocence, burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt). It's not like they're grilling you on case law.

Your situation is different though, because it sounds like its not for a litigation position, and its fed PD. I don't think it would make sense to put you through that same process. Your job wouldn't involve being on the spot in the same way. I'm guessing they would more want to figure out your process for tackling a legal issue. They probably want to make sure you're committed to indigent defense work.

Good luck!