Prosecutor interview questions and practice.
Prosecutes criminal cases on behalf of the state, deciding on charges, preparing evidence and presenting cases in court. An interviewer hiring a Prosecutor is not testing whether you know what the job is. They are trying to establish whether your advice could be relied on by a client who is not a lawyer and has to make a decision on Monday.
No card for the taster. Full interviews are paid one at a time. Nothing renews.
Last reviewed
What interviewers for Prosecutor actually ask
Three questions from the bank below, each scored against one competency. The follow-up is what separates a prepared answer from a memorised one.
Tell me about a research question where the answer was not clear.
How do you check that a case or provision you are relying on is still good law?
What do you do differently now when drafting compared with when you started?
What they are really assessing
That gets scored against 7 competencies: legal analysis & research, drafting & document precision, client advice & commercial judgement, ethics, privilege & conflicts, advocacy & negotiation, matter & time management and risk identification. Each one is assessed from the specifics in your answers, which is why "we improved the process" scores lower than a sentence with a number, a date and a decision in it.
At mid level they assume you can do the job and are testing how you handle the parts that go wrong. Expect them to push hardest on push on a hard client conversation, a risk found unasked, advocacy under pressure, and supervising a junior's error.
Legal analysis & research
Identifies the legal issues in a set of facts, researches statute and case law efficiently, and reaches a reasoned, defensible view with the weaknesses acknowledged.
- Weak
- Describes research as searching a database; cannot state the issues in a matter they worked on or the authority relied on.
- Adequate
- Describes issue identification and the authorities found for a matter, but not the counter-arguments or how confident the view was.
- Strong
- Describes a specific matter: the issues framed, the authorities and their weight, the strongest counter-argument, the view reached and its confidence, and how it was tested by a senior or the court.
Drafting & document precision
Drafts contracts, pleadings and opinions that are precise, complete and fit for purpose, and catches errors that would cost the client.
- Weak
- Drafting is described as using precedents; cannot describe a drafting error caught or a clause negotiated.
- Adequate
- Describes adapting precedents and reviewing carefully, but not a specific error found or a clause that mattered later.
- Strong
- Describes a specific document: the client's objective, a clause designed or negotiated for a particular risk, an error caught in review, and how the document performed when tested.
Client advice & commercial judgement
Gives clients practical advice in plain language that weighs legal risk against commercial goals, manages expectations, and says no when the client wants something unwise or unlawful.
- Weak
- Advice is described as explaining the law; cannot describe a client told something they did not want to hear.
- Adequate
- Describes practical advice given and expectations managed, but not a client who pushed back or a decision they disagreed with.
- Strong
- Describes a specific client wanting a risky or unlawful course: the options laid out, the advice given and how, the client's reaction, and the outcome.
Ethics, privilege & conflicts
Applies the Legal Practice Act, professional rules and privilege, identifies and manages conflicts of interest, handles trust money properly, and refuses instructions that would breach duty to the court.
- Weak
- Cannot describe a conflict check or a privilege decision; treats ethics as not yet relevant.
- Adequate
- Describes conflict checks and privilege rules and a situation handled correctly, but not a hard case or pressure resisted.
- Strong
- Describes a specific dilemma (conflict discovered mid-matter, client dishonesty, trust account issue, pressure from a senior): the rule applied, who they consulted, the decision and its consequences.
Advocacy & negotiation
Presents arguments persuasively in court, tribunals or negotiations, adapts under pressure, and knows when to settle.
- Weak
- Cannot describe an argument made or a negotiation; describes preparation in general terms.
- Adequate
- Describes preparing and presenting an argument or negotiation, but not a difficult moment or a settlement decision.
- Strong
- Describes a specific hearing or negotiation: the strategy, a moment it went wrong and how they adapted, the settlement analysis, and the outcome.
Matter & time management
Manages multiple matters, deadlines, prescription and billing so that nothing is missed and clients are informed, and asks for help before a deadline is at risk.
- Weak
- Cannot describe a system for deadlines; says they 'work late'; no example of a missed or near-missed deadline.
- Adequate
- Describes a diary system and prioritisation, but not a near-miss or a capacity problem raised.
- Strong
- Describes a specific near-miss or overload: how it was caught, what they told the client and partner, the fix, and the system change.
Risk identification
Spots legal, reputational and practical risks in a transaction or dispute early, including ones the client did not ask about, and prioritises them by consequence.
- Weak
- Answers only the question asked; cannot describe a risk found that the client had not raised.
- Adequate
- Describes a risk identified and raised with the client, but not how it was prioritised or the consequence avoided.
- Strong
- Describes a specific unasked-for risk found (regulatory, tax, enforcement, reputational), how it was raised, the client's decision, and the consequence.
11 questions you should expect
What a strong answer contains, not a model answer to memorise. A memorised answer falls apart on the first follow-up, and there is always a follow-up.
Tell me about a research question where the answer was not clear.
Scored against: Legal analysis & researchA strong answer contains: The actual question, where they looked and in what order, how they handled conflicting authority, what they concluded and how they expressed the residual uncertainty to whoever asked. Naming the point where they stopped researching and why matters.
And then they askHow did you know when you had done enough research?
How do you check that a case or provision you are relying on is still good law?
Scored against: Legal analysis & researchA strong answer contains: A concrete verification habit: the citator they use, checking subsequent treatment, amendments and commencement dates, whether the point was ratio or obiter. Vagueness here worries every supervising partner.
And then they askHave you ever relied on something that turned out to have been overturned?
What do you do differently now when drafting compared with when you started?
Scored against: Drafting & document precisionA strong answer contains: Specific, learned habits: defining terms once and using them consistently, drafting the remedy alongside the obligation, avoiding ambiguity in "and/or" and time periods, reading it as the other side would. Best answers cite a clause that caused trouble.
And then they askTell me about a clause that was later disputed. What was ambiguous about it?
How do you review a document someone else drafted?
Scored against: Drafting & document precisionA strong answer contains: A method rather than a read-through: check the defined terms, the numbering and cross-references, the dates and figures separately, the operative provisions against the instructions, then the commercial sense. Plus what they mark as a query rather than changing silently.
And then they askWhat kind of error do you find most often in other people's drafting?
How do you advise a client who wants to do something legally permissible but commercially unwise?
Scored against: Client advice & commercial judgementA strong answer contains: Advise on the law clearly, flag the commercial risk explicitly as a separate matter, record the advice in writing, and then respect that the decision is theirs. The separation of legal advice from commercial view is the scored part.
And then they askThey go ahead anyway. What do you put in writing?
How do you explain a bad outcome to a client?
Scored against: Client advice & commercial judgementA strong answer contains: Early rather than late, in plain language, with the options rather than only the problem, and honest about what it will cost. Includes an example where they had to deliver news the client did not want.
And then they askWhat did you say first?
You realise mid-matter that there may be a conflict. What do you do?
Scored against: Ethics, privilege & conflictsA strong answer contains: Stop, do not act further, check the conflict position properly, escalate to the supervising partner or compliance officer immediately, and deal with any information barrier. Any answer that involves quietly continuing is disqualifying.
And then they askWhat if the client is the firm's biggest?
A client asks you to do something you think is improper. How do you handle it?
Scored against: Ethics, privilege & conflictsA strong answer contains: Decline clearly, explain the professional obligation, offer what can properly be done instead, document the conversation, and escalate. Candidates who describe finding a way around it fail this outright.
And then they askWho do you tell inside the firm, and when?
Tell me about a negotiation where you had the weaker position.
Scored against: Advocacy & negotiationA strong answer contains: The realistic assessment of their position, what leverage they did have, what they conceded deliberately and what they held, and the outcome. Strong answers include advising the client to settle when settling was right.
And then they askWhat did you advise the client about their real chances?
How do you run several matters at once without dropping one?
Scored against: Matter & time managementA strong answer contains: A named system: key dates diarised with reminders, a matter list reviewed weekly, files noted after every call, and what happens to everything when they are on holiday. Plus how they know when to hand something back.
And then they askWhat happens to your deadlines when you are away for two weeks?
What is the risk on a matter that clients most often do not see?
Scored against: Risk identificationA strong answer contains: A specific, real one (limitation, an unenforceable provision, a regulatory consent, an assumption in the due diligence, personal liability) and how they surface it before it bites.
And then they askHow do you raise it without alarming the client unnecessarily?
Reading the questions is the easy half. Try answering three of them out loud, to someone who follows up.
Try 5 minutes freeWhat your 30 minutes covers
The same shape as a real first-round interview, pitched at mid-level Prosecutor and scored throughout.
Warm-up, then Motivation & fit
Build rapport, settle nerves, and get a short walk-through of your background. Why this role, why this employer, and what you are actually looking for.
Your experience
Two or three real situations from your CV in depth: context, what you did, what happened, what you would change.
Pitched at mid-level scope: associate or experienced counsel: runs complex matters, manages client relationships day-to-day, supervises juniors.
Role-specific questions
The core competencies and domain knowledge for the role, with follow-ups on anything vague.
Drawn from this role's domain: issue identification and legal research method, contract drafting, review and negotiation and pleadings, applications and court procedure, and the rest of the competency model.
Your questions, then Wrap-up
Your questions for the interviewer, and yes, they are assessed. Next steps and a clean finish.
What changes with seniority
The questions barely change between levels. What changes is the answer they will accept.
| Junior | Mid | Senior | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of ownership | Newly admitted attorney or junior advocate: runs own smaller matters and supports larger ones; responsible for advice given within supervision. | Associate or experienced counsel: runs complex matters, manages client relationships day-to-day, supervises juniors. | Senior associate or senior counsel: leads matters and teams, owns client relationships, contributes to business development. |
| Tolerance for ambiguity | Handles routine matters independently; escalates novel points and difficult clients. | Forms views on unsettled law; manages client expectations and risk with partner oversight. | Advises on high-stakes and novel matters; takes responsibility for strategy. |
| People leadership | May guide candidate attorneys. | Supervises and reviews juniors and candidate attorneys. | Leads matter teams; develops associates. |
| Who they deal with | Partners, clients, opposing attorneys, court. | Partners, clients' decision-makers, counsel, regulators. | Clients' executives, partners, senior counsel, regulators. |
Where candidates lose this interview
Advising in law rather than in English
The client is deciding what to do on Monday. Answers that stay in statutory language, or that give the legal position without a recommendation, read as academic. Say the answer, then the reasoning, then the risk, in that order.
Hedging until the advice disappears
"It depends" is a legitimate opening and a terrible ending. Interviewers want to see you take a position and state the assumptions it rests on. A qualified answer with a conclusion beats a perfectly balanced one with none.
Softness on conflicts or improper instructions
These are threshold questions. Any hesitation, any suggestion of continuing while you check, any weighing of the client's importance, and the rest of the interview does not matter. Stop, escalate, document.
No commercial dimension at all
Private practice and in-house interviewers both test whether you understand what the client is trying to achieve. Candidates who only answer the legal question, without asking what the deal or the business needs, are scored as technicians.
No example of being wrong
Every lawyer has drafted an ambiguous clause, missed a point on first reading, or given advice that turned out to be over-cautious. Having no example reads as inexperience or as a lack of self-review.
What your report would say
Every competency above scored from your own answers, the sentence that cost you quoted back, and your weakest answers rewritten the way a strong Prosecutor would have said them.
Tell me about a research question where the answer was not clear.
- The actual question, where they looked and in what order, how they handled conflicting authority, what they concluded and how they expressed the residual uncertainty to whoever asked. Naming the point where they stopped researching and why matters
The format, not a result. Scores on your report come from what you actually said.
Is the AI interviewer realistic? See a full sample report