How to Write an SOQ for an Attorney III or IV Position

In the state's civil service Attorney series, Attorney III is the full journey level, and Attorney IV (with Attorney V above it) covers the most complex matters — where you're expected to work independently and often serve as a subject-matter lead or mentor for junior attorneys. (The Department of Justice hires into its own Deputy Attorney General series; this guide covers the Attorney series used by other departments' legal offices.)

The SOQ does double duty for attorney positions. First, it's a screening exam: responses are scored against the position's competencies, and only the top scorers interview. Second — and this is what many experienced lawyers miss — it's treated as a writing sample. Raters, who are typically the legal office's senior attorneys, read your SOQ the way they'd read a memo from a new hire: for organization, precision, and economy.

Prompts at the III/IV level focus on depth and independence: your experience in the department's specific practice areas (administrative hearings, rulemaking, litigation, transactional work, or the department's governing statutes), matters you've handled with minimal supervision, and your judgment advising clients.

A note on the working-title distinction: postings may carry titles like "Senior Counsel" or a subject-matter title, but the classification determines the salary range and minimum qualifications. Check which level — Attorney III or Attorney IV — the posting is actually for, and calibrate your examples to it.

Typical Attorney III/IV SOQ instructions specify:

• 12-point font, usually Arial or Times New Roman
• Single-spaced
• 2-page maximum is most common; some postings allow 3, a few only 1
• 1-inch margins
• Your name and the Job Control (JC) number on each page
• Numbered responses matching the prompts in order

Treat the instructions like a court's formatting rules: compliance is mandatory and deviations are noticed. Legal offices routinely screen out SOQs that exceed the page limit, skip a prompt, or substitute a cover letter — an attorney who can't follow filing instructions is making an argument against their own candidacy.

If the posting asks you to address specific competencies or duty-statement items rather than numbered questions, use short headings that track their language, so raters can map your response to the rubric instantly.

The STAR method (Situation, Task, Action, Result) still applies — it just needs to carry legal specificity.

Identify matters concretely without breaching confidentiality. You don't need case names. "I was lead counsel in an administrative enforcement action against a licensed contractor, from accusation through a 3-day hearing before an ALJ, resulting in license revocation" is specific, verifiable in an interview, and discloses nothing privileged.

Specify your individual role. At the III/IV level, raters are alert to inflated involvement. Distinguish "I drafted and argued the dispositive motion" from "I supported the litigation team." If you supervised the work of others, say what you personally decided, drafted, or argued versus reviewed.

Name forums, procedures, and bodies of law. Superior court, the Office of Administrative Hearings, federal district court, rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, Public Records Act review, Bagley-Keene open meeting compliance advice — whatever your actual practice touched. Then connect it to the department's work: an SOQ for a Water Board position should engage with the regulatory practice areas the posting names, not just recite general litigation experience.

Quantify where lawyers rarely do. Caseload size, number of hearings or depositions, dollar amounts at stake, regulations shepherded through rulemaking, contracts reviewed per year.

For the "unwelcome advice" prompt, pick a real conflict: a program that wanted to proceed and couldn't, a settlement recommendation leadership resisted. Show your analysis, how you framed options rather than just saying no, and what happened. This prompt is testing counseling judgment, not litigation skill.

Write like the memo you'd want to receive. Lead each response with the bottom line, keep paragraphs short, and cut throat-clearing. Overwrought prose is the most common self-inflicted wound in attorney SOQs — the rubric rewards clarity, not eloquence.

Submitting a narrative resume. A chronological tour of your career answers no prompt. Each response needs a specific matter or engagement with your role, actions, and outcome.

Writing at the wrong altitude. Attorney III/IV prompts ask about independence and complexity. Examples where a supervisor directed your work, or routine matters handled to form, read below the level you're applying for. Choose the matters where you owned the strategy.

Genericism about practice areas. "Extensive litigation experience" is unscoreable. Raters want the subject matter, the forum, the procedural posture, and what you did.

Ignoring the department's substantive law. A strong generalist SOQ loses to a competent one that engages with the hiring department's statutes and regulatory scheme. Read the duty statement and mirror its practice areas in your examples where you honestly can.

Overlength and overwriting. Attorneys blow page limits more than any other applicant group. Two dense, well-organized pages beat three padded ones — and postings that say 2 pages mean it.

Forgetting the SOQ is scored before the interview. Saving your best matters "to discuss in person" means there may be no in person. Put your strongest, most relevant work on the page.