AD vs GS Payscale Forum

[Anonymous User]

I’ve heard that attorneys at Main Justice make significantly more than attorneys at the USAO in DC. How much is the average difference?

[Anonymous User]

AUSA here in another jurisdiction. I don't know the answer but just wanted to rant.

It's a well-known fact among AUSAs that the AD versus GS payscale differential is giving those on the AD scale the shaft. In fairness, I don't know if there's anything to be done about it. Doesn't the USAO in DC deal with a lot of street crime prosecutions? That type of work is going to call for a different level of sophistication than the supposedly high level work done at Main Justice.

My critique of the above reality: I have encountered a lot of not-so-brilliant legal work product from Main Justice. It's a little disturbing how little experience some of the folks there have. So don't take this the wrong way. They're not that special. And street crime prosecutors, for their part, are going to be the best trial lawyers around. But, the pay differential is just a reality that reflects how the legal market works at large. We pay biglaw attorneys millions and public defenders nothing. It's just how the market has sculpted our income streams.

[Anonymous User]

I don’t have a clear answer either - the only thing I can suggest is to find a main justice/GS-payscale job posting on USAjobs and see what GS level you start at, and compare with where you fall on the AD payscale based on the years of experience. (If you google each payscale they come up quickly.)

One thing to note is that the AD payscale doesn’t include locality pay, so go to the appropriate GS payscale table to see how much to add for the pertinent locality. (Locality pay is the same across both.)

I’m not able to give a clear answer because I’ve only worked as an AUSA and don’t really understand how the steps work on the GS payscale.

On the AD payscale, offices generally start all AUSAs at the same point on the grade (most offices I’m familiar with start people at the 25th percentile, but I know at least one in a HCOL area that starts everyone at something higher, around 30 or 35th percentile - I forget which).

My understanding is that the cap on both scales ends up relatively similar, but that it takes AUSAs longer to get there which is where we lose out.

My experience with Main Justice attorneys has been kind of mixed - some are just brilliant, some are let’s just say much less so. But unfortunately AUSA gigs are sought after enough that there’s not much incentive to fix the discrepancy.

(I will say that I’m in a fairly low COL/rural district, and AUSA pay is actually one of the best-value gigs around, because there’s almost no biglaw here and work-life balance is still much better than in the private sector. So while I’d love to make GS scale pay, I’m can live very comfortably here. That’s a huge contrast of course to districts like SDNY/EDNY/CDCA/NDCA, which I think complicates making changes, although AUSAs in those districts obviously have more better alternatives.)

[Anonymous User]

My experience with Main Justice attorneys has been kind of mixed - some are just brilliant, some are let’s just say much less so. But unfortunately AUSA gigs are sought after enough that there’s not much incentive to fix the discrepancy.

(I will say that I’m in a fairly low COL/rural district, and AUSA pay is actually one of the best-value gigs around, because there’s almost no biglaw here and work-life balance is still much better than in the private sector. So while I’d love to make GS scale pay, I’m can live very comfortably here. That’s a huge contrast of course to districts like SDNY/EDNY/CDCA/NDCA, which I think complicates making changes, although AUSAs in those districts obviously have more better alternatives.)

Some brilliant and some not: Yes, very fair comment. I trust the judgment of some of those Main guys and gals, especially the long-timers. Other times, I'm not too thrilled with them. But that's life. They've got their job to do and so do we, as we all try to maintain a level of coordination within the world's largest law firm, that by and large seems to work. They need to be tuned in to the Attorney General's vision. Meanwhile we do the same when needed but are the much better experts at handling the federal district judges in our locale.

I have no complaints about being on the AD scale either. I'm higher on that scale due to more experience so I'm speculating that my differential isn't that significant in the first place. Still, nothing wrong with pestering the bean counters for a raise.

[Anonymous User]

I’m the OP and talked to someone about this today. A summary of that info is as follows:
AD scale is lower on the front end and lags behind GS until each scale is “maxed” out. Problem here is that AD takes 10 years and GS takes 5 (at least to reach the max grade). For example, a GS 13 makes six figures in a HCOL area 2 years out of law school. AD counterparts are making much much less than that, but there isn’t an exact figure since there is a “range” that doesn’t exist within the GS system. USAO DC and MJ are probably the best comparators because USAO DC hires newer grads much sooner after graduation than other USAOs and so does MJ through honors program.

Personally, I know a decent amount of prosecutors at USAODC and yes they are dealing with “street crime” as another poster put it but that’s because to get hired in that office you have to do four years in superior court. After that, it seems like they work on some of the most interesting cases in the country (on par with the most prestigious USAOs except SDNY). But I will also say based on observation during my federal clerkship and time in DC federal court, that the DC USAO prosecutors are much better than the USAO prosecutors from my district (at least on the criminal side) because superior court gives them so many chances to actually try cases. I haven’t seen enough main Justice prosecutors at work to form a generalized opinion about their skills. But the one I did see during my clerkship from criminal division was on par with the best AUSAs in my district (and worlds above the worst ones).

[Anonymous User]

I don’t have a clear answer either - the only thing I can suggest is to find a main justice/GS-payscale job posting on USAjobs and see what GS level you start at, and compare with where you fall on the AD payscale based on the years of experience. (If you google each payscale they come up quickly.)

One thing to note is that the AD payscale doesn’t include locality pay, so go to the appropriate GS payscale table to see how much to add for the pertinent locality. (Locality pay is the same across both.)

I’m not able to give a clear answer because I’ve only worked as an AUSA and don’t really understand how the steps work on the GS payscale.

On the AD payscale, offices generally start all AUSAs at the same point on the grade (most offices I’m familiar with start people at the 25th percentile, but I know at least one in a HCOL area that starts everyone at something higher, around 30 or 35th percentile - I forget which).

My understanding is that the cap on both scales ends up relatively similar, but that it takes AUSAs longer to get there which is where we lose out.

My experience with Main Justice attorneys has been kind of mixed - some are just brilliant, some are let’s just say much less so. But unfortunately AUSA gigs are sought after enough that there’s not much incentive to fix the discrepancy.

(I will say that I’m in a fairly low COL/rural district, and AUSA pay is actually one of the best-value gigs around, because there’s almost no biglaw here and work-life balance is still much better than in the private sector. So while I’d love to make GS scale pay, I’m can live very comfortably here. That’s a huge contrast of course to districts like SDNY/EDNY/CDCA/NDCA, which I think complicates making changes, although AUSAs in those districts obviously have more better alternatives.)

If an office starts you out at the 25th percentile, then from year to year would you increase in percentile on a performance basis? Or, would you mostly always hover around the 25th and just move up in step as years of experience increase? Doing some rough estimations with locality adjustments, the midpoint doesn't seem too bad. Though I can see how it still lags behind GS on a strict year to year of experience comparison.

For 2023 the AD payscale would also increase by 4.1% like the GS scale, correct?

[Anonymous User]

For 2023 the AD payscale would also increase by 4.1% like the GS scale, correct?

The official announcement I got (AUSA at a USAO) was for a bit higher than that, but I'm not going to google it to see the precise number. I thought it was 4.5% or something.

[Anonymous User]

If an office starts you out at the 25th percentile, then from year to year would you increase in percentile on a performance basis? Or, would you mostly always hover around the 25th and just move up in step as years of experience increase? Doing some rough estimations with locality adjustments, the midpoint doesn't seem too bad. Though I can see how it still lags behind GS on a strict year to year of experience comparison.

For 2023 the AD payscale would also increase by 4.1% like the GS scale, correct?

So my experience has been that when you move up in grade, you don’t move up in percentile - so if one year I’m at grade 27 being paid at the the 25th percentile, the next year when I move up to grade 28, I stay at the same percentile. I don’t know if that’s required or just how my offices have handled it or just how they’ve handled me (although my evaluations have been good so I don’t think it’s about merit).

However, for the years that your grade stays the same, you certainly can move up in percentile. It’s not guaranteed and can depend on office budgets - the second year that I was in AD 23, I got a bonus rather than a raise because of how much money the office (didn’t) have for raises. (I think that office also tended to keep salaries low and hire more people, to the extent they had that kind of discretion over salaries, just as an example of variation in office policies.)

My second year in AD 29 (where I am now), my salary went up a whole ~$1500, which I think moved me up to like the 26th or 27th percentile (woohoo). There’s nothing that I’m aware of that mandates moving you up at any particular speed, so IME this is very black box and depends on your office. Certainly I’ve never been offered any explanation for why the amounts (admittedly I’m bad about bringing this stuff up).

So you’re right that the midpoint (and above) isn’t bad at all, but there’s no real guarantee when you’ll get there.

[Anonymous User]

Main Justice Prosecutor here:

Yes there is a huge discrepancy in pay between USAOs and their MJ counterparts (based upon my own career and those of my colleagues). If you compare the DCUSAO, where usually you will need 4 years experience, your starting salary will be in the AD-23 band, (and with mostly all competitive USAOs hiring at the 25% percentile mark), with locality you will start at $94,621 (2022 numbers).
Contrast that to a Main Justice prosecutor, with 4 years experience, will start at GS-15 step 1, which is $148,484 (2022 numbers).

That is a difference of $53,863, more than a third of the DCUSAO salary. It pays to be at MJ. I know MJ attorneys that hit the cap (176) after only 5 years, as they receive QSIs. I know AUSAs who after 5 years as a prosecutor make in the 140's, and they are supervisors!

Now as for the work, it is different. MJ really only works on very large, complex cases with national and international importance. These cases often take years to develop, and because the resources of MJ (and in conjunction certain USAOs) are brought together, they often end in a plea. Contrast that to those at a USAO, which are often simpler, less intensive cases, that usually have issues (because of the nature of the case, the agents/TFOs investigating, the speed of the development) and those cases go to trial. As an AUSA you will try more cases than a MJ prosecutor, but that is because the complexity is less, and the cases are not as airtight.

In sum MJ pays for expertise, and the tradeoff that you will specialize in an area (and may have to travel a bit but COVID has changed that for the better).

[Anonymous User]

Main Justice Prosecutor here:

Yes there is a huge discrepancy in pay between USAOs and their MJ counterparts (based upon my own career and those of my colleagues). If you compare the DCUSAO, where usually you will need 4 years experience, your starting salary will be in the AD-23 band, (and with mostly all competitive USAOs hiring at the 25% percentile mark), with locality you will start at $94,621 (2022 numbers).
Contrast that to a Main Justice prosecutor, with 4 years experience, will start at GS-15 step 1, which is $148,484 (2022 numbers).

That is a difference of $53,863, more than a third of the DCUSAO salary. It pays to be at MJ. I know MJ attorneys that hit the cap (176) after only 5 years, as they receive QSIs. I know AUSAs who after 5 years as a prosecutor make in the 140's, and they are supervisors!

Now as for the work, it is different. MJ really only works on very large, complex cases with national and international importance. These cases often take years to develop, and because the resources of MJ (and in conjunction certain USAOs) are brought together, they often end in a plea. Contrast that to those at a USAO, which are often simpler, less intensive cases, that usually have issues (because of the nature of the case, the agents/TFOs investigating, the speed of the development) and those cases go to trial. As an AUSA you will try more cases than a MJ prosecutor, but that is because the complexity is less, and the cases are not as airtight.

In sum MJ pays for expertise, and the tradeoff that you will specialize in an area (and may have to travel a bit but COVID has changed that for the better).

USAO AUSA here in civil. The salary analysis seems spot on. But I don't think the case experience component is accurate. High profile cases (civil or criminal) featured on the Washington Post only rarely go to trial, in our legal profession where cases rarely go to trial as it is. And you might see a notch more of pre-trial action in criminal at MJ (I don't really know), but in civil at MJ, everything is handled by people quite close to the Attorney General, leaving absolutely no room for discretion, action, fun, or experience by anyone else. Even the senior folks I might work with at MJ on such high profile cases still have zero discretion. They just take my questions and run them up THEIR chain for the answers. This is precisely how billion-dollar litigation is run in biglaw firms: only those at the top are making judgment calls and acting like real lawyers. Everyone else is just a memo monkey.

Sophistication of non-MJ cases is actually quite high, though this will obviously vary according to practice area and geography. Federal criminal prosecutions and civil cases against the United States are by their inherent nature very sophisticated even if they don't make it to the Washington Post. White collar prosecutions are extraordinarily complex, and the criminal defense lawyers handling them tend to be the elites in your locality. Since some faceless old guy in Washington isn't telling you what to do, you and your boss are the main shot callers who need to figure out what to do on your own.

Civil: same thing. The monetary value of various non-MJ cases handled by my USAO routinely tops 8 digits for one disaster or another that the United States has been sued for. A sole civil AUSA can very commonly be assigned to defend a claim for $50 million completely on his or her own--if they are an experienced AUSA of course. You're not getting this kind of work if you're a baby lawyer. But the point is, your raw experience premium is probably higher at a USAO than it is at MJ. Most of us would surely take salary over experience quality, but still, if you're stuck with the latter, it's not a bad consolation prize in the long run.

[Anonymous User]

[/quote]

High profile cases (civil or criminal) featured on the Washington Post only rarely go to trial, in our legal profession where cases rarely go to trial as it is. And you might see a notch more of pre-trial action in criminal at MJ (I don't really know), but in civil at MJ, everything is handled by people quite close to the Attorney General, leaving absolutely no room for discretion, action, fun, or experience by anyone else. Even the senior folks I might work with at MJ on such high profile cases still have zero discretion. They just take my questions and run them up THEIR chain for the answers. This is precisely how billion-dollar litigation is run in biglaw firms: only those at the top are making judgment calls and acting like real lawyers. Everyone else is just a memo monkey.

[/quote]

This is a very weird take. I’m at MJ (Civil Division) and this is absolutely not my experience. Do you think those “close to the attorney general” have time to handle all the litigation going on in our branches? High profile cases are obviously handled by more experienced lawyers, but acting like you get no litigation experience in civil at MJ is crazy. There are so many cases (big and small) going on at Main that these over-generalizations are very unhelpful. Since you’re at a USAO this may be due to which particular branches of civil you’re working with. But, my branch lets young attorneys handle their own cases (in addition to being staffed on bigger cases handled by more experienced prosecutors) and that’s an experience that really cannot be matched.

[Anonymous User]

This is a very weird take. I’m at MJ (Civil Division) and this is absolutely not my experience. Do you think those “close to the attorney general” have time to handle all the litigation going on in our branches? High profile cases are obviously handled by more experienced lawyers, but acting like you get no litigation experience in civil at MJ is crazy. There are so many cases (big and small) going on at Main that these over-generalizations are very unhelpful. Since you’re at a USAO this may be due to which particular branches of civil you’re working with. But, my branch lets young attorneys handle their own cases (in addition to being staffed on bigger cases handled by more experienced prosecutors) and that’s an experience that really cannot be matched.

I can’t really comment on how MJ works, although I have worked as the local contact for an MJ case in my district and the MJ approval process seems way more elaborate/hierarchal than at USAOs; to that extent, “they take my questions and run them up THEIR chain for answers” rings true. That doesn’t mean MJ people aren’t getting experience but uniformity seems even more important than at USAOs. The flip side of that, of course, is the kind of specialization you get at MJ means you’re getting much deeper expertise and drilling down much more on complex cases.

But your “experience that can’t be matched” is exactly what happens at USAOs. I started out of honors and had no practice experience and was running my own cases from day one. Obviously I had a lot of hand-holding to start with and started on pretty basic stuff, but the amount of independence/experience is pretty significant. I realize that saying this happens in your branch isn’t you saying that it *doesn’t* happen at USAOs, but I wanted to toss that out there.

I think it helps that the hierarchy at a lot of USAOs is relatively flat - obviously the bigger the office the more management, but I think it’s still generally less than at MJ.

Also, I suspect that a civil AUSA interacting with MJ about a local case isn’t really the same as interacting with MJ on MJ cases.

(How are the younger attorneys in your civil branch being staffed on cases with prosecutors?)

[Anonymous User]

This is a very weird take. I’m at MJ (Civil Division) and this is absolutely not my experience. Do you think those “close to the attorney general” have time to handle all the litigation going on in our branches? High profile cases are obviously handled by more experienced lawyers, but acting like you get no litigation experience in civil at MJ is crazy. There are so many cases (big and small) going on at Main that these over-generalizations are very unhelpful. Since you’re at a USAO this may be due to which particular branches of civil you’re working with. But, my branch lets young attorneys handle their own cases (in addition to being staffed on bigger cases handled by more experienced prosecutors) and that’s an experience that really cannot be matched.

I can’t really comment on how MJ works, although I have worked as the local contact for an MJ case in my district and the MJ approval process seems way more elaborate/hierarchal than at USAOs; to that extent, “they take my questions and run them up THEIR chain for answers” rings true. That doesn’t mean MJ people aren’t getting experience but uniformity seems even more important than at USAOs. The flip side of that, of course, is the kind of specialization you get at MJ means you’re getting much deeper expertise and drilling down much more on complex cases.

But your “experience that can’t be matched” is exactly what happens at USAOs. I started out of honors and had no practice experience and was running my own cases from day one. Obviously I had a lot of hand-holding to start with and started on pretty basic stuff, but the amount of independence/experience is pretty significant. I realize that saying this happens in your branch isn’t you saying that it *doesn’t* happen at USAOs, but I wanted to toss that out there.

I think it helps that the hierarchy at a lot of USAOs is relatively flat - obviously the bigger the office the more management, but I think it’s still generally less than at MJ.

Also, I suspect that a civil AUSA interacting with MJ about a local case isn’t really the same as interacting with MJ on MJ cases.

(How are the younger attorneys in your civil branch being staffed on cases with prosecutors?)

All this rings true to me (MJ Prosecutor). I think I meant experience can’t be matched because I’m a relatively new graduate and except for USAO DC and the very few USAOs that hire through honors, most USAOs don’t hire as early as MJ will (because of honors). The USAO in the district where I clerked never hires straight out of clerkships so my options were MJ or big law. However I have no doubt that those experiences are amazing too at USAOs. Some of my colleagues started their honors program experience at the DC USAO detail and from talking to them, their experience (although hectic) is much more trial focused than young attorneys at MJ.

As for “staffing” on cases with more experienced MJ prosecutors, I don’t really understand the question. There’s a variety of cases (big and small) so sizes of case teams are varied (generally, most cases are run by more than one prosecutor).

[Anonymous User]

High profile cases (civil or criminal) featured on the Washington Post only rarely go to trial, in our legal profession where cases rarely go to trial as it is. And you might see a notch more of pre-trial action in criminal at MJ (I don't really know), but in civil at MJ, everything is handled by people quite close to the Attorney General, leaving absolutely no room for discretion, action, fun, or experience by anyone else. Even the senior folks I might work with at MJ on such high profile cases still have zero discretion. They just take my questions and run them up THEIR chain for the answers. This is precisely how billion-dollar litigation is run in biglaw firms: only those at the top are making judgment calls and acting like real lawyers. Everyone else is just a memo monkey.
-----

This is a very weird take. I’m at MJ (Civil Division) and this is absolutely not my experience. Do you think those “close to the attorney general” have time to handle all the litigation going on in our branches? High profile cases are obviously handled by more experienced lawyers, but acting like you get no litigation experience in civil at MJ is crazy. There are so many cases (big and small) going on at Main that these over-generalizations are very unhelpful. Since you’re at a USAO this may be due to which particular branches of civil you’re working with. But, my branch lets young attorneys handle their own cases (in addition to being staffed on bigger cases handled by more experienced prosecutors) and that’s an experience that really cannot be matched.

I'm that OP. And admittedly, I have no idea what "small" cases you guys at MJ are handling. I only know about big, high profile cases, and on those, it's no shocker that no one has any discretion because they are tightly controlled. What are the kinds of "small" cases MJ handles, if you can use a fictional hypothetical to educate us?

[Anonymous User]

This is a very weird take. I’m at MJ (Civil Division) and this is absolutely not my experience. Do you think those “close to the attorney general” have time to handle all the litigation going on in our branches? High profile cases are obviously handled by more experienced lawyers, but acting like you get no litigation experience in civil at MJ is crazy. There are so many cases (big and small) going on at Main that these over-generalizations are very unhelpful. Since you’re at a USAO this may be due to which particular branches of civil you’re working with. But, my branch lets young attorneys handle their own cases (in addition to being staffed on bigger cases handled by more experienced prosecutors) and that’s an experience that really cannot be matched.

I can’t really comment on how MJ works, although I have worked as the local contact for an MJ case in my district and the MJ approval process seems way more elaborate/hierarchal than at USAOs; to that extent, “they take my questions and run them up THEIR chain for answers” rings true. That doesn’t mean MJ people aren’t getting experience but uniformity seems even more important than at USAOs. The flip side of that, of course, is the kind of specialization you get at MJ means you’re getting much deeper expertise and drilling down much more on complex cases.

But your “experience that can’t be matched” is exactly what happens at USAOs. I started out of honors and had no practice experience and was running my own cases from day one. Obviously I had a lot of hand-holding to start with and started on pretty basic stuff, but the amount of independence/experience is pretty significant. I realize that saying this happens in your branch isn’t you saying that it *doesn’t* happen at USAOs, but I wanted to toss that out there.

I think it helps that the hierarchy at a lot of USAOs is relatively flat - obviously the bigger the office the more management, but I think it’s still generally less than at MJ.

Also, I suspect that a civil AUSA interacting with MJ about a local case isn’t really the same as interacting with MJ on MJ cases.

(How are the younger attorneys in your civil branch being staffed on cases with prosecutors?)

All this rings true to me (MJ Prosecutor). I think I meant experience can’t be matched because I’m a relatively new graduate and except for USAO DC and the very few USAOs that hire through honors, most USAOs don’t hire as early as MJ will (because of honors). The USAO in the district where I clerked never hires straight out of clerkships so my options were MJ or big law. However I have no doubt that those experiences are amazing too at USAOs. Some of my colleagues started their honors program experience at the DC USAO detail and from talking to them, their experience (although hectic) is much more trial focused than young attorneys at MJ.

As for “staffing” on cases with more experienced MJ prosecutors, I don’t really understand the question. There’s a variety of cases (big and small) so sizes of case teams are varied (generally, most cases are run by more than one prosecutor).

Sorry, I’m confused by the terminology. In my USAOs, “prosecutor” means someone doing criminal work. So I was curious why someone responding from Civil was talking about junior attorneys being paired with more senior prosecutors, because I was curious about the civil/criminal crossover. Unless in MJ they describe affirmative civil enforcement people as prosecutors or something - I’ve just never heard that in USAOs. (Being paired with a more senior attorney in your field is obviously common.)

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, I’m confused by the terminology. In my USAOs, “prosecutor” means someone doing criminal work. So I was curious why someone responding from Civil was talking about junior attorneys being paired with more senior prosecutors, because I was curious about the civil/criminal crossover. Unless in MJ they describe affirmative civil enforcement people as prosecutors or something - I’ve just never heard that in USAOs. (Being paired with a more senior attorney in your field is obviously common.)

Civil AUSA here. There's no regular crossover. Civil AUSAs do have to deal with law enforcement disasters that have turned into civil lawsuits, so there are plenty of situations where civil and criminal have to talk to each other on the civil defensive end.

Civil AUSAs don't call ourselves prosecutors, colloquially anyway.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, I’m confused by the terminology. In my USAOs, “prosecutor” means someone doing criminal work. So I was curious why someone responding from Civil was talking about junior attorneys being paired with more senior prosecutors, because I was curious about the civil/criminal crossover. Unless in MJ they describe affirmative civil enforcement people as prosecutors or something - I’ve just never heard that in USAOs. (Being paired with a more senior attorney in your field is obviously common.)

Civil AUSA here. There's no regular crossover. Civil AUSAs do have to deal with law enforcement disasters that have turned into civil lawsuits, so there are plenty of situations where civil and criminal have to talk to each other on the civil defensive end.

Civil AUSAs don't call ourselves prosecutors, colloquially anyway.

Got it. I may have just misunderstood and the previous civil person was talking about the DC USAO or something.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, I’m confused by the terminology. In my USAOs, “prosecutor” means someone doing criminal work. So I was curious why someone responding from Civil was talking about junior attorneys being paired with more senior prosecutors, because I was curious about the civil/criminal crossover. Unless in MJ they describe affirmative civil enforcement people as prosecutors or something - I’ve just never heard that in USAOs. (Being paired with a more senior attorney in your field is obviously common.)

Civil AUSA here. There's no regular crossover. Civil AUSAs do have to deal with law enforcement disasters that have turned into civil lawsuits, so there are plenty of situations where civil and criminal have to talk to each other on the civil defensive end.

Civil AUSAs don't call ourselves prosecutors, colloquially anyway.

Got it. I may have just misunderstood and the previous civil person was talking about the DC USAO or something.

Civil Division (Consumer Protection) handles criminal cases as well.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, I’m confused by the terminology. In my USAOs, “prosecutor” means someone doing criminal work. So I was curious why someone responding from Civil was talking about junior attorneys being paired with more senior prosecutors, because I was curious about the civil/criminal crossover. Unless in MJ they describe affirmative civil enforcement people as prosecutors or something - I’ve just never heard that in USAOs. (Being paired with a more senior attorney in your field is obviously common.)

Civil AUSA here. There's no regular crossover. Civil AUSAs do have to deal with law enforcement disasters that have turned into civil lawsuits, so there are plenty of situations where civil and criminal have to talk to each other on the civil defensive end.

Civil AUSAs don't call ourselves prosecutors, colloquially anyway.

Got it. I may have just misunderstood and the previous civil person was talking about the DC USAO or something.

Yeah that’s on me, switching between talking about USAO and MJ got me confused. But the later poster is right, I’ve heard of Consumer Trial Attorneys being referred to as prosecutors because of their criminal cases.

[Anonymous User]

Oh of course - thank you for clearing that up! (Obviously my experience with MJ is limited!)