AUSA Post-Clerkship Forum

[Anonymous User]

I’m starting my COA clerkship this fall. I clerked for two years on a federal district court in the Midwest, so by the time I finish clerking, I’ll be three years out of school.

I want to be a criminal AUSA (I could also get into affirmative civil work), and I am not thrilled about grinding to get BL if my heart is dead set on jumping ship at the first opportunity to be an AUSA. I’m totally agnostic on location, but there aren’t any openings where I clerked. I’m applying for DOJ Honors, but I am trying to figure out my options if that doesn’t pan out.

Is there any chance of me landing one of these positions with only three years of clerking under my belt? Or am I being unrealistic?

[Anonymous User]

I’m starting my COA clerkship this fall. I clerked for two years on a federal district court in the Midwest, so by the time I finish clerking, I’ll be three years out of school.

I want to be a criminal AUSA (I could also get into affirmative civil work), and I am not thrilled about grinding to get BL if my heart is dead set on jumping ship at the first opportunity to be an AUSA. I’m totally agnostic on location, but there aren’t any openings where I clerked. I’m applying for DOJ Honors, but I am trying to figure out my options if that doesn’t pan out.

Is there any chance of me landing one of these positions with only three years of clerking under my belt? Or am I being unrealistic?

If you don’t receive an honors position, you probably are being unrealistic. I’m not saying there’s not a chance, but honors is your best shot here. Secondary to that is applying to USAO-DC because of their superior court commitment. There you’d be doing the work that a typical DA would be doing (starting in misdemeanors then moving up).

[Anonymous User]

I’m starting my COA clerkship this fall. I clerked for two years on a federal district court in the Midwest, so by the time I finish clerking, I’ll be three years out of school.

I want to be a criminal AUSA (I could also get into affirmative civil work), and I am not thrilled about grinding to get BL if my heart is dead set on jumping ship at the first opportunity to be an AUSA. I’m totally agnostic on location, but there aren’t any openings where I clerked. I’m applying for DOJ Honors, but I am trying to figure out my options if that doesn’t pan out.

Is there any chance of me landing one of these positions with only three years of clerking under my belt? Or am I being unrealistic?

If you don’t receive an honors position, you probably are being unrealistic. I’m not saying there’s not a chance, but honors is your best shot here. Secondary to that is applying to USAO-DC because of their superior court commitment. There you’d be doing the work that a typical DA would be doing (starting in misdemeanors then moving up).

Ok. What am I supposed to look for to bridge the gap between a clerkship and an AUSA position? It seems like working in BL is miserable and won’t give me any practical skills/demonstrate my commitment to public service.

[Anonymous User]

State prosecution is the obvious alternative.

[Anonymous User]

State prosecution is the obvious alternative.

That’s where I’m leaning. Besides leaving money on the table, I am not sure what downside there would be to state prosecution work over BL with my goals.

[Anonymous User]

One perspective: I went DC->COA-USAO in a major market. (Well, second tier: not NY/DC/LA/Chicago). I got grilled a little bit on "why would we hire you when we can get an ADA with 1,000 felony trials." On the other hand, the more appellate-oriented people were interested in me and were constantly asking me for COA contacts that they could try to hire. Both of my judges were former AUSAs who pushed me as well.

My takeways are: a larger office is more likely to be willing to spend a billet on you, knowing they will have to train you up to be a trial lawyer. Also helps if your judges are connected in the office.

[Anonymous User]

One perspective: I went DC->COA-USAO in a major market. (Well, second tier: not NY/DC/LA/Chicago). I got grilled a little bit on "why would we hire you when we can get an ADA with 1,000 felony trials." On the other hand, the more appellate-oriented people were interested in me and were constantly asking me for COA contacts that they could try to hire. Both of my judges were former AUSAs who pushed me as well.

My takeways are: a larger office is more likely to be willing to spend a billet on you, knowing they will have to train you up to be a trial lawyer. Also helps if your judges are connected in the office.

Thank you for that insight. That sounds like my dream scenario. The judges that I clerked for aren’t former AUSAs, but I think one has some connections in the place where I will clerk. Otherwise, it sounds like secondary markets might be more interested in someone with my background. Did you approach your judges early in your clerkships about your interest in the USAO, which I assume is where you clerked?

[Anonymous User]

State prosecution is the obvious alternative.

That’s where I’m leaning. Besides leaving money on the table, I am not sure what downside there would be to state prosecution work over BL with my goals.

You certainly have a shot through Honors, especially if you're willing to go anywhere, but there are just so many applicants, you can't guarantee a position that way.

I agree that if you don't get into an USAO through Honors, it will be tough to get an entry-level position without any practice experience. Clerking does count as experience for the purpose of application requirements, so you could apply to openings that require 3 years or less experience and might get a bite in a high-volume border district, but again, not guaranteed.

It can also be hard to time your applications to non-honors positions, coming out of a clerkship. Many offices only accept applications when they have a specific opening, rather than accepting rolling applications, so if an office posts a job in October of your COA, it's unlikely that they'll be willing to hire you and wait for you to finish your COA. Even with offices that take rolling applications, you can submit any time you like, but can't control when they'll act on the application.

Also, if a posting says 3 years' experience required, it will literally have to have been at least 3 years from the first day of your first clerkship for your application even to be reviewed - there's no wiggle room. Most positions I see require 3 years, although some only require one, and very very occasionally they don't specify.

Since you're location agnostic and really don't want to do BL even for a few years, I agree that state prosecution is the best option. It will get you valuable trial experience, and three years of federal clerkships should assuage any concerns about your writing/research ability (one concern that USAOs have about people coming out of state prosecution).

The major benefit to doing BL is that some USAs really want to see that traditional fancy pedigree; there are offices that have a culture of hiring out of BL and training you in criminal/trial work from the ground up. But there are other USAs/offices that like to hire someone who's able to hit the ground running, in terms of working up cases and handling trials, whose overall qualifications suggest they'll be able to transition from state to federal practice relatively smoothly. So if you can cast a wide enough net, state prosecution will be a good background.

USAOs also sometimes get funding for positions designated for specific practices - gun/violent crime, opioid drug crime, health care fraud (for instance related to drug diversion), etc - and anecdotally, the people I've seen hired for those more "specialized" jobs tend to have previous prosecution experience in that area. (I put "specialized" in quotes because depending on office needs, those AUSAs often do other kinds of cases as well, but they will have a niche.)

I think the two downsides to state prosecution over BL are 1) significantly lower pay (with a few exceptions - California state prosecution usually pays really well, though not BL well, but can be hard to break into) and 2) anecdotally, I think USAOs tend to want to see more years of experience from state prosecutors than from BL associates. In part that's because they want to see that a state prosecutor has worked their way up to more complex prosecutions/investigations and to felony trials, whereas the BL associate is going to have to learn all that mostly from scratch; it may be, too, that it's harder to poach BL associates the more senior they get and the bigger the paycut they're going to take. But how much state experience you need to make the jump will depend on where you work, which USAO you apply to, and what experience you get and what connections you make.

You being location agnostic matters - I think with 2 federal clerkships and good state prosecution experience, you will have a good shot at an AUSA gig if you're willing to move around the country. If you were targeting only a couple of offices, I'd advise you to find out as much as you can about the culture of the office and whether it's a place that strongly favors BL experience before you decide on a post-clerkship path. That can change depending on the USA, too, of course, although some offices have a lot of cultural inertia.

If you want to get your foot in the door as quickly as possible, I do suggest considering the high-volume border districts. They're usually large offices, they tend to have more turnover, some hire a lot of state prosecutors, and it is possible to move from those offices to other USAOs in more desirable locations after a few years . Are you going to go from the Las Cruces office in New Mexico to SDNY? Probably not, but you don't need to stay in NM forever either (no disrespect meant to NM or Las Cruces). You have to be willing to do a lot of criminal immigration cases, which not everyone is, and culture/conditions can vary, especially depending on the country's current immigration policy, so they're not for everyone. But they can be a good starting point.

(Also. re coming out of a clerkship and getting grilled about "why you and not an ADA with 1000 felony trials" - I think that's relatively typical interview grilling. If you were an ADA with 1000 felony trials, you could just as easily get asked "why you and not someone we can train from the ground up and avoid any bad habits you've developed.")

[Anonymous User]

SDNY hires folks with two clerkships and no firm/prosecutorial experience, so I wouldn't count that out.

The Manhattan DA's office has strong prestige, at least on par with, if not more than, that of flyover USAOs, so I would consider that too.

Have you considered some State AGs offices? I would just caution that some, like New York's, have limited jurisdiction as far as crim cases

[Anonymous User]

State prosecution is the obvious alternative.

That’s where I’m leaning. Besides leaving money on the table, I am not sure what downside there would be to state prosecution work over BL with my goals.

You certainly have a shot through Honors, especially if you're willing to go anywhere, but there are just so many applicants, you can't guarantee a position that way.

I agree that if you don't get into an USAO through Honors, it will be tough to get an entry-level position without any practice experience. Clerking does count as experience for the purpose of application requirements, so you could apply to openings that require 3 years or less experience and might get a bite in a high-volume border district, but again, not guaranteed.

It can also be hard to time your applications to non-honors positions, coming out of a clerkship. Many offices only accept applications when they have a specific opening, rather than accepting rolling applications, so if an office posts a job in October of your COA, it's unlikely that they'll be willing to hire you and wait for you to finish your COA. Even with offices that take rolling applications, you can submit any time you like, but can't control when they'll act on the application.

Also, if a posting says 3 years' experience required, it will literally have to have been at least 3 years from the first day of your first clerkship for your application even to be reviewed - there's no wiggle room. Most positions I see require 3 years, although some only require one, and very very occasionally they don't specify.

Since you're location agnostic and really don't want to do BL even for a few years, I agree that state prosecution is the best option. It will get you valuable trial experience, and three years of federal clerkships should assuage any concerns about your writing/research ability (one concern that USAOs have about people coming out of state prosecution).

The major benefit to doing BL is that some USAs really want to see that traditional fancy pedigree; there are offices that have a culture of hiring out of BL and training you in criminal/trial work from the ground up. But there are other USAs/offices that like to hire someone who's able to hit the ground running, in terms of working up cases and handling trials, whose overall qualifications suggest they'll be able to transition from state to federal practice relatively smoothly. So if you can cast a wide enough net, state prosecution will be a good background.

USAOs also sometimes get funding for positions designated for specific practices - gun/violent crime, opioid drug crime, health care fraud (for instance related to drug diversion), etc - and anecdotally, the people I've seen hired for those more "specialized" jobs tend to have previous prosecution experience in that area. (I put "specialized" in quotes because depending on office needs, those AUSAs often do other kinds of cases as well, but they will have a niche.)

I think the two downsides to state prosecution over BL are 1) significantly lower pay (with a few exceptions - California state prosecution usually pays really well, though not BL well, but can be hard to break into) and 2) anecdotally, I think USAOs tend to want to see more years of experience from state prosecutors than from BL associates. In part that's because they want to see that a state prosecutor has worked their way up to more complex prosecutions/investigations and to felony trials, whereas the BL associate is going to have to learn all that mostly from scratch; it may be, too, that it's harder to poach BL associates the more senior they get and the bigger the paycut they're going to take. But how much state experience you need to make the jump will depend on where you work, which USAO you apply to, and what experience you get and what connections you make.

You being location agnostic matters - I think with 2 federal clerkships and good state prosecution experience, you will have a good shot at an AUSA gig if you're willing to move around the country. If you were targeting only a couple of offices, I'd advise you to find out as much as you can about the culture of the office and whether it's a place that strongly favors BL experience before you decide on a post-clerkship path. That can change depending on the USA, too, of course, although some offices have a lot of cultural inertia.

If you want to get your foot in the door as quickly as possible, I do suggest considering the high-volume border districts. They're usually large offices, they tend to have more turnover, some hire a lot of state prosecutors, and it is possible to move from those offices to other USAOs in more desirable locations after a few years . Are you going to go from the Las Cruces office in New Mexico to SDNY? Probably not, but you don't need to stay in NM forever either (no disrespect meant to NM or Las Cruces). You have to be willing to do a lot of criminal immigration cases, which not everyone is, and culture/conditions can vary, especially depending on the country's current immigration policy, so they're not for everyone. But they can be a good starting point.

(Also. re coming out of a clerkship and getting grilled about "why you and not an ADA with 1000 felony trials" - I think that's relatively typical interview grilling. If you were an ADA with 1000 felony trials, you could just as easily get asked "why you and not someone we can train from the ground up and avoid any bad habits you've developed.")

Thank you, that’s an incredibly detailed answer. What state prosecution experience is most helpful—DA? State AG’s office? It sounds like a state AAG might have more complex/investigatory experience, although it’s fairly specialized.

I have connections to a border district because my family lives in the same state nearby. I’ll keep my eye out and shoot some applications to them. It would be ideal to get that slot, even though it’s not in the same city, because I wouldn’t mind being close to them.

[Anonymous User]

A big state's AG is the way to go. Cases are more complex, more interesting, and more similar to what a criminal ausa is going to work on.

However, if it were me, I'd go to big law and collect the clerkship bonus and then start looking for jobs at a usao or state AG about 6 months in. Take your time looking for the right role and just coast at work. Turn down work freely but do a great job on the few assignments that you do keep and your repuation will stay intact.

You'll be working 10-5, 1 late night every 2 weeks, 1 weekend day per 2 weeks, and making big law money. You'll never make partner because your hours will be lower and you'll get pushed out when youre more senior but you can do this for years while you plot your next move.

[Anonymous User]

Thank you, that’s an incredibly detailed answer. What state prosecution experience is most helpful—DA? State AG’s office? It sounds like a state AAG might have more complex/investigatory experience, although it’s fairly specialized.

I have connections to a border district because my family lives in the same state nearby. I’ll keep my eye out and shoot some applications to them. It would be ideal to get that slot, even though it’s not in the same city, because I wouldn’t mind being close to them.

I think DA vs state AG depends in part on what the AG’s office actually handles (this can vary - for instance in my current state, the AG’s office handles all the homicides; in my law school state, they handled all state criminal appeals; but I don’t think those things are universal). I’ve seen people get hired out of both, and the main factor is what kind of work you’ve done. Specialization at the AG’s office is fine as long as it’s transferable (so for instance complex drug investigations, health care fraud, complex tax cases, that kind of thing. Consumer protection and theft isn’t quite as relevant. But really if you do trials and investigations that’s more important).

In a vacuum I’d probably lean state AG’s office because they often do handle more complex cases and more proactive investigations, but ask around of people who know the local landscape.

The other wrinkle is that the more complex/specialized the work that the AG’s office handles, the more likely it is that they’ll want you to have some prior criminal experience before hiring you too. Purely anecdotally, I think you’d be more likely to get hired out of a clerkship into the civil side of an AG’s office, than into the criminal side.

But this will absolutely vary by jurisdiction so I would just explore all the possibilities.

[Anonymous User]

Thank you, that’s an incredibly detailed answer. What state prosecution experience is most helpful—DA? State AG’s office? It sounds like a state AAG might have more complex/investigatory experience, although it’s fairly specialized.

I have connections to a border district because my family lives in the same state nearby. I’ll keep my eye out and shoot some applications to them. It would be ideal to get that slot, even though it’s not in the same city, because I wouldn’t mind being close to them.

I think DA vs state AG depends in part on what the AG’s office actually handles (this can vary - for instance in my current state, the AG’s office handles all the homicides; in my law school state, they handled all state criminal appeals; but I don’t think those things are universal). I’ve seen people get hired out of both, and the main factor is what kind of work you’ve done. Specialization at the AG’s office is fine as long as it’s transferable (so for instance complex drug investigations, health care fraud, complex tax cases, that kind of thing. Consumer protection and theft isn’t quite as relevant. But really if you do trials and investigations that’s more important).

In a vacuum I’d probably lean state AG’s office because they often do handle more complex cases and more proactive investigations, but ask around of people who know the local landscape.

The other wrinkle is that the more complex/specialized the work that the AG’s office handles, the more likely it is that they’ll want you to have some prior criminal experience before hiring you too. Purely anecdotally, I think you’d be more likely to get hired out of a clerkship into the civil side of an AG’s office, than into the criminal side.

But this will absolutely vary by jurisdiction so I would just explore all the possibilities.

Good to know. Should I be trying to network into an AG’s office if it’s in a state I’m not from/not connected to? Is it common for these places to see applications from clerks? There are some states that I’d prefer to go to over others, so I’m trying to gauge how I can get my foot in the door at those states post-clerkship.

[andythefir]

A lot of this knowledge is out of date. USAOs are getting 10% of the applications they used to get. If the stars don’t align right away in one office, they will soon with another.

[Anonymous User]

A lot of this knowledge is out of date. USAOs are getting 10% of the applications they used to get. If the stars don’t align right away in one office, they will soon with another.

What are you even talking about? Would love a source on this one.

[andythefir]

Source is someone who served on a CDCA hiring panel I spoke to today.

[Anonymous User]

A lot of this knowledge is out of date. USAOs are getting 10% of the applications they used to get. If the stars don’t align right away in one office, they will soon with another.

OP here. I’ve heard the opposite from folks involved in hiring in the district I’m clerking in. But if you’re right, that is welcome news.

[Anonymous User]

A lot of this knowledge is out of date. USAOs are getting 10% of the applications they used to get. If the stars don’t align right away in one office, they will soon with another.

Which knowledge? I'm one of the people who answered and I'm a current AUSA so I'm curious what you think I got wrong. I'm not in CDCA obviously, but also, there's a ton of variation around the country. (Probably the most glaring difference between CDCA and my district is that where I am, the salary is excellent given the COL and local employment opportunities, while I'm sure in CDCA that's not so much the case.)

[Anonymous User]

A lot of this knowledge is out of date. USAOs are getting 10% of the applications they used to get. If the stars don’t align right away in one office, they will soon with another.

Which knowledge? I'm one of the people who answered and I'm a current AUSA so I'm curious what you think I got wrong. I'm not in CDCA obviously, but also, there's a ton of variation around the country. (Probably the most glaring difference between CDCA and my district is that where I am, the salary is excellent given the COL and local employment opportunities, while I'm sure in CDCA that's not so much the case.)

At least for Honors Program applications to my division, those have gone up significantly in the last two years.

[Anonymous User]

A lot of this knowledge is out of date. USAOs are getting 10% of the applications they used to get. If the stars don’t align right away in one office, they will soon with another.

This is not true for most districts.

[Anonymous User]

I've heard similarly that AUSAs are getting fewer applicants than they have in the past and that hiring has gotten less competitive post-COVID/George Floyd from several sources. I've similarly heard that the value and necessity of a federal clerkship has decreased, too.

I wanted to point out the New York City Special Narcotics Prosecutor's Office. They do very large-scale drug trafficking and gang cases and have city-wide jurisdiction. While it's technically a separate office, most of the ADAs are technically leant from the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

[Anonymous User]

Additional question: would regional BL help my resume if I want to target USAOs in the state/region I am in? The firm is well-respected in the city/state (a few current SSC justices), it is in federal court a fair bit, and it provides good standup experience.

My only assumption is that it won’t catch the same eyes that a larger firm would. I just liked the people and the work, so I am considering going back (I was an SA there). But with my eye on an AUSA slot, I’m wondering what will help my chances in the future.

The firm is holding a slot for me until I finish clerking. I have to let the firm know around the time I would interview with other, traditional BL firms. I went to a low-ranked, local school.

[Anonymous User]

Additional question: would regional BL help my resume if I want to target USAOs in the state/region I am in? The firm is well-respected in the city/state (a few current SSC justices), it is in federal court a fair bit, and it provides good standup experience.

My only assumption is that it won’t catch the same eyes that a larger firm would. I just liked the people and the work, so I am considering going back (I was an SA there). But with my eye on an AUSA slot, I’m wondering what will help my chances in the future.

The firm is holding a slot for me until I finish clerking. I have to let the firm know around the time I would interview with other, traditional BL firms. I went to a low-ranked, local school.

is this Belin McCormick? Just guessing because I think it's quite possibly the only firm in the country with "a few current SSC justices"... If so, yes, that's going to be better than biglaw for USAOs in Iowa. Even if my guess is wrong I think that probably generalizes for non-major markets--local ties matter a lot and top regional firms usually have at least as much local prestige as out-of-state biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

Additional question: would regional BL help my resume if I want to target USAOs in the state/region I am in? The firm is well-respected in the city/state (a few current SSC justices), it is in federal court a fair bit, and it provides good standup experience.

My only assumption is that it won’t catch the same eyes that a larger firm would. I just liked the people and the work, so I am considering going back (I was an SA there). But with my eye on an AUSA slot, I’m wondering what will help my chances in the future.

The firm is holding a slot for me until I finish clerking. I have to let the firm know around the time I would interview with other, traditional BL firms. I went to a low-ranked, local school.

is this Belin McCormick? Just guessing because I think it's quite possibly the only firm in the country with "a few current SSC justices"... If so, yes, that's going to be better than biglaw for USAOs in Iowa. Even if my guess is wrong I think that probably generalizes for non-major markets--local ties matter a lot and top regional firms usually have at least as much local prestige as out-of-state biglaw.

What if I were applying to neighboring districts outside of Des Moines/Iowa, such as Minnesota or Nebraska? I would like to cast a wide net.

[Anonymous User]

What if I were applying to neighboring districts outside of Des Moines/Iowa, such as Minnesota or Nebraska? I would like to cast a wide net.

Without intending to sound naive, I think the quality of your experience and what you can show you’ve done is as important as the name of the firm. I agree with the poster above that a locally respected firm is completely fine. Chances are decent that if this firm is as well respected in IA as it sounds, MN and Nebraska will be able to figure that out (I have no experience in the Midwest so can’t comment further).

What each office is going to look for/prioritize really depends on the office. Some USAs (especially if they come out of a traditional fancy BL background) like to see people with national schools/firms on their resumes. Some will know and value the good local firms. Some will want to hire people with lots of criminal trial experience. Some will hire almost entirely through connections.

If you can LinkedIn or otherwise stalk the offices online and see what backgrounds people have, that will give you some idea of what they’ll be receptive to. It’s hard to say much more in a vacuum about whether moving to more national biglaw is worth it.

For instance based on my experience and the offices where I’ve worked, I’d say a local firm with the opportunity to be in federal court, get stand up experience, and luminaries who can vouch for your work and work ethic is more valuable than a big name firm where you’re one of many, you churn out discrete assignments on a bunch of matters without ownership over any, and get little courtroom time. But of course there are a wide range of potential BL experiences so it’s difficult to compare these things.

I will say that where I’ve worked, no one has really cared much about which specific BL firm you’ve worked for unless it is local. We have a couple of people from the same local office of BL, but that firm has a lot of former AUSAs, a few of the local judges feed their clerks to that firm, and people who want to go to a USAO are likely to pick that firm. So it’s not that it’s national BL, but that specific firm’s characteristics. We have some people from other not-local BL and they got hired because of their qualifications including having BL experience, speaking generically, not because of the names of their firms. But my experience is also in markets with limited BL presence (I think probably comparable to Nebraska and Iowa, maybe a little bit less for MN).

This is a long way of saying I think the firm where you were a SA would be a good background but I can’t guarantee that. Also, at a certain point making every decision to optimize your shot at some hypothetical future job becomes exhausting and not worth it and you have to decide based on what works for you right now.