BL --> DA --> AUSA Forum

[Anonymous User]

Why are AG offices not mentioned as possible stopping points on a path to AUSA?

What about BL to AG to USAO? What makes the BL to ADA to USAO route more common or more preferable?

It's probably more common because in my experience, there just are more ADAs. AG's offices (again, IME) have limited jurisdiction, so independently address primarily financial crimes, and otherwise they assist the DA's offices on complex/multi-jurisdictional stuff; lots of the AG's work has nothing to do with criminal law. Also you often need experience elsewhere before you're going to get to do criminal work in an AG's office - the people I know in AG's offices doing criminal stuff were all ADAs before they got there. I don't think ADA is necessarily preferable to the USAOs - I know former AG's office people working in USAOs - but AG is just less common because a harder path to follow.

Also my impression is that a lot of AG's jobs are desirable enough there's isn't a huge incentive to go to the USAO.

[girlinthecity]

Wow, this thread is very timely for me.

I want to work in government somehow, whether that is for the DA's office or as an AUSA. I am from NYC and ideally I would like to stay here but understand that everyone and their mother wants to work here ( ) and it's very competitive.

Is clerking for one year > Big Law > DA a viable path? Or is it seen as overkill? Will the people at the DA's office think I am not a serious candidate if I have clerked and worked in the private sector first? Essentially, I am highly committed to public service and it is 100% where I want to end up but I also want to have exit options should I wish to pursue the federal government later on. Truth be told, I only see Big Law as a "stepping stone" which could open up the possibility in the future of being an AUSA or possibly working for the SEC or similar. I would be eternally happy working as an ADA, but I like to have options and feel that Big Law and clerking--if I get it out of the way in the beginning of my career--would be good on a resume next to an ADA position for federal government.

Am I overthinking this?

[objctnyrhnr]

Along these lines, assuming no biglaw and if you’re going the ada route, how much does a year of fedclerk in target district bump your application? Does having fedclerked shoot you to the front of the pack of ada applicants...or is it not that big a deal from the ada path relative to say the biglaw path?

[girlinthecity]

I would like to know too.

[Anonymous User]

T10 who struck out (I was a transfer from a T2). Now interning at DA general trials unit in a large but secondary market. Hoping to hell I get an offer or an invitation to come back after this semester is over (aka graduation). Nobody here went to a school even close to a T10; oddly, I get the sense that this has been the source of some discomfort in the office. I was never a huge public interest person, but that is rapidly becoming my narrative so I can line myself up for a shot at the nearby USAO in this state. I'm also too bogged down with courses, MPRE, bar, other life obligations to be applying elsewhere (and I don't even know where to start in terms of places where my app wouldn't be tossed in garbage).

The one upside is I've been poor my whole life. So anything is a huge step up, even 50k.

[andythefir]

Along these lines, assuming no biglaw and if you’re going the ada route, how much does a year of fedclerk in target district bump your application? Does having fedclerked shoot you to the front of the pack of ada applicants...or is it not that big a deal from the ada path relative to say the biglaw path?

I've worked in 2 rural DAs offices, and where I've worked, being a fed clerk would make you very different from the rest of the office. Both offices were populated with khakis-and-cowboy-boots types who got ok grades at ok schools (not bad grades at bad schools, but ok grades from state schools). Getting good grades at a good school (top 10 at ND) actually hurt me because 1 the office assumed (correctly) I wouldn't be there very long, 2 there was some jealousy/resentment among the people who were used to being the smartest people there, and 3 they assumed (incorrectly) that I would be no good at trial because relatively few people from my school were trial attorneys. I'd imagine a fed clerk would see all of those things ratcheted up.

I have no idea how representative my experience is. It might be that more urban settings are less backwards, but the people I know who work in big city's prosecutors offices were true believers from day 1.

[objctnyrhnr]

Along these lines, assuming no biglaw and if you’re going the ada route, how much does a year of fedclerk in target district bump your application? Does having fedclerked shoot you to the front of the pack of ada applicants...or is it not that big a deal from the ada path relative to say the biglaw path?

I've worked in 2 rural DAs offices, and where I've worked, being a fed clerk would make you very different from the rest of the office. Both offices were populated with khakis-and-cowboy-boots types who got ok grades at ok schools (not bad grades at bad schools, but ok grades from state schools). Getting good grades at a good school (top 10 at ND) actually hurt me because 1 the office assumed (correctly) I wouldn't be there very long, 2 there was some jealousy/resentment among the people who were used to being the smartest people there, and 3 they assumed (incorrectly) that I would be no good at trial because relatively few people from my school were trial attorneys. I'd imagine a fed clerk would see all of those things ratcheted up.

I have no idea how representative my experience is. It might be that more urban settings are less backwards, but the people I know who work in big city's prosecutors offices were true believers from day 1.

So my question really pertained to AUSA applications.

If not with clerkships, how would usaos really even distinguish one superior court Ada from another for hiring purposes?

[Anonymous User]

Along these lines, assuming no biglaw and if you’re going the ada route, how much does a year of fedclerk in target district bump your application? Does having fedclerked shoot you to the front of the pack of ada applicants...or is it not that big a deal from the ada path relative to say the biglaw path?

I've worked in 2 rural DAs offices, and where I've worked, being a fed clerk would make you very different from the rest of the office. Both offices were populated with khakis-and-cowboy-boots types who got ok grades at ok schools (not bad grades at bad schools, but ok grades from state schools). Getting good grades at a good school (top 10 at ND) actually hurt me because 1 the office assumed (correctly) I wouldn't be there very long, 2 there was some jealousy/resentment among the people who were used to being the smartest people there, and 3 they assumed (incorrectly) that I would be no good at trial because relatively few people from my school were trial attorneys. I'd imagine a fed clerk would see all of those things ratcheted up.

I have no idea how representative my experience is. It might be that more urban settings are less backwards, but the people I know who work in big city's prosecutors offices were true believers from day 1.

So my question really pertained to AUSA applications.

If not with clerkships, how would usaos really even distinguish one superior court Ada from another for hiring purposes?

I think a federal clerkship is damn near a necessity in many offices. For ADAs, however, I think it is less a requirement because I think the big factor driving their applications is relevant trial or investigation experience.

I think all things being equal (meaning two ADAs with similar trial experience), the ADA with a federal clerkship in the target district will have a competitive advantage because that ADA will understand how the actual federal court in that district operates. That ADA will also have experience with federal motion practice. In fact, I think that ADA will likely have an advantage over many biglaw associates because that ADA will be seen as just as smart as biglaw associates, with understanding of federal court practice, and more practical trial experience.

The caveat is that ultimate hiring decisions are often driven by the idiosyncrasies of the U.S. Attorney. If the U.S. Attorney only values biglaw experience, then you're SOL. So there's that.

[objctnyrhnr]

Along these lines, assuming no biglaw and if you’re going the ada route, how much does a year of fedclerk in target district bump your application? Does having fedclerked shoot you to the front of the pack of ada applicants...or is it not that big a deal from the ada path relative to say the biglaw path?

I've worked in 2 rural DAs offices, and where I've worked, being a fed clerk would make you very different from the rest of the office. Both offices were populated with khakis-and-cowboy-boots types who got ok grades at ok schools (not bad grades at bad schools, but ok grades from state schools). Getting good grades at a good school (top 10 at ND) actually hurt me because 1 the office assumed (correctly) I wouldn't be there very long, 2 there was some jealousy/resentment among the people who were used to being the smartest people there, and 3 they assumed (incorrectly) that I would be no good at trial because relatively few people from my school were trial attorneys. I'd imagine a fed clerk would see all of those things ratcheted up.

I have no idea how representative my experience is. It might be that more urban settings are less backwards, but the people I know who work in big city's prosecutors offices were true believers from day 1.

So my question really pertained to AUSA applications.

If not with clerkships, how would usaos really even distinguish one superior court Ada from another for hiring purposes?

I think a federal clerkship is damn near a necessity in many offices. For ADAs, however, I think it is less a requirement because I think the big factor driving their applications is relevant trial or investigation experience.

I think all things being equal (meaning two ADAs with similar trial experience), the ADA with a federal clerkship in the target district will have a competitive advantage because that ADA will understand how the actual federal court in that district operates. That ADA will also have experience with federal motion practice. In fact, I think that ADA will likely have an advantage over many biglaw associates because that ADA will be seen as just as smart as biglaw associates, with understanding of federal court practice, and more practical trial experience.

The caveat is that ultimate hiring decisions are often driven by the idiosyncrasies of the U.S. Attorney. If the U.S. Attorney only values biglaw experience, then you're SOL. So there's that.

I really appreciated this post. Are there really usaos that won’t even look at adas with no biglaw (even adas with clerkships)? That just seems so weird to me. Any idea of what offices these are?

[gaddockteeg]

Along these lines, assuming no biglaw and if you’re going the ada route, how much does a year of fedclerk in target district bump your application? Does having fedclerked shoot you to the front of the pack of ada applicants...or is it not that big a deal from the ada path relative to say the biglaw path?

I've worked in 2 rural DAs offices, and where I've worked, being a fed clerk would make you very different from the rest of the office. Both offices were populated with khakis-and-cowboy-boots types who got ok grades at ok schools (not bad grades at bad schools, but ok grades from state schools). Getting good grades at a good school (top 10 at ND) actually hurt me because 1 the office assumed (correctly) I wouldn't be there very long, 2 there was some jealousy/resentment among the people who were used to being the smartest people there, and 3 they assumed (incorrectly) that I would be no good at trial because relatively few people from my school were trial attorneys. I'd imagine a fed clerk would see all of those things ratcheted up.

I have no idea how representative my experience is. It might be that more urban settings are less backwards, but the people I know who work in big city's prosecutors offices were true believers from day 1.

So my question really pertained to AUSA applications.

If not with clerkships, how would usaos really even distinguish one superior court Ada from another for hiring purposes?

I think a federal clerkship is damn near a necessity in many offices. For ADAs, however, I think it is less a requirement because I think the big factor driving their applications is relevant trial or investigation experience.

I think all things being equal (meaning two ADAs with similar trial experience), the ADA with a federal clerkship in the target district will have a competitive advantage because that ADA will understand how the actual federal court in that district operates. That ADA will also have experience with federal motion practice. In fact, I think that ADA will likely have an advantage over many biglaw associates because that ADA will be seen as just as smart as biglaw associates, with understanding of federal court practice, and more practical trial experience.

The caveat is that ultimate hiring decisions are often driven by the idiosyncrasies of the U.S. Attorney. If the U.S. Attorney only values biglaw experience, then you're SOL. So there's that.

I really appreciated this post. Are there really usaos that won’t even look at adas with no biglaw (even adas with clerkships)? That just seems so weird to me. Any idea of what offices these are?

How much say does the US attorney personally have? I was under the assumption that it was a hiring committee and the USA really just throws out a veto now and then.

Asking bc a partner I used to work for was recently appointed and he likes me a lot.

[Anonymous User]

Along these lines, assuming no biglaw and if you’re going the ada route, how much does a year of fedclerk in target district bump your application? Does having fedclerked shoot you to the front of the pack of ada applicants...or is it not that big a deal from the ada path relative to say the biglaw path?

I've worked in 2 rural DAs offices, and where I've worked, being a fed clerk would make you very different from the rest of the office. Both offices were populated with khakis-and-cowboy-boots types who got ok grades at ok schools (not bad grades at bad schools, but ok grades from state schools). Getting good grades at a good school (top 10 at ND) actually hurt me because 1 the office assumed (correctly) I wouldn't be there very long, 2 there was some jealousy/resentment among the people who were used to being the smartest people there, and 3 they assumed (incorrectly) that I would be no good at trial because relatively few people from my school were trial attorneys. I'd imagine a fed clerk would see all of those things ratcheted up.

I have no idea how representative my experience is. It might be that more urban settings are less backwards, but the people I know who work in big city's prosecutors offices were true believers from day 1.

So my question really pertained to AUSA applications.

If not with clerkships, how would usaos really even distinguish one superior court Ada from another for hiring purposes?

I think a federal clerkship is damn near a necessity in many offices. For ADAs, however, I think it is less a requirement because I think the big factor driving their applications is relevant trial or investigation experience.

I think all things being equal (meaning two ADAs with similar trial experience), the ADA with a federal clerkship in the target district will have a competitive advantage because that ADA will understand how the actual federal court in that district operates. That ADA will also have experience with federal motion practice. In fact, I think that ADA will likely have an advantage over many biglaw associates because that ADA will be seen as just as smart as biglaw associates, with understanding of federal court practice, and more practical trial experience.

The caveat is that ultimate hiring decisions are often driven by the idiosyncrasies of the U.S. Attorney. If the U.S. Attorney only values biglaw experience, then you're SOL. So there's that.

I really appreciated this post. Are there really usaos that won’t even look at adas with no biglaw (even adas with clerkships)? That just seems so weird to me. Any idea of what offices these are?

How much say does the US attorney personally have? I was under the assumption that it was a hiring committee and the USA really just throws out a veto now and then.

Asking bc a partner I used to work for was recently appointed and he likes me a lot.

I don't know. In my office, the U.S. Attorney specifies criteria that he wants in candidates. Then a couple rounds of interviews are conducted. The best are recommended to the U.S. Attorney and then he'll give the final ok.

My point was that if the U.S attorney says, hey, I want guys who have litigation experience in a firm, then that's what the office is gonna to get. If folks recommend someone with no firm experience, then he's gonna tell them to go back to the drawing board.

[gaddockteeg]

Along these lines, assuming no biglaw and if you’re going the ada route, how much does a year of fedclerk in target district bump your application? Does having fedclerked shoot you to the front of the pack of ada applicants...or is it not that big a deal from the ada path relative to say the biglaw path?

I've worked in 2 rural DAs offices, and where I've worked, being a fed clerk would make you very different from the rest of the office. Both offices were populated with khakis-and-cowboy-boots types who got ok grades at ok schools (not bad grades at bad schools, but ok grades from state schools). Getting good grades at a good school (top 10 at ND) actually hurt me because 1 the office assumed (correctly) I wouldn't be there very long, 2 there was some jealousy/resentment among the people who were used to being the smartest people there, and 3 they assumed (incorrectly) that I would be no good at trial because relatively few people from my school were trial attorneys. I'd imagine a fed clerk would see all of those things ratcheted up.

I have no idea how representative my experience is. It might be that more urban settings are less backwards, but the people I know who work in big city's prosecutors offices were true believers from day 1.

So my question really pertained to AUSA applications.

If not with clerkships, how would usaos really even distinguish one superior court Ada from another for hiring purposes?

I think a federal clerkship is damn near a necessity in many offices. For ADAs, however, I think it is less a requirement because I think the big factor driving their applications is relevant trial or investigation experience.

I think all things being equal (meaning two ADAs with similar trial experience), the ADA with a federal clerkship in the target district will have a competitive advantage because that ADA will understand how the actual federal court in that district operates. That ADA will also have experience with federal motion practice. In fact, I think that ADA will likely have an advantage over many biglaw associates because that ADA will be seen as just as smart as biglaw associates, with understanding of federal court practice, and more practical trial experience.

The caveat is that ultimate hiring decisions are often driven by the idiosyncrasies of the U.S. Attorney. If the U.S. Attorney only values biglaw experience, then you're SOL. So there's that.

I really appreciated this post. Are there really usaos that won’t even look at adas with no biglaw (even adas with clerkships)? That just seems so weird to me. Any idea of what offices these are?

How much say does the US attorney personally have? I was under the assumption that it was a hiring committee and the USA really just throws out a veto now and then.

Asking bc a partner I used to work for was recently appointed and he likes me a lot.

I don't know. In my office, the U.S. Attorney specifies criteria that he wants in candidates. Then a couple rounds of interviews are conducted. The best are recommended to the U.S. Attorney and then he'll give the final ok.

My point was that if the U.S attorney says, hey, I want guys who have litigation experience in a firm, then that's what the office is gonna to get. If folks recommend someone with no firm experience, then he's gonna tell them to go back to the drawing board.

ah got it. thanks for clearing that up.

[Anonymous User]

OP -- CAREER UPDATE:

I ended up not getting the DA job. However, I recently landed a clerkship in the midwest (not Chicago) beginning this fall, for one term.

Will this increase my chances with my home market's DA? I got the impression that they liked me, but were convinced I only know doc review.

I would be coming back as an in-coming 4th year -- would I be competitive for AUSA (home town is non-nyc major market)?

[Anonymous User]

OP -- CAREER UPDATE:

I ended up not getting the DA job. However, I recently landed a clerkship in the midwest (not Chicago) beginning this fall, for one term.

Will this increase my chances with my home market's DA? I got the impression that they liked me, but were convinced I only know doc review.

I would be coming back as an in-coming 4th year -- would I be competitive for AUSA (home town is non-nyc major market)?

Also posted as anon several times in this thread. Mid level ada plus fedclerk getting interviewed by target competitive district. No BL.