In the first Five Questions for  Public Interest Leader of April, we learned more about prosecutorial and defense work with Matthew Galluzzo. After graduating from Northwestern University School of Law, Mr. Galluzzo spent seven years in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, in both the Trial and Appellate divisions. For part of his tenure, he was responsible for training more junior prosecutors and supervising their misdemeanor domestic violence cases.  He then spent a year in a boutique commercial litigation firm before opening his own defense practice with a colleague from his Manhattan DA’s office days. His current practice is a blend of privately retained clients and court-appointed indigent defendants.

1. Tell us a bit about your career path – how did you decide to go to the DA’s office, and how did you move from there to your current defense practice? Also, was the Manhattan DA’s office really just like Law & Order?

I went to law school with a number of interests and an open mind about my career.  In high school I was an avid debater and throughout law school my favorite experiences surrounded trial advocacy class, moot court and mock trials.  I knew in my heart that I wanted to be a courtroom advocate, but it was a difficult decision when the majority of my peers were pursuing high paying corporate jobs.  Once I began my new career, though, I knew it was a decision I would not regret.  Many of those peers quickly became disillusioned with their new jobs and very envious of mine!

As a side note, I admit that I also used to be a “Law & Order” junkie, though I mostly kicked the habit when I actually started working at the Manhattan DA’s Office.  The show is accurate in some ways, but let’s just say that if I had ever given a prosecutorial summation like Jack McCoy it probably would have been reversible error, and if I ever do a cross-examination like the defense attorneys on the show, my client will be promptly appealing on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel.

2. As someone who has worked on both sides of the criminal courtroom, what are some advantages and disadvantages to each job?

There are certainly advantages and disadvantages to both.  As a prosecutor, you get to feel like you’re wearing the “white hat,” and the job can be tremendously satisfying.  On the other hand, you have a lot of responsibility: you are expected to make decisions about evidence and cases that have real impacts on people’s lives.  Also, I think it is more difficult to be a trial prosecutor than a trial defense attorney, as the burden of proof is entirely on your shoulders.  As a prosecutor, I took a lot of pride in working for “the greater good” and worried that my transition to defense would somehow require me to consider compromising my principles in order to be successful.  That could not be farther from the truth.  I am delighted to report that my first year on “the other side” has been extremely rewarding.  As a defense attorney, you have the opportunity to develop relationships with your clients and really become a positive influence on their lives.  Sometimes you are able to prove your client’s innocence or help him earn a second chance in life, and that can be professionally and personally uplifting in ways I had not imagined.   The disadvantage of being a defense attorney is that clients often have expectations that are unrealistic, but my philosophy is to always talk straight with them regarding potential outcomes based upon my prosecutorial experience.

3. What are a few things you suggest law students or young lawyers consider when applying to District Attorney’s offices?

If you’ve decided that you want to apply to D.A.’s offices, you should not assume that every D.A.’s office offers the same experience.  For example, the first few years as a prosecutor at the Brooklyn D.A.’s office differ significantly from the first few years as a prosecutor at the Manhattan D.A.’s office, despite the fact that their offices are only a couple of miles apart.  The reason for this is the structure of the respective offices: Manhattan uses a “vertical” prosecution system whereby prosecutors are assigned primary responsibility for numerous cases from arrest to sentence, whereas Brooklyn uses a “horizontal” system in which new prosecutors play specific but discrete roles in the process for the first few years without actually managing their own independent caseloads.  So, I think it’s important that you investigate the organizational structure of the office you’re applying to so that you understand what your role will be when you first begin.

Also, you should ask yourself whether you eventually want to specialize in the prosecution of a particular type of case (e.g. financial fraud, child abuse, etc.) and then try to determine whether or when you’ll be able to get that experience at the office(s) you’re considering.  Many of the large urban D.A.’s offices have highly specialized bureaus of experienced attorneys that exclusively prosecute specific types of crimes, but prosecutors at small D.A.’s offices may be generalists out of necessity.

4. We had Derwyn Bunton (chief public defender for New Orleans) on the blog in January, and he felt strongly that, in his experience, one cannot switch sides of the criminal fence and be effective (one quote from him: “I’m certainly in the school of thought that the people who work the hardest and are the most committed are those who believe this is a life’s work as a defender and it would be impossible to be a prosecutor.”). As someone who has worked on both sides, where do you come down in this debate over what makes an effective prosecutor or defender?

I don’t believe that you have to be committed to being a defense attorney for the rest of your life to be effective in the role.  Certainly a long career’s worth of experience is an advantage, but Mr. Bunton seems to be suggesting that the most effective defense attorneys are the ones that see their job as a “calling”  of some sort.  To me, the key factors are your professionalism and work ethic and not your reason for being a defense attorney.  Personally, I think criminal law is a fascinating subject, I’m passionate about the criminal justice process, and I love being in court, so I have no problem staying motivated.  For the same reasons, I could easily be a prosecutor again if I were offered a particularly exciting opportunity (like, say, Manhattan D.A.!).

A prosecutor is effective if he’s fair and ethical and achieves just results.  Some prosecutors seem to think that they’re not doing their job well if they don’t get maximum sentences on all of their cases, but that’s really not the measure of a good prosecutor at all.  In fact, I think that one of the main things that separates a good prosecutor from a bad one is the ability to differentiate between a very serious case that deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent, a minor case that deserves leniency, and a case that deserves to be dismissed. (I should point out that Manhattan’s new District Attorney, Cy Vance, had been an outstanding defense attorney in private practice for the majority of his career.  Early indications suggest that he is going to be an excellent prosecutor. [Ed. Note – we blogged about Mr. Vance and his new Conviction Integrity Program earlier.])

To be sure, there are very few former prosecutors-turned defense attorneys that do not advertise themselves as former prosecutors; the reason for that is that a lot of clients believe that the experience is invaluable… and who am I to disagree to them?  Seriously, though, I think that former prosecutors can be very effective defense attorneys.  First, I got a tremendous amount of appellate, grand jury and trial experience as an Assistant D.A. – probably more than most defense attorneys get in the early stages of their careers – and there’s really nothing more valuable than experience when it comes to trials and appeals.  Also, you have to remember that the vast majority of criminal cases eventually result in negotiated guilty pleas.  So, the truth is that the ability to negotiate good dispositions for clients is one of the most important skills for a defense attorney.  I find that my experience as a former prosecutor gives me a lot of credibility and insight when I am negotiating with prosecutors.  So, the bottom line is that a job as a prosecutor is great preparation for you if your eventual goal is to become a defense attorney.

5. Interviews for both prosecution and defense work can be very intimidating. What advice do you have for people preparing for these interviews?

Just like in any interview, the prosecution/defense job interviewer is going to want to see a clear demonstration of genuine interest in the field and the job.  If your law school transcript consists primarily of courses in corporate and transactional work, then you can expect the interviewer to be skeptical of your application.  But where these interviews tend to differ from the standard law firm or clerkship interview is that your judgment is going to be a more important issue for the interviewer.  Basically, a prosecutor or a defense attorney will have to make important decisions on cases right from the get-go, so don’t be surprised if the interviewer tests you with a series of hypothetical questions about what you would do in certain sticky situations.  When I was interviewing at the DA’s office, I was asked questions along the lines of, “What would you do if a witness told you X,” or “What if you discovered that a police officer had done Y?”  They were testing my knowledge of criminal law and criminal procedure to some extent, but more than anything they wanted to know that I had the common sense, maturity and judgment to make the correct decisions under pressure.  My general advice then is to take a deep breath before answering these hypothetical questions and keep in mind that the most ethical-sounding answer is in fact probably the correct one.

Finally, as always, you should prepare yourself for the interview by learning as much as you can about the job beforehand and thinking of some good questions for the interviewer.  You can ask the interviewer how cases are assigned, how many and what type of cases you will be expected to handle, what your typical progression (in terms of responsibility) is for people in the position, what type of training you will receive, and how you will be supervised.  Those questions by themselves will probably be plenty to get the conversation going.

The PSLawNet blog would like to thank Mr. Galluzzo for his thoughtful answers! As always, let us know if you have questions you’d like asked in future interviews, or people you think we should talk to!