Perhaps if you spend that stint in the Southern District of New York in Manhattan. Over at the Glom, David Zaring reports on his effort to identify what former federal prosecutors in Manhattan are doing these days. Out of 150 former federal prosecutors, he reports, “the large majority . . . are partners in white shoe firms in New York.” Zaring comments:
My guess is that a gig in the Southern District is the greatest path to wealth maximization in the federal government that there is – I say this impressionistically, of course, but the fact is that the financial regulators rarely get picked up by investment banks, and the SEC enforcer to partner rate is pretty low. And I think lobbyist salaries don’t match New York law firm salaries, while Pentagon procurement officials have far too difficult a tournament to win to get the payday of a job with Boeing. Which makes white collar the straightest path to law firm style riches.That right there is pretty interesting, since crime never used to pay, either for the defendants or their lawyers. My suspicion is that the renumeration due to SDNY attorneys is a function of beefed up white collar enforcement, including the explosion of FCPA, and honest services fraud actions. It would be interesting to track the paydays of former prosecutors over time by the number of cases brought against corporate executives (was it lower in the 60s? did a Supreme Court opinion broadening fraud rules contribute to the future bottom line of Manhattan prosecutors? &c.). Indeed, though I don’t believe this could be the case, new kinds of financial enforcement could simply be examples of SDNY lawyers feathering their future nests. If you have views on this, since I’m noodling around on the issue, I’d love to hear them.
My guess is that these numbers don’t reflect beefed up white collar enforcement as much as the realities of who the SDNY tends to hire. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in the SDNY is very competitive, and it tends to draw a lot of high-powered litigation associates from top New York firms. Those lawyers come to the SDNY and spend a few years to get trial experience. But they know that living on a government salary over the long term would require a pretty big shift in their lifestyles given the very high costs of living in or near Manhattan. So after they hit their minimum year commitment (3 or 4 years, if I recall), they cycle back to major law firms in more senior positions (either senior counsel or partner) and start earning serious coin.
It’s an interesting aspect of the SDNY: In my experience, the AUSAs there generally stay for a much shorter time than AUSAs in most other districts. Whereas AUSAs in other districts often stick around for a long time, AUSAs in the SDNY often do the minimum stint and then return to more lucrative practices. That’s my impression, at least.
yankee says:
With locality adjustments, a Manhattan AUSA’s salary caps out at $155,500 at GS-15 step 10, with generous benefits. While $155,500 is less than even the base starting salary in biglaw, it’s still well over twice Manhattan’s $65,000 median household income. The idea that you “can’t live very well” on twice the median household income says a lot about the myopia of people who’ve graduated from elite law schools and have no idea how the average American lives.
It reminds me of David Bernstein’s complaints about how it’s hard to pay the nanny on a mere $300,000 per year.
Edited to add: Of course, it’s hardly surprising that Manhattan AUSA’s would jump ship to biglaw, where they can earn vastly more money, but it’s not because you can’t eat in New York on a paltry $155,500.
August 20, 2010, 9:29 pmOrin Kerr says:
Yankee,
I’m not entirely sure of the relevance of your point, or how you know about what a group of unidentified people know about how average Americans live. But nonetheless, two points are worth making:
1) That’s the salary *maximum*, not what junior AUSAs earn, right?
August 20, 2010, 9:42 pm2) The average hours of an AUSA in the SDNY is reported to be over 80 hours a week. So that income (whatever it is) is for what most average Americans would consider the equivalent of two jobs, not one job.
Steve says:
Can you even get to GS-15 step 10 in 4 years? I thought AUSAs were not on the GS scale, actually.
August 20, 2010, 9:49 pmOrin Kerr says:
UPDATE: I’ve amended the post to avoid a thread on what it means to “live very well” in Manhattan.
August 20, 2010, 9:54 pmyankee says:
Orin, thanks for your reply. The relevance of my point is mostly that elite mypoia of the “it’s so hard to pay the nanny!” variety is a pet peeve of mine. The idea that it’s impossible to live on anything less than, say, the 95th income percentile was widespread among my law school classmates, who overwhelmingly came from wealthier backgrounds than I did, and it hasn’t improved after we’ve been in biglaw for some years.
You’re right that the number is a maximum; I picked that figure because you referenced the “long term.” My basic point remains valid if you pick a figure a more junior lawyer would earn; a step 1 GS-13 makes $92,259, which is still 140% of the median family income.
Your point about the 80 hor workweek is well-taken, however.
Edit: I see Orin has edited the post in a way that makes this post irrelevant.
August 20, 2010, 10:05 pmAnonymous 1 says:
AUSAs are not on the GS schedule, they are on the AD scale. (Administratively Determined.) Even with locality pay adjustments AUSAs in New York City (i.e., EDNY and SDNY) still max out significantly below what lawyers at Main Justice (i.e., D.C.) make. Not tin, mind you — $130-$140k, I believe — but not 155K. And remember, that’s the max. Not a few are making $100K, and 100k is not much in Manhattan if it’s being used to support a family of four. (Or three.) Rent and taxes are high. Of course, if an AUSA has a working spouse, that changes things considerably.
August 20, 2010, 10:12 pmzippypinhead says:
Professor Kerr, from my interactions with folks in the S.D.N.Y. USAO from time to time over the years, you’re generally right in your suppositions. But actually the best pay differential goes to folks who’ve put in 3-5 years in the Solicitor General’s office and then lateral into Biglaw specialty appellate practices, usually with initial signing bonuses that far exceed their annual salaries in DOJ. Then again, many of these guys were SCOTUS clerks and could write their own tickets anywhere, with or without DOJ experience. Of course, working as an Asst. S.G. is a very intellectually and professionally satisfying career in itself (as is being an AUSA in a district where it makes economic sense), so a non-trivial percentage of folks in the S.G.’s office stay much longer.
Anonymous 1 is right about AUSA pay scales being rather miserly – while I don’t specifically know current starting AUSA salaries in S.D.N.Y, starting pay probably approximates GS-11/1, which in N.Y. is $64,729. Basically $100,000 less than a first-year associate in a Wall Street law firm, with about the same work hours – but also with vastly better experience.
The senior-level career salary compression is even worse in many USAOs than it is at Main Justice, where salaries after almost 20 years cap out at the statutory max of $155,500 (GS-15/10). The opportunity to earn $20,000-$30,000 more by lateraling from a USAO to Main Justice is one reason moving to DOJ in D.C. is attractive to senior AUSAs. Professor Kerr, you’d probably recognize the names of a few folks in very senior positions in Main DOJ who were AUSAs across the Potomac in Alexandria back when you were a SAUSA in that office years ago.
August 20, 2010, 10:37 pmChrisTS says:
I have no idea what any of this is about. It’s my birthday, and I just wanted to get away from Islam and same-sex marriage.
Whee!
August 20, 2010, 11:22 pmChrisTS says:
Oh, wait; I can relate to one of OK’s posts’ topics:
I am now one of those ancient, deadwood, senior profs who are grossly overpaid. I don’t think I will ever break 100 thousand, however, no matter how long I work. (If that makes Manhattan AUSAs feel better.)
August 20, 2010, 11:24 pmzippypinhead says:
ChrisTS, happy birthday!
Now go sleep it off…
August 20, 2010, 11:26 pmMark Field says:
Islam recognizes same sex marriages? Uh oh.
August 20, 2010, 11:33 pmdavidbernstein says:
FWIW, I didn’t suggest sympathy for a couple with a 200-300K income that has to pay off student loans, a high mortgage for a not-especially exciting house in a city like DC, and 40-50K for a nanny. I just suggested that they aren’t “rich.”
August 20, 2010, 11:37 pmORID says:
I don’t know anything about AUSAs, anywhere I can learn something interesting about them (instead of official pages?).
My impression of AUSAs:
- Overly political job.
- Stepping stone to more political types of jobs.
- Prone to abuse discretion in some cases (although I think this is due to political considerations).
Of course it’s only the “bad” AUSA’s who make the news. Someone like Johnny Sutton who railroaded border agents doing their job and was involved in the “House of Death” case (where an ICE agent was involved in murdering a number of people). Of course I’m sure it’s only 5 out of 200 or so…
August 20, 2010, 11:43 pmChrisTS says:
Hey, we old folks have staying power. :-)
August 20, 2010, 11:56 pmChrisTS says:
Calling Barb and Alessandra in one, two, three…
August 20, 2010, 11:57 pmORID says:
Quick, everyone name their favorite former SDNY AUSA!
A shout out to Neil Barofsky!
August 21, 2010, 12:00 amI hope Senator Grassley learned out to pronounce his name correctly… (he was calling him “Barshefsky” during confirmation hearing).
Jay says:
You seem to be thinking of the actual U.S. Attorneys, who are political appointees confirmed by the Senate. AUSAs are career civil service prosecutors who work in the U.S. Attorney’s Office and do the everyday work.
August 21, 2010, 12:13 ambilly q. says:
Who says the average American is living well?
August 21, 2010, 4:01 amPersonFromPorlock says:
The virtue of ‘just following orders’ depends quite a lot on what the orders are, though.
August 21, 2010, 7:51 amProsecutorial Indiscretion says:
The senior-level career salary compression is even worse in many USAOs than it is at Main Justice, where salaries after almost 20 years cap out at the statutory max of $155,500 (GS-15/10). The opportunity to earn $20,000-$30,000 more by lateraling from a USAO to Main Justice is one reason moving to DOJ in D.C. is attractive to senior AUSAs. Professor Kerr, you’d probably recognize the names of a few folks in very senior positions in Main DOJ who were AUSAs across the Potomac in Alexandria back when you were a SAUSA in that office years ago.
Maybe it differs depending on section or division, but I always thought it was more common for line attorneys to head out to AUSA gigs than vice versa. While the AD pay scale is cloaked in mystery relative to the GS scale, senior AUSAs in flyover country are capped out at ~$150k (here are the public sources I could find). Given the cost-of-living differential, a capped out AUSA in Little Rock will be living much better than a capped out non-SES person at Main, and I’m pretty sure better than the SES guys as well.
Of course it’s only the “bad” AUSA’s who make the news. Someone like Johnny Sutton who railroaded border agents doing their job and was involved in the “House of Death” case (where an ICE agent was involved in murdering a number of people).
Johnny Sutton was a U.S. Attorney, not an AUSA. AUSAs are generally pretty anonymous; they don’t talk to the media, so all you ever hear from AUSAs is what they say in court. But I do take issue with your characterization of Johnny Sutton. The jurors who convicted those two of breaking the law and obstructing justice after hearing all the evidence certainly didn’t believe they were just doing their job. Sutton and the excellent office he ran deserve much credit for doing the right thing and sticking to their guns despite a chorus of ill-informed but enthusiastic criticism.
August 21, 2010, 9:14 amRM says:
I think Orin’s right. Frankly, I doubt very much whether the ex-Cravath or S&C AUSA returned to biglaw is making any more money than his or her colleagues who stayed in the private sector throughout. The difference is that the AUSA had great experience in the meantime and the biglaw associate was likely miserable. Which is worth a large sum of money.
August 21, 2010, 10:00 amAdam Berkowicz says:
90% of the rest of the world.
August 21, 2010, 10:19 amORID says:
Ramos and Compean had their sentences commuted by President Bush. The whole Ramos-Compean case leaves me queasy, about US government being involved in drug smuggling and having “dirty BP agents”.
It was clear from the written reports that there were 9 BP agents who were aware there was a shooting, including 2 supervisors, and none of them reported it. The fact that the drug smuggler, and 3 BP agents received immunity is a huge injustice to me. Additionally there was some evidence three jurors were given the idea that they couldn’t hang the jury (or there was no requirement for unanimous). Of course this didn’t come from the prosecution rather jury deliberations.
Of course the US Attorney has to balance these concerns with ensuring justice under the law. I just wish the Attorney had sided with LEO rather than a Mexican drug smuggler.
I don’t think that we should give out mandatory 10-year convictions based on he-saw, she-saw evidence. I find it likely that the smuggler had a gun. Of course the jury found fact that the smuggler didn’t have a gun, therefore their shots were unlawful.
I just went back and read the 5th Circuit appeals ruling on the case. I remember being more angry about the convictions due to the talk radio aspect of playing up their 10 year sentences. Upon reflection on the law it’s true that if the agent’s fired upon an unarmed man they violated the Constitution.
** Forgot to add that there was a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on this and Feinstein and Cornyn both requested the sentences be commuted.
August 21, 2010, 11:29 amrobert says:
As someone living out in the hinterlands: in most of the rest of the country, the US Attorney’s Office is not an obvious stepping stone. If you are a prosecutor in the state system, it is regarded in a way as a capstone position, in terms of money and security- and workload. While they do have to work, in much of the country it’s more cush in terms of hours and working conditions. The cases are worked up vastly better than those you get from state investigative agencies; the technology you have is better; and limits on judges being “involved” in plea discussions, means that you don’t get pressured by some judge to plead out a case you wanted to try. (At least not as obviously.)
The downside to being an AUSA, from a prosecutor’s perspective, is that the cases they prosecute are usually more boring. It’s hard to get excited about bank fraud and other white-collar crimes. Drug possession cases, a mainstay of the criminal docket, are a bore. Murder, rape, armed robbery- those cases are exciting, with lots of jury appeal. There’s relatively little violent crime prosecuted at a US Attorney’s Office.
Of course, SDNY may be the exception in many ways. For one thing, they’ve been involved in some terror prosecutions; for another, the “white collar” stuff they prosecute tends to be extremely high profile and more significant cases, since they’re in the nation’s financial heart. So of course, people from Harvard and Yale may want to apply there, get a little bit of litigation experience while living in New York, then move on to a firm. In 4 years, you’ll probably end up seeing a few trials go. In 20 years at a big law firm, you’d be lucky to try 5.
August 21, 2010, 11:45 amAlessandra says:
LOL
Specially for you
;-) (had you seen it from the other thread already?)
August 21, 2010, 1:00 pmOrin Kerr says:
Zippypinhead:
I was certanly struck by how many people I worked with who were career AUSAs later went into the Administration in political slots, whether during the Bush Administration (Chuck Rosenberg, Dabney Langhorne) or the Obama Administration (John Morton). All just terrific people, so it’s impressive that they were picked, but it was still surprising.
August 21, 2010, 4:24 pmChrisTS says:
LOL. No, I had not seen it. Thanks for the gift.
August 21, 2010, 5:17 pm“My guess is that a gig [as federal prosecutor] in the Southern District is the greatest path to wealth maximization in the federal government that there is” « Entitled to an Opinion says:
[...] Posted by teageegeepea under Uncategorized Leave a Comment So says David Zaring, while Orin Kerr reminds us that correlation is not [...]
August 22, 2010, 12:31 amErwin Osowski says:
very informative website
August 22, 2010, 2:18 amJodyDavis says:
I suppose we could go around and around on how we define “rich,” but if that term is to have any objective content (and not just measure whether someone subjectively feels rich), then it’s hard for me to see how a household earning in the top 5% of all U.S. households is not rich.
August 22, 2010, 3:11 pmwm13 says:
I think the quoted passage is wrong about the future incomes of “SEC enforcers.” Both Steve Hammerman and Lee Spencer, to name two recent investment bank GCs, had SEC experience. I would guess that working at the SEC (at an appropriate level) is just as good as being an AUSA.
August 22, 2010, 9:25 pmTom T. says:
Agree with everything you’ve said. It tends to be forgotten, though, that USAOs have a civil side as well. In my view, the civil practice within DOJ (while obviously government-centered) can be as much fun as in any private practice.
August 22, 2010, 11:04 pmzippypinhead says:
The most common way Main Justice line attorneys get into USAOs is through extended details for training or because they’re seconded to provide expertise and manpower for cases the local USAO may not be equipped to handle solo. For example, when Professor Kerr was a baby lawyer, he spent several months in the N.D.Va. USAO as a Special Asst. U.S. Attorney, learning how to try cases.
On the AD pay caps – AUSA pay tends to be negotiated based on what the market will bear. Very few AUSAs are capped out at the top end of the scale. The pay memorandum you linked gives a hint of the rarefied class who is capped at the top of the scale (in the “2009 Salary Limits” paragraph): “For the most highly paid supervisors in the largest districts, the 2009 pay increase will mean a small gain, or in some cases, no change at all in locality pay.” (emphasis added).
While generalities are dangerous, to my knowledge Main Justice attorneys who permanently transfer to USAOs nowadays tend to be young lawyers itching for a more hands-on docket and court time. But because they’re rather junior, the pay hit they take is much less. By the time an attorney is mid-career in DOJ, the pay cut they have to take to lateral to a USAO is really painful.
Many, many years ago – before the current locality pay system – this Pinhead knew of two very junior DOJ prosecutors who’d been classmates. One was scraping by in a high-prestige slot in Main Justice, living in a tiny condo and eating ramin for dinner so he could save up his pennies to occasionally date some of the hoards of cute, promiscuous Hill interns who infest D.C. The other was a civil AUSA in a USAO branch office in a depressed corner of flyover country, getting roughly the same pay for defending mundane post office slip-and-fall cases. The latter was probably the third richest single guy in his county after the doctor and the funeral director, and other than finding the only place to meet women was the local Lutheran church (not a venue to find weekend hook-ups…), he had a great lifestyle. Incidentally, both bitterly envied each other…
August 23, 2010, 8:49 amzippypinhead says:
You’d also recognize a number of folks who moved across the Potomac to great career slots and prestigious commission, etc. details, but since they’re career folks and (should) have a pathological fear of flying into the radar beam, I won’t do the dis-service of “outing” any of them publicly by name.
August 23, 2010, 8:58 amsomebody says:
I find it hilarious that someone is denigrating people’s expectations of decent salaries. We are talking about people who are 95th to 99.nth percentile intellects and work ethics. Obviously they expect to make a slightly better living than a beat cop. Real life only starts at $400k, and a decent existence requires not only 7 figure salary but substantial equity accumulation.
However, government service is something that needs to be discouraged, especially the exercise of power. So in totality the pay is far too high, and the cap for all federal employees outside of the military should be $40k (in Manhattan, lower in other places).
August 23, 2010, 4:30 pmThe Volokh Conspiracy » Is a Stint as an Assistant U.S. Attorney a … | Criminal Defense Attorney / Criminal Lawyer Blog says:
[...] Visit link: The Volokh Conspiracy » Is a Stint as an Assistant U.S. Attorney a … [...]
August 25, 2010, 3:20 pm