US Attorney's Office

Before my memory slips away from me, I want to write down some of the impressions that I got from my interview at the US Attorney's Office in Hartford. I am still awaiting an official accept/reject from the Greater Boston Legal Services. They seem to be waiting for someone else to make a decision before they can make a decision regarding my candidacy. As much as I want to be in Boston and work with the Asian community there, I find myself gravitating towards the opportunity at the US Attorney's office. Should I get this position, they will offer a substantial amount of substantive training as it relates to research and writing. In addition to the training, there is a certain kind of prestige surrounding the office, which I think will help me with my summer job search the following year. I harbor a perception that the work at the office will be infinitely more interesting than anywhere else.

Physically, the building is unimpressive. I must be spoiled with regard to private corporate buildings in which I have become accustomed. Hallways were half-finished, and the general fixtures didn't quite match up to the prestige of the office. I found myself inside a waiting room that resembled a doctor's office. Fortunately, after proceeding past that initial small waiting room, I was lead into a much larger portion of the office that remotely resembles a scene from a typical Hollywood portrayal of what a government building should look like.

The interviews went very well, as far as I can tell. I found myself not speaking very much throughout the first interview. The majority of the speaking came from the interviewer herself. I managed to learn a lot about her background in tax, as well as her stint in the USDOJ in Washington. Furthermore, she proceeded with an extremely lengthy description of the actual job description, not to mention some details about particular cases that were pending in the court docket. The actual facts of the case were reminiscent of Enron, as it does relate to corporate fraud. She was extremely down to earth, and appeared to be rather empathetic of the whole 1L experience, which is particularly beneficial.

Unfortunately, 3/4 of the way through the interview, the phone rang, and I was left wandering the office with my eyes, whereupon I caught a glimpse of some of her legal references on the book shelf, as well as pictures of her infant son. I don't recall the last time I had an interviewer answer the phone at length during the actual interview. Nevertheless, I got an extremely favorable impression from her not only because she seemed genuinely friendly and approachable, but also because she made note of the quality writing sample that I had submitted.

The next interviewer was slightly more intimidating. She spoke with a certain type of eloquence and confidence and it made her appear much more authoritative (despite the fact that she is a small lady) than the first interviewer. Similar to the first interview, I didn't get to speak very much - but found that I was able to insert certain parts of my qualifications into the interview, such as my experience working in a time-line driven, client focused firm, and that I am seeking an opportunity with very broad exposure to the many facets of law.

I managed to inadvertently touch upon her primary area of practice when I mentioned that I enjoy employment discrimination. It turns out most of her work involves employment discrimination, even though I was a little confused when she spoke at length about some of her 'clients'. Who exactly are these clients if you're a government entity? Anyway, she also talked about how she was an engineering major in college, and she had to spend a significant amount of time convincing her potential employers that she was not limited to intellectual property based on her background.

Of course, I always find it strange when an interviewer advocates for another position while you're speaking to them about potential employment. It happened at the GBLS when she recommended working for a judge if I wanted to devote my time to developing my legal writing and research skills. Likewise, this second interviewer recommended that I speak to other people about their international practice (potentially assuming that I want to work abroad at some point given my bilingual or trilingual background). I inadvertently mentioned someone that I had met at an event earlier, and it turned out that she was quite familiar with this particular individual as well. This individual works for a large corporation with many operations in Asia. Even though that is still an interest of mine to work on a broader international scale someday, I have ultimately come to terms with the fact that I have to first build my skill set, and them set upon improving my linguistic capabilities and ultimately, finishing with an international career.

With that said, I'm crossing my fingers for this position. Even though it's unpaid, I think it will offer me the training that I require, as well as the exposure that I crave. I have spent my life chasing the dollar sign (not actually obtaining it), so I want to be able to find that position that will teach me more than it will actually pay me. Nevertheless, I still have to write thank you notes. But for the time being, I'm just going to try to reflect on these interviews.