Why is AUSA experience necessary for a white collar crime partner? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I always heard the rule that you can never be a rainmaker/have your own practice doing investigations/white collar work at a firm unless you become a federal prosecutor or work in the federal government in some capacity first.

I generally saw this to be this case too but never thought about why. Lead partners were always former AUSA/USAs who might have nonequity partners working with/for them.

But why? Is it a credibility issue with clients? Is it the trial/court experience? The relationships?

[Anonymous User]

Trial and courtroom experience, followed by the relationships, followed by the credibility issue with clients. You have the ability to say to clients: "I know exactly how our adversary thinks because I was the adversary."

[Anonymous User]

Trial and courtroom experience, followed by the relationships, followed by the credibility issue with clients. You have the ability to say to clients: "I know exactly how our adversary thinks because I was the adversary."

That makes sense.

I'm guessing this means that the ability of an AUSA to move to private practice is geographically limited by where they were AUSAs? Because otherwise those relationships are probably much less valuable?

[Anonymous User]

Not OP. Anyone have a good sense of whether State AG work (in the enforcement context, obviously—not the defense side of AG work) would have similar carryover? I like the greater flexibility and variety of work State AG offices offer, so I’d be interested in knowing whether that would be useful experience for transitioning back to Biglaw White Collar down the line.

[Anonymous User]

Trial and courtroom experience, followed by the relationships, followed by the credibility issue with clients. You have the ability to say to clients: "I know exactly how our adversary thinks because I was the adversary."

That makes sense.

I'm guessing this means that the ability of an AUSA to move to private practice is geographically limited by where they were AUSAs? Because otherwise those relationships are probably much less valuable?

I don't think that's largely true actually. Offices with lots of corporate and white-collar matters like SDNY are almost always most valuable to biglaw firms, regardless of where the biglaw firm you're looking to get hired at is.

[Anonymous User]

Not OP. Anyone have a good sense of whether State AG work (in the enforcement context, obviously—not the defense side of AG work) would have similar carryover? I like the greater flexibility and variety of work State AG offices offer, so I’d be interested in knowing whether that would be useful experience for transitioning back to Biglaw White Collar down the line.

I don't think this is as desirable because most people are elitist and assume federal prosecution is more rigorous, prestigious, and/or valuable than counterparts at the state level. This makes little sense because state AGs can and do investigate and litigate against corporations all the time in all types of cases. But there is a general attitude, justified in some but not all contexts, that the level of practice is more sophisticated in federal court than in state court.

[Anonymous User]

Not OP. Anyone have a good sense of whether State AG work (in the enforcement context, obviously—not the defense side of AG work) would have similar carryover? I like the greater flexibility and variety of work State AG offices offer, so I’d be interested in knowing whether that would be useful experience for transitioning back to Biglaw White Collar down the line.

I don't think this is as desirable because most people are elitist and assume federal prosecution is more rigorous, prestigious, and/or valuable than counterparts at the state level. This makes little sense because state AGs can and do investigate and litigate against corporations all the time in all types of cases. But there is a general attitude, justified in some but not all contexts, that the level of practice is more sophisticated in federal court than in state court.

Thanks. This tracks my experience, too. Just wondering if others have seen different outcomes.

[Anonymous User]

State AGs and local prosecutors are just less prestigious. You don't need to go to a T14 to get them.

I know of multiple white collar partners across the board who have made partner without government experience. And becoming an AUSA -- even in SDNY/EDNY -- is not nearly as lucrative a pathway to partnership as it was 5-10 years ago. Indeed, many AUSAs have a very hard time getting a v100 partnership.

[Anonymous User]

Trial and courtroom experience, followed by the relationships, followed by the credibility issue with clients. You have the ability to say to clients: "I know exactly how our adversary thinks because I was the adversary."

That makes sense.

I'm guessing this means that the ability of an AUSA to move to private practice is geographically limited by where they were AUSAs? Because otherwise those relationships are probably much less valuable?

I don't think that's largely true actually. Offices with lots of corporate and white-collar matters like SDNY are almost always most valuable to biglaw firms, regardless of where the biglaw firm you're looking to get hired at is.

I agree, I don't think geography matters as much as the kind of experience you get, and the district can make a big difference to the complexity and volume of white collar cases available. D. Neb., as a whole, isn't going to have the kind of volume/complexity of cases as SDNY (I say this as someone working in a D. Neb.-like district, so no disrespect meant). You *can* get decent white collar experience in any district, there's just more of it in some districts than others, and you'll have more credibility selling yourself as an expert if you work in a district/office that that others think of as a place with complex corporate work.

Re: credibility with clients - I think knowing how the adversary thinks is probably not just a selling point to clients but a real advantage. I'm sure inside experience isn't the only way to learn that, but I am regularly surprised at how little people seem understand about how my job works.

[Anonymous User]

Trial and courtroom experience, followed by the relationships, followed by the credibility issue with clients. You have the ability to say to clients: "I know exactly how our adversary thinks because I was the adversary."

That makes sense.

I'm guessing this means that the ability of an AUSA to move to private practice is geographically limited by where they were AUSAs? Because otherwise those relationships are probably much less valuable?

I don't think that's largely true actually. Offices with lots of corporate and white-collar matters like SDNY are almost always most valuable to biglaw firms, regardless of where the biglaw firm you're looking to get hired at is.

I agree, I don't think geography matters as much as the kind of experience you get, and the district can make a big difference to the complexity and volume of white collar cases available. D. Neb., as a whole, isn't going to have the kind of volume/complexity of cases as SDNY (I say this as someone working in a D. Neb.-like district, so no disrespect meant). You *can* get decent white collar experience in any district, there's just more of it in some districts than others, and you'll have more credibility selling yourself as an expert if you work in a district/office that that others think of as a place with complex corporate work.

Re: credibility with clients - I think knowing how the adversary thinks is probably not just a selling point to clients but a real advantage. I'm sure inside experience isn't the only way to learn that, but I am regularly surprised at how little people seem understand about how my job works.

As someone also in a D. Neb.-like district and thinking about the future, where do people in these roles usually pivot to if they want to go into private practice? Are regional BigLaw firms (in the same district and in the surrounding region, I guess) eager to hire former federal prosecutors from the district?

[Anonymous User]

As someone also in a D. Neb.-like district and thinking about the future, where do people in these roles usually pivot to if they want to go into private practice? Are regional BigLaw firms (in the same district and in the surrounding region, I guess) eager to hire former federal prosecutors from the district?

Original D. Neb. - like person here. For context, this is my second D. Neb.-like district. To be honest, I haven't seen a ton of people pivot into private practice - in part b/c a lot of people in both districts have been lifers. I've seen people move to other USAOs, Main Justice, or other related government work (for instance, I've seen people from border districts go to DHS or become an immigration judge), or start their own practice doing criminal defense. Or wait it out till they can become a judge.

That said, people do move from the USAO to regional firms, just not as often. I think a lot of this is actually self-selection, in that depending on the local market, a USAO gig is often surprisingly competitive in terms of pay, better in work-life balance, and people who wanted to do private practice just started in private practice and stayed there. I don't think you necessarily need the government background to be a good candidate for private practice if you're in a market that doesn't have as much complex white collar crime. So I don't think it's because people can't get private practice jobs - a lot just don't want to.

I think the issue with hiring former federal prosecutors in the more biglaw-like shops is that timing can be weird. If a firm is lockstep/has a clear partner track, and you don't have other/much private practice experience, you can hit a little bit of a limbo where you're too senior to be a jr associate, but you may not be senior enough to be a great candidate for partner yet, especially since your potential for building a book of business is hard to judge when you come from the government. If you have 10-15 years as a prosecutor, you can make a more plausible pitch to be hired as a partner than if you have 4-6, in part b/c 10-15 years is likely going to give you that much more experience with complex stuff than 4-6 years will.

That said, I think purely regional firms can be less strict about this kind of thing, and would be more likely to hire on a shortened track. Whether that firm does the kind of work you'd be interested in with compensation that works for you is going to vary a lot depending on location and you, though.

[Anonymous User]

As someone also in a D. Neb.-like district and thinking about the future, where do people in these roles usually pivot to if they want to go into private practice? Are regional BigLaw firms (in the same district and in the surrounding region, I guess) eager to hire former federal prosecutors from the district?

Original D. Neb. - like person here. For context, this is my second D. Neb.-like district. To be honest, I haven't seen a ton of people pivot into private practice - in part b/c a lot of people in both districts have been lifers. I've seen people move to other USAOs, Main Justice, or other related government work (for instance, I've seen people from border districts go to DHS or become an immigration judge), or start their own practice doing criminal defense. Or wait it out till they can become a judge.

That said, people do move from the USAO to regional firms, just not as often. I think a lot of this is actually self-selection, in that depending on the local market, a USAO gig is often surprisingly competitive in terms of pay, better in work-life balance, and people who wanted to do private practice just started in private practice and stayed there. I don't think you necessarily need the government background to be a good candidate for private practice if you're in a market that doesn't have as much complex white collar crime. So I don't think it's because people can't get private practice jobs - a lot just don't want to.

I think the issue with hiring former federal prosecutors in the more biglaw-like shops is that timing can be weird. If a firm is lockstep/has a clear partner track, and you don't have other/much private practice experience, you can hit a little bit of a limbo where you're too senior to be a jr associate, but you may not be senior enough to be a great candidate for partner yet, especially since your potential for building a book of business is hard to judge when you come from the government. If you have 10-15 years as a prosecutor, you can make a more plausible pitch to be hired as a partner than if you have 4-6, in part b/c 10-15 years is likely going to give you that much more experience with complex stuff than 4-6 years will.

That said, I think purely regional firms can be less strict about this kind of thing, and would be more likely to hire on a shortened track. Whether that firm does the kind of work you'd be interested in with compensation that works for you is going to vary a lot depending on location and you, though.

Thank you, that’s very informative. I don’t see myself moving anywhere in the near future/ever, but this is all good to keep in mind.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know whether white collar prosecutors at Manhattan DA get offers in big law as partner/counsel?

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know whether white collar prosecutors at Manhattan DA get offers in big law as partner/counsel?

They typically don't so I wouldn't count on that route.

[Anonymous User]

Don’t mean to hijack the thread, but does anyone have thoughts on whether it’s dumb/too risky to leave Biglaw for an AUSA/Gov role solely to increase partnership odds down the line? (I know, I know, people should only go into Gov roles out of a desire to serve the public, etc, etc.) Seems like a nice way to fast track yourself to partnership without grinding through the associate ranks.

[Anonymous User]

Don’t mean to hijack the thread, but does anyone have thoughts on whether it’s dumb/too risky to leave Biglaw for an AUSA/Gov role solely to increase partnership odds down the line? (I know, I know, people should only go into Gov roles out of a desire to serve the public, etc, etc.) Seems like a nice way to fast track yourself to partnership without grinding through the associate ranks.

It's not dumb or too risky if you're confident that you'll actually enjoy the AUSA job and you won't mind the pay cut for years.

[Anonymous User]

Don’t mean to hijack the thread, but does anyone have thoughts on whether it’s dumb/too risky to leave Biglaw for an AUSA/Gov role solely to increase partnership odds down the line? (I know, I know, people should only go into Gov roles out of a desire to serve the public, etc, etc.) Seems like a nice way to fast track yourself to partnership without grinding through the associate ranks.

It's not dumb or too risky if you're confident that you'll actually enjoy the AUSA job and you won't mind the pay cut for years.

Yeah, I think the main concern is where you are and how long you want to be an AUSA. For a lot of firms, I don't think you can leave Biglaw as a junior/midlevel, hit the minimum years of experience where you'd be up for partner in a firm and just jump ship directly into a partnership - I think if you didn't get enough experience in biglaw to demonstrate your potential for partner while you were there, the equivalent amount of time at a USAO won't make up for that. You'd need to get more/leadership experience at the USAO under your belt to come back as partner. However, if you left biglaw at a more senior level, as a plausible partner candidate, you might not need as much government experience.

I think the experience is definitely worth it if you want to be a white collar partner, but I'm not sure it's really a fast track (I'm pretty sure I've seen some people say it's a de facto requirement). All that said, this isn't a science and this is just my gut feeling, and it may vary a lot by USAO, firm, and the candidate in question.

[Anonymous User]

Relatedly, does anyone know about the success of WC -> SEC Trial/Enforcement -> Biglaw or boutique partner? I love WC but I'm not sure I'd want to be a prosecutor for personal reasons. But could see myself in the regulatory WC sphere. Any thoughts? As an aside, does SEC require different credentials than your typical NY AUSA office?