AUSA/USAO hiring Forum

[Anonymous User]

Any updates on the timeline for USAO Superior Court Division hiring/interviews?

[pba2009]

I interviewed at a fairly large USAO, my interview with the USA was about 6 weeks ago. I was giving up hope because each round of interviews was pretty close together (a week or two apart). Last week, one of the people who wrote me a letter of recommendation received a reference call. I haven’t heard anything since, and the person who called for a reference said they were making a lot of reference calls. It’s been nearly a week since then and I haven’t heard anything. Just wondering if I should I have hope at this point or is this likely a rejection?

[Anonymous User]

PBA check your PMs.

[pba2009]

I can’t send you a PM reply for some reason, but thank you for the response! Good luck to you!

[Anonymous User]

It's common for your references to be called, even if an offer isn't ultimately made. In fact, some of the first and second round interviews have an explicit notice about that, i.e. don't quit your current job just because your references were called.

That said, I don't think the delay in a decision is fatal. Hang in there. Some USAOs are just very slow and methodical about their hiring decision.

[Anonymous User]

Superior Court Division (USAO-DC) has sent out rejections from the second round interviews. I received my rejection by mail today about a month after my interview.

Disappointing but I'll keep trying. ADA for several years in a mid-sized market with quite a bit of trial experience, but no biglaw/clerkship/law review.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have experience interviewing with the same office during different cycles--i.e. getting dinged after the first round one year and applying for a position the next? Does interviewing in the past help show a demonstrated interest, or is getting dinged before some kind of "red mark"? Any insight or experience on this is much appreciated!

I had a first round interview in '16, no second interview.
Applied at least twice to postings in same office since.
Just had a first round for position I applied for in March.
I'm not sure what to think. Initially I thought they must want me for this position since they know me from last time, but of course now I'm obsessing about every little thing I can recall from the interview.
(This office is pretty far from my current location)
I suppose you can conclude form this that there is hope that you will get another look. Good luck!

[Anonymous User]

Hey all,

Do offices generally look down upon applicants who are not admitted in the corresponding jurisdiction? I'm admitted in New York and am looking at AUSA positions all over the country, including those that don't have reciprocity agreements. Obviously being admitted in the local jurisdiction is not a requirement to practice, but wondering if AUSA offices have any sort of policy or predilection towards that situation.

Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

No, it’s almost never an issue. I’m not admitted in either jurisdiction where I’ve practiced, and the offices have been pretty much split between local admissions and admissions all over the country. CDCA does require you to get admitted in California at the next bar administration, but that’s the only district I know that has that requirement (I can’t say no others do but I think it’s uncommon).

[Anonymous User]

No, it’s almost never an issue. I’m not admitted in either jurisdiction where I’ve practiced, and the offices have been pretty much split between local admissions and admissions all over the country. CDCA does require you to get admitted in California at the next bar administration, but that’s the only district I know that has that requirement (I can’t say no others do but I think it’s uncommon).

Thank you so much for the reply!

[lavarman84]

No, it’s almost never an issue. I’m not admitted in either jurisdiction where I’ve practiced, and the offices have been pretty much split between local admissions and admissions all over the country. CDCA does require you to get admitted in California at the next bar administration, but that’s the only district I know that has that requirement (I can’t say no others do but I think it’s uncommon).

I heard South Carolina does too, but I haven't independently confirmed that.

[JOThompson]

Some of the West Virginia Districts also require admission to the state bar.

[morrissey]

No, it’s almost never an issue. I’m not admitted in either jurisdiction where I’ve practiced, and the offices have been pretty much split between local admissions and admissions all over the country. CDCA does require you to get admitted in California at the next bar administration, but that’s the only district I know that has that requirement (I can’t say no others do but I think it’s uncommon).

I heard South Carolina does too, but I haven't independently confirmed that.

Can confirm that DSC requires you to either be admitted or become admitted within 1 year. The District Court will only admit members of the SC Bar and does not make exceptions for AUSAs/FPDs like other districts do.

[Anonymous User]

I interviewed with a USAO (interviewed several around a including with the USA) over three months ago but never heard back. I still haven’t been officially rejected. The office just posted a new opening - is it worth applying again? I would like to but am worried it will appear desperate when nothing has changed in my application.

[Anonymous User]

I was in a similar position (waiting for a decision though from my second round, not rejected yet) and agonized over it. A few days after my second round interview, the office posted a new announcement for the same position, but with more available slots. Ultimately, I applied to the new opening. It can't hurt to show interest. If they don't want you after your first application cycle, then there isn't anything to lose.

[Anonymous User]

Just got invited to an interview from SDCA. Applied about 3 weeks ago.

Any advice as to what I should expect? I would be flying from NY, so is there any possibility I could do multiple rounds in one day? I know some local DA offices in NY accommodate out of town candidates like that. Best professional or personal quality to try to emphasize? Should I try to establish ties? I was born, raised, and stationed in San Diego, so it wouldn't be a problem.

Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

They normally do multiple rounds, but I don’t know that they’d make you fly across country twice (a friend got hired there recently and did a video interview before getting invited to the office, but I don’t know if two rounds are universally required. Also it was before their current USA was appointed so he may change things).

My friend did have to do a closing argument in their final round interview - they were given facts and I think about half an hour to prepare. Again, don’t know if they’ll still do that.

Keep in mind that overall the office has VERY high volume so they will probably be looking for someone eager to deal with that. And you will have to do your time in the reactive immigration crimes section before moving on to other work, so show enthusiasm about that as well. I think they also tend to be a bit more aggressive/gung-ho about going to trial than some offices, but that’s more a subjective opinion on my part.

[Anonymous User]

When I interviewed with USAO-DC, I did both first and second round interviews in the same day. I flew in from the west coast. Second round involved a 5-10 minute recorded opening statement, with 30 minutes of prep time. The panel critiqued me about it for at least 10 minutes and wanted me to justify my strategy. Don't leave any evidence out, even if you think it's borderline admissible, or they'll ask why you didn't refer to it in your opening. The tone was a turnoff ("why did you do that?" or "that was weird"), but I thought I did well overall. I had about a dozen jury trials by that time. The remainder of the panel interview was pleasant after that, so I think the opening and after action review are designed to induce stress.

As far as interview questions, they mainly wanted to see that 1) I wanted to live in the area 2) was interested in the types of cases they committed and 3) that I was willing/able to handle a heavy trial caseload in an antagonistic environment.

[Anonymous User]

Appreciate the answers! Does the AUSA's Office offer reimbursement for travel costs? Just wondering.

[Anonymous User]

No

[Anonymous User]

No

Ha. To expand. Highly unlikely any office would pay for your trip to interview. In fact. Unheard of. Keep in mind that it’s also unheard of for moving expenses being covered if you are offered the job and accept. Obviously that sucks if you’re traveling cross country for multiple interviews and such but this isn’t big law. If you want to be courted, USA’s Offices are not for you.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks. I wasn't expecting to be "courted," but I know some federal agencies do, in fact, reimburse traveling costs for employment interviews and/or examinations. It doesn't change my desire to be a AUSA, but it's obviously something any applicant would want to know. Appreciate the reply!

[Anonymous User]

When I interviewed with USAO-DC, I did both first and second round interviews in the same day. I flew in from the west coast. Second round involved a 5-10 minute recorded opening statement, with 30 minutes of prep time. The panel critiqued me about it for at least 10 minutes and wanted me to justify my strategy. Don't leave any evidence out, even if you think it's borderline admissible, or they'll ask why you didn't refer to it in your opening. The tone was a turnoff ("why did you do that?" or "that was weird"), but I thought I did well overall. I had about a dozen jury trials by that time. The remainder of the panel interview was pleasant after that, so I think the opening and after action review are designed to induce stress.

As far as interview questions, they mainly wanted to see that 1) I wanted to live in the area 2) was interested in the types of cases they committed and 3) that I was willing/able to handle a heavy trial caseload in an antagonistic environment.

Agree that if you're required to travel to interview the office will try to schedule your 1st and 2nd rounds on the same day (if you're close to DC it'll likely be split up into 3 interviews). Also agree with the general structure of the interview.

I slightly disagree with the above poster's approach with the opening. You'll be given 30 min to review a factually dense fact pattern with a few twists and turns. I left plenty of pieces of evidence out (a mixture of me not thinking it's admissible and me recognizing the limits of my memory) and while I was asked to justify my decision, as long as you have a good answer you'll be fine. I would NOT try to cram every piece of evidence in. If I tried to do it, I would have likely forgotten the evidence, made myself stressed and delivered a poorer oral performance, and may have had to look down at my notes.

Basically, no matter how you do or what you say, the responses you get from the interviewers will be adversarial, so don't feel compelled to use every piece of evidence. I feel like that might be a dangerous strategy since its better to deliver a crisper, shorter, but more polished opening than a kitchen sink approach if you stumble your way through it.

[Anonymous User]

You are right, I should have rephrased.

If you leave out some key evidence (such as a defendant's statements, which may have been pre-Miranda), have a good reason or justification for it. The way you respond under pressure is more important than the actual answer. I got the sense from my panel that if I was in doubt, that I should have mentioned it, even though I explained that I would have been concerned about a mistrial. Might have been unique to my fact pattern and panel though. I was always taught to be conservative in opening statements.

In my situation, I knew ahead of time why I didn't refer to evidence that probably would have violated theoretical motions in limine, but the panel didn't seem satisfied. Looking back on it, that was probably designed to rattle me. I think I handled it well, but hard to tell what the interviewers are actually thinking.

My impression is also that poise and confidence are more important than detail. If you have a well-delivered, cohesive opening that hits all the main points of evidence, with a clear theme, that is more important than a clumsily executed opening that is exhaustive in detail.

I was told after the interview that some people cry during the opening, or walk out of the room in anger, or just read off the fact pattern verbatim. Don't be one of those people.

Also, I didn't get a third round interview, so take what I say with that in mind. I've had a handful of interviews across the country at branch and rural offices, so I'm good enough on paper to get an interview, but perhaps not enough to get an offer.

[Anonymous User]

Very nice, thanks guys!!