Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 8:12 am
Any insight into the (civil) defensive components of large-ish municipal USAOs? What type of lawyers usually work there, what are exits like, what do the ausas spend the majority of their hours on, what might they be looking for in a candidate, etc.?
With the caveat that I'm in a smaller district (though I interned in a bigger one and have met people from around the country), at least in my experience, civil defense is going to be primarily FTCA (tort claims), employment discrimination, medmal, prisoner litigation, defense of agency decisions (ATF licensing, SSA, that kind of thing), various civil rights stuff like excessive force. As on the criminal side, you will be running your cases pretty much from the start, so they will want someone who is comfortable doing so. I can't give a specific number of years' experience preferred, though anecdotally, people I've met from around the country usually seem to have had at least 5-7ish years experience, if not more.
Depending on the office, people seem to come from biglaw, midlaw (in the sense of good local firms), personal injury, and state government. I think there are actually quite a few people from midlaw, who might get more hands-on experience than in biglaw, but again, it will vary by office since it depends so much on USA preferences.
School background actually varies quite a bit - again, this is anecdotal based on my stalking, but there seem to be slightly fewer T14 types than on the criminal side of the house. I think there's also little more focus than in criminal on hiring people with demonstrated experience, so candidates tend to be slightly more senior (on the criminal side, if you want someone with a fancy biglaw pedigree rather than (say) a local prosecutor, you know you're going to have to train them up in criminal stuff; on the civil side, you should be able to hire someone who already has directly relevant experience, although generally DOJ is very good about training as well). But none of this is set in stone. I suspect a lot will depend on how well you can sell your desire to work for the government, given that you could probably just keep doing civil defensive work in the private sector and probably for more money.
I haven't actually worked in a firm post-graduation so it's a little hard to compare, but you spend your time on whatever your cases need at that given time. Again, since you're running your own cases, you do all the stuff (MTD, answer, discovery, hiring experts, depos, MSJ, negotiation, settlement, trial, etc.). You do work collectively also so may be partnered with someone (in which case the two of you would work out who does what, with one of you as lead - how much you do can depend on the case and your co-counsel). If there's a really large/complex suit or something, then you will probably see something more like a private firm where there's a hierarchy and a more senior person will dole out tasks to a team (in my current district, this happened when covid hit and the ACLU brought a class action suit on behalf of immigration detainees to try to get them out of custody, but is relatively uncommon otherwise. This may be more common in other districts, but I don't know).
I suppose maybe the biggest difference from the private context is that suits arise from something related to a specific agency (like medmal from treatment at a VA hospital) so you work with agency counsel, who are responsible for a lot of getting discovery/connecting you to witnesses/general assistance in things like drafting pleadings. Obviously that experience can vary by agency counsel bandwidth and (to be blunt) competence, and occasionally what the agency thinks is in their best interests and what you need to do legally can conflict. I have had great experiences and less great experiences, though overall more good than bad.
The other big difference is probably getting approval for everything (like the process for hiring an expert is long and slow, getting authorization to settle for over a certain amount is long and slow and hard, you have to get authorization to make certain defenses, that kind of thing). A lot of approvals have to come from main justice and people there are VERY bureaucratic and hierarchical (they will push back if they think your expert is too expensive, for instance). I don't generally have to worry about costs/resources in the way that someone at a smaller firm might, but I still have to justify spending the taxpayer dough.
Also, there is an inevitable amount of completely frivolous pro se litigation that isn't remotely legally difficult, but still takes time and is a PITA. I have a colleague who's dealing with someone who's been suing about the same issues since the late 1990s - they just keep changing districts as they keep moving around the country - and who will do things like file an objection to a M2dismiss (fine), a motion to "clarify facts," a motion to "make the government tell the truth," a motion to w/d the last 2 motions, an amended objection, etc. etc, in like a 2-week period. These suits never have any chance of raising anything remotely meritorious but you do have to go through the process of getting rid of them, and different judges are more/less efficient at dispensing with them, depending on workload and temperament.
As for exits - honestly I see a lot of lifers; it feels like a lot of people come over to the USAO after getting tired of private practice/the billable hour and settle in for the hours and benefits. And I think there tend to be more locals among civil AUSAs than criminal ones, which contributes to a high rate of lifers. But again that's shaded by the districts I know best. Some people will go on to Main Justice (though again anecdotally, a lot of the defensive civil people in Main Justice did not go through a USAO but came from biglaw, and seem to have slightly fancier pedigrees). I think you'd always be pretty marketable for medmal and employment discrimination practices, as those seem (to me) the most directly transferable (that is, defending the government on these actions doesn't seem that different from defending any other medical provider/employer. FTCA seems to have more government-specific kinds of considerations and private personal injury practices are different, though I'm spitballing). I don't see a lot of civil AUSAs go on to judgeships, compared to the criminal side, but again, it's doubtless possible.