Hiring Freezes?? Forum

[Anonymous User]

The NYT linked to a policy email that seems to confirm that USAO and criminal hiring is frozen, notwithstanding the recent "lift" of the freeze (below). Anyone have any sense of when the green light on hiring will be given?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ocument/p4

[Anonymous User]

Re: details to border districts - yes, they've actually sent out a call for detailees to border offices. Like all details I've seen in this job, it is a notice that the detail is available and asking people to apply if they're interested. I have never heard of AUSAs being mandatorily detailed anywhere (which is different from Crim, which regularly sends people around the country).

I'm not sure scores is going to be accurate, but of course we'll have to see.

[Anonymous User]

The NYT linked to a policy email that seems to confirm that USAO and criminal hiring is frozen, notwithstanding the recent "lift" of the freeze (below). Anyone have any sense of when the green light on hiring will be given?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ocument/p4

I feel like this is going to depend a lot on how you define critical positions and what kind of argument you can make to the AG. As of this month there were a handful of AUSA positions posted (and not in border districts!) so some offices are clearly getting approval for some positions.

[Anonymous User]

The NYT linked to a policy email that seems to confirm that USAO and criminal hiring is frozen, notwithstanding the recent "lift" of the freeze (below). Anyone have any sense of when the green light on hiring will be given?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ocument/p4

I feel like this is going to depend a lot on how you define critical positions and what kind of argument you can make to the AG. As of this month there were a handful of AUSA positions posted (and not in border districts!) so some offices are clearly getting approval for some positions.

I've applied for several positions and for most of them have eventually received responses basically saying "oops sorry we're not going to be able to fill this, vacancy canceled."

[Anonymous User]

Well, I suppose I should say they're getting approval to post ads, sadly maybe not to hire! (Some are in the last week or so, which is after the official freeze deadline, so it will be interesting to see if anything comes of the postings. I know my office has been told it can hire, but the offers were all made pre-freeze and there aren't new openings.)

[Anonymous User]

And my point was that there are lots of alien smuggling cases out there, and many are interesting and allow the opportunity to develop investigative skills. Also, illegal re-entries are a good way to get trial experience if you don't have any, and are more likely to be going to trial these days. (Yes, more advanced lawyers working in other areas aren't likely to be interested, but generally here we seem to be talking about people trying to break into the USAO, not experienced AUSAs.)

(Still don't know what you meant by "gross.")

Also, the only districts this is really going to affect is border districts, and prosecutors there are used to doing immigration. So I really don't think experienced AUSAs are going to be quitting over immigration cases.

This is not consistent with my experience. If you look, you'll find undocumented folks everywhere: Indiana, North Carolina, Florida. On the other hand, it's easier to score political points by focusing on the border.

It's definitely possible that the inexperienced attorneys in border district will have to scale up, and no one else will see any disturbances. I think it's more likely that border districts lock up with volume, non-border districts start having to handle tons of immigration cases, and there are so many cases everywhere that senior AUSAs will get pulled from other kinds of crimes.

[Anonymous User]

I'm just going off my experience working (formerly) in a SW border district, and now not being in one. Border districts have gotten swamped with immigration volume before (even under Democrat USAs!) and I'm sure they will again, but I don't think it's going to have the kind of ripple effect of driving people out of USAOs that you're envisioning. In my current non-SW border district, there really doesn't seem to be any sense that we're going to get swamped with immigration cases. Obviously I don't know the future so who knows, but no one here is bracing for the flood or anything like that - the really pressing criminal concerns in my district simply lie elsewhere.

(Of course there are undocumented people everywhere - especially Florida since it's a border state - but many aren't amenable to criminal prosecution. Getting kicked out, yes, but convicted of a crime, not really, and from the guidance we've received so far, that hasn't really changed.)

[Anonymous User]

I'm just going off my experience working (formerly) in a SW border district, and now not being in one. Border districts have gotten swamped with immigration volume before (even under Democrat USAs!) and I'm sure they will again, but I don't think it's going to have the kind of ripple effect of driving people out of USAOs that you're envisioning. In my current non-SW border district, there really doesn't seem to be any sense that we're going to get swamped with immigration cases. Obviously I don't know the future so who knows, but no one here is bracing for the flood or anything like that - the really pressing criminal concerns in my district simply lie elsewhere.

(Of course there are undocumented people everywhere - especially Florida since it's a border state - but many aren't amenable to criminal prosecution. Getting kicked out, yes, but convicted of a crime, not really, and from the guidance we've received so far, that hasn't really changed.)

I think this exchange should serve to underscore how different the experience can be in different districts. This site seems to think there is 1 universal experience as an AUSA, but 2 people in 2 non-border districts can have completely different experiences.

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone seen alec Baldwin do Donald Trump on SNL? After dealing with all this hiring freeze and budget cut crap, I have to say that made my day lol.

[Anonymous User]

So these new budgets came out. No department nearly got cut as much as Trump proposed. This is great I would think as far as staffing and people being worried about budget cuts. I'm hoping to hear a call soon with a firm offer after a tentative offer I accepted before the freeze with USDA.

[andythefir]

So these new budgets came out. No department nearly got cut as much as Trump proposed. This is great I would think as far as staffing and people being worried about budget cuts. I'm hoping to hear a call soon with a firm offer after a tentative offer I accepted before the freeze with USDA.

If you got an offer, that means that the agency had the funding to bring you on at the time they made the offer. So more of the same means they should be able to keep you, although who knows what's coming in September. I feel sorriest for 2Ls who likely had their on ramp cancelled before they were even competing for it. Except for border USAO districts, I'm not sure I'd hire anybody into the federal government if I were a manger given the uncertainty.

[Anonymous User]

Applied for tons of government jobs. Got a tentative offer before the freeze haven't heard a thing. Think I'm hanging that hat up and going after a railroad job lol. Much better pay and much better benefits. Good luck to all!

[Anonymous User]

Anyone happen to know whether the budget that passed last week allocated enough to DOJ/USAOs that they'll be in a position to hire in 2017?

[Anonymous User]

Anyone happen to know whether the budget that passed last week allocated enough to DOJ/USAOs that they'll be in a position to hire in 2017?

Funding for USAOs will be flat for the year, but that's way less important than the process of picking new USAs. All offices during a transition have to have enough cash on hand to pay the new USA, USAs assistant, and so on. So the budget isn't the holdup, process of nominating USAs is, and I wouldn't bet on any movement in 2017.

[jess]

.

[mercymainbtw]

There are one-year SAUSA immigration positions if anyone is enticed by those!!

ooo ooo do they pay zero dollars?

[Anonymous User]

Anyone happen to know whether the budget that passed last week allocated enough to DOJ/USAOs that they'll be in a position to hire in 2017?

Funding for USAOs will be flat for the year, but that's way less important than the process of picking new USAs. All offices during a transition have to have enough cash on hand to pay the new USA, USAs assistant, and so on. So the budget isn't the holdup, process of nominating USAs is, and I wouldn't bet on any movement in 2017.

I disagree. Should be some movement late summer early fall (administration has spoken to the press and said as much) and at least in districts I have contacts, interviews have taken place (albeit less contentious districts).

[jess]

.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone happen to know whether the budget that passed last week allocated enough to DOJ/USAOs that they'll be in a position to hire in 2017?

Funding for USAOs will be flat for the year, but that's way less important than the process of picking new USAs. All offices during a transition have to have enough cash on hand to pay the new USA, USAs assistant, and so on. So the budget isn't the holdup, process of nominating USAs is, and I wouldn't bet on any movement in 2017.

I disagree. Should be some movement late summer early fall (administration has spoken to the press and said as much) and at least in districts I have contacts, interviews have taken place (albeit less contentious districts).

so are they just no longer posting on usajobs?

I am referring to movement on USAs, not AUSAs (which will obviously be office specific). At least two contacts at major offices told me they will continue hiring "by attrition" until a nomination is made, at which point hiring likely will stop until confirmation.

[Anonymous User]

Just wanted to add a data point for anyone waiting around. I applied for a job with a small independent agency in November and there was radio silence until March when I got an email that that position was not going to be filled at this time. The email didn't say anything specifically about the hiring freeze or budget issues, but it was easy enough to read between the lines. I got a call on May 1 and they said that they are able to fill the position now that the freeze was lifted and they have the budget to hire for the position. I'm interviewing soon!

[JakeTappers]

Anyone have any insight or forecast on where things stand? Haven't heard much on how the budget looks for agencies next year (USAO/DOJ in particular) and the DOJ website seems to have the scarcest listings since the last freeze.

[jess]

.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have any insight or forecast on where things stand? Haven't heard much on how the budget looks for agencies next year (USAO/DOJ in particular) and the DOJ website seems to have the scarcest listings since the last freeze.

Waiting for FY 2018. If the budget goes well, expect a flood of postings in Oct

DOJ Attorney here:

I saw this press release:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/departme ... et-request

then i saw this article on linkedin:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fy-2018- ... OqJQ%3D%3D

I'm assuming the linkedin article is true as the proposed budget has decreased funding by about 3%

[JakeTappers]

(answering my own question): Yea, in addition to the linkedin article, law360 has one stating that USAOs would gain 300 attorneys, 230 to violent crime and 70 to immigration cases. https://www.law360.com/whitecollar/arti ... hitecollar

My question is, how do you open up 230 openings detailed only to violent crime? Isn't that a bit amorphous, particularly given the structure of some offices which don't have a strictly violent crimes unit? And how do you ensure that those attorneys stay in that group once hired?

Also, seems like huge reductions to main justice. The least being CRM division by at 12% which still seems staggering for a law and order admin.

[Anonymous User]

You don't have to have a violent crime group for someone to focus on violent crime. You also can make sure they stay in that group by not giving them other kinds of cases. (If you mean that the office could hire someone to do violent crime and then give them other stuff - probably, depending on how the money is structured. DOJ does track how much time you spend per week in different practice areas so you report how much violent crime work you do a week, if any.)