|
Post by coloradoman on Dec 10, 2009 16:53:44 GMT -5
Folks who have read my posts on this blog for awhile know our difficulties in Region 4 are caused by management officials with no legal education- all of our SAs are now under the control of a high school graduate GS in my office which for me is the last straw since that GS has told the writers to disregard my citations to caselaw. No way! How can a non-attorney GS tell the writers to disregard your instructions? Not to get off the subject, but it is time this issue was addressed. Our office is in the same situation. Why individuals with no college background are being promoted to the same level as Senior Attorney, while Staff attorneys remain GS-12s, is beyond me. Not to mention the fact that the job can be done by a Senior Attorney. Where did this system go wrong? With HPI? But we know HPI was a joke...so why does it continue? It's been 10 yrs. since HPI. Why has there been no oversight since then? Under the ABA Ethical guidelines and my state's ethical guidelines, a non-attorney cannot supervise the legal work of an attorney. A non-attorney HOD can supervise the administrative matters of an attorney (sign leave slips, assign cases, etc), but cannot direct the attorney to take certain actions involving the attorney's legal judgment, analysis, and decision making. A non-attorney supervisor also cannot rate the attorney's performance of legal duties. That has been the rule of thumb in my office. If a non-attorney HOD is trying to direct attorneys to take certain actions involving legal duties, the ethical issue shopuld be brought to the attention of the HOCALJ. The HOCALJ, as a licensed attorney, can potentially be held in violation of ethical rules if they knowingly allow a non-attorney to supervise and rate attorneys on legal matters.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Dec 10, 2009 18:27:29 GMT -5
Maybe its time for Pix or some other person close to the throne in the crystal palace to add some rationale for this development but obviously the high-school graduate GS supervising GS-13 SAs is not an unusual situation and my understanding is that NTEU signed-off on it. For you new to this business be advised that taking an action that you believe required by the Cannons, like reporting attorney misconduct can get you deep kimshee. The Commish obviously believes that agency policy can trump state bar ethics provisions. E.g. it is not the policy of the regional chief judge (RCJ) to enforce the APA right to subpoena records. And the HOCALJ can protest all he wants but if the RCJ allows the regional management offical (RMO) to dictate the "business practices" in the region. good luck. Sorry to tell you this but you ignore agency policy at your peril, and there is a policy for everything. Talk to someone who has been around awhile before chasing ethical wind-mills.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Dec 10, 2009 18:52:11 GMT -5
Of course, if SSA does not want to hire you, they are not going to hire you, even if your reference says you walk on water, you are blindly loyal, and you will do absolutely anything the Comissh says. In my case, having now seen the reference package that was part of my non-selection, I can tell you that all of my references checked out very strongly. The summary, however, stated that "more than one reference described candidate as 'agressive.'" It was an interesting summary, given that only one reference used the term "agressive" and it was in the positive context of how I handled my workload, i.e., doing a lot of cases. Just like other candidates with glowing references, SSA flipped them on their head as a justification for their actions. It was clear that the summary was intended to turn excellent, nearly flawless references of a superb candidate on their head to later justify a non-selection. If you knew the level and calibre of the references, you too would be indignant that they were summarized in such a way, and it showed to me that the process is, as I have always suspected, complete bullsh&t. I scored too high, and was in the way of candidates who were connected to the agency, and they needed to bump me to get to them. Its that simple. So don't fret too much about what this reference said, or how your interview went, because if they want to hire you for whatever reason (and usually it involves an agency connection), they will do so. Remember, there are exceptions to the "insider rule" and not everyone selected had a connection to the agency, so don't give up all hope if you are not a current ODAR, not married to a current ODAR, have not had a Congressman weigh in on your behalf, or if you don't happen to pal around with the powers that be, all of which have been used as hiring criteria thus far. About half of the jobs will go to people who have no connection to SSA at all, and are opresumably qualified without the need for connections. So everytime someone posts a number here of "they plan to hire X" assume that the hiring is actually 1/2X and you will get an idea of your real shot at the job. Just don't have too high a score, or you may find yourself in the way of the chosen. And finally don't expect or anticipate that this process even slightly resembles merit selection or fairness. It does not. Forget merit. Forget fairness. This is a shi^^y process run by a bunch of gutless, soulless, immoral cowards who think their sh*t doesn't stink. There is not an honest or decent person involved in the selection process, and the fish rots from the head. Good luck PF PF You know, I think the Deputy Commissioner for Dishonesty and Cowardice lifted my wallet during the baby-torturing session of training in Falls Church. Only 40% of the last training class was from the Agency, so an outsider's chances are historically statistically better than PF's histrionic statistics. The class was a diverse group with a noticable lack of egomania. Everyone should know that for every candidate selected on her first try, there are several others who needed the patience to make it after several tries, and others that never made it. The process was like that before 2007, and has continued to go that way now. It really should be no surprise. Kind of like the old rule that you just might not get every job you apply for no matter how much you want it or feel qualified for it. "It was clear that the summary was intended to turn excellent, nearly flawless references of a superb candidate on their head to later justify a non-selection. If you knew the level and calibre of the references, you too would be indignant that they were summarized in such a way..." Other than an arbitrary OPM score, what made this candidate any more "superb" than the other candidates? Do we know the excellence, flawlessness, level, and calibre of the references of the other candidates? For that matter, at what point does the "level and calibre" of one's references reach the level of "powers that be?" Were one of those references at the "level" or "calibre" of "Congressman?" val,welcome back! Your defense skills have only sharpened! I've missed you. I have to say that having done this OPM application, interview, test and score gauntlet twice, I hardly think its arbitrary. Also, a 40% rate of insiders are mucho plenty. How many private attorneys? Surely, however, we are not going down that road again. Just that reasonable minds can differ. Also assuming that pf is right (and I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise), three-striking a hundred (or even 80) qualified folks whose only crime is being high scoring is not acceptable to any one who adheres to the Code of Federal Regulation. You might want to get together with a few of these folks and ask them how it felt. In addition, "down-scoring" an attorney ALJ applicant for being aggressive is like downgrading a surgeon for having a steady hand. It is ludicrous on its face and would be laughed at by ANY Judge. The problem of course is that its not funny because it happens.
|
|
|
Post by coloradoman on Dec 10, 2009 20:20:05 GMT -5
You know, I think the Deputy Commissioner for Dishonesty and Cowardice lifted my wallet during the baby-torturing session of training in Falls Church. Only 40% of the last training class was from the Agency, so an outsider's chances are historically statistically better than PF's histrionic statistics. The class was a diverse group with a noticable lack of egomania. Everyone should know that for every candidate selected on her first try, there are several others who needed the patience to make it after several tries, and others that never made it. The process was like that before 2007, and has continued to go that way now. It really should be no surprise. Kind of like the old rule that you just might not get every job you apply for no matter how much you want it or feel qualified for it. "It was clear that the summary was intended to turn excellent, nearly flawless references of a superb candidate on their head to later justify a non-selection. If you knew the level and calibre of the references, you too would be indignant that they were summarized in such a way..." Other than an arbitrary OPM score, what made this candidate any more "superb" than the other candidates? Do we know the excellence, flawlessness, level, and calibre of the references of the other candidates? For that matter, at what point does the "level and calibre" of one's references reach the level of "powers that be?" Were one of those references at the "level" or "calibre" of "Congressman?" val,welcome back! Your defense skills have only sharpened! I've missed you. I have to say that having done this OPM application, interview, test and score gauntlet twice, I hardly think its arbitrary. Also, a 40% rate of insiders are mucho plenty. How many private attorneys? Surely, however, we are not going down that road again. Just that reasonable minds can differ. Also assuming that pf is right (and I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise), three-striking a hundred (or even 80) qualified folks whose only crime is being high scoring is not acceptable to any one who adheres to the Code of Federal Regulation. You might want to get together with a few of these folks and ask them how it felt. In addition, "down-scoring" an attorney ALJ applicant for being aggressive is like downgrading a surgeon for having a steady hand. It is ludicrous on its face and would be laughed at by ANY Judge. The problem of course is that its not funny because it happens. Yes, legal right and practical right are often in conflict. However, all of us who are attorneys and Judges for SSA need to have the guts to speak up among ourselves and to the agency when the agency becomes too arrogant and goes beyond what is ethically and legally appropriate. As attorneys, we all have an individual obligation to make sure we conduct ourselves within professional responsibility/ethical guidelines; and we have an affirmative duty to report violations. If we act individually, we can face inappropriate adverse action by the agency. However, the ALJ Association has the clout to raise the issue as an organization without penalty to individuals. The Attorney Advisor Association can also do the same. It is in the best interest of both ALJs and agency attorneys to work together to take appropriate action to resolve this issue. Actually, we each have an ethical duty to resolve this issue.
|
|
|
Post by coloradoman on Dec 10, 2009 20:27:11 GMT -5
Maybe its time for Pix or some other person close to the throne in the crystal palace to add some rationale for this development but obviously the high-school graduate GS supervising GS-13 SAs is not an unusual situation and my understanding is that NTEU signed-off on it. For you new to this business be advised that taking an action that you believe required by the Cannons, like reporting attorney misconduct can get you deep kimshee. The Commish obviously believes that agency policy can trump state bar ethics provisions. E.g. it is not the policy of the regional chief judge (RCJ) to enforce the APA right to subpoena records. And the HOCALJ can protest all he wants but if the RCJ allows the regional management offical (RMO) to dictate the "business practices" in the region. good luck. Sorry to tell you this but you ignore agency policy at your peril, and there is a policy for everything. Talk to someone who has been around awhile before chasing ethical wind-mills. OOps. Previous quote was wrong quote. My response was to this quote. It goes as follows: Yes, legal right and practical right are often in conflict. However, all of us who are attorneys and Judges for SSA need to have the guts to speak up among ourselves and to the agency when the agency becomes too arrogant and goes beyond what is ethically and legally appropriate. As attorneys, we all have an individual obligation to make sure we conduct ourselves within professional responsibility/ethical guidelines; and we have an affirmative duty to report violations. If we act individually, we can face inappropriate adverse action by the agency. However, the ALJ Association has the clout to raise the issue as an organization without penalty to individuals. The Attorney Advisor Association can also do the same. It is in the best interest of both ALJs and agency attorneys to work together to take appropriate action to resolve this issue. Actually, we each have an ethical duty to resolve this issue. I think the ALJ Association is in the best position to get this issue resolved; and it is in their best interest to resolve this issue.
|
|
|
Post by karaj on Dec 10, 2009 23:34:12 GMT -5
Maybe its time for Pix or some other person close to the throne in the crystal palace to add some rationale for this development but obviously the high-school graduate GS supervising GS-13 SAs is not an unusual situation and my understanding is that NTEU signed-off on it. I'm not sure this is accurate. The Union representing SAs (NTEU) may have signed off on certain HPI terms, but a non-attorney cannot supervise an attorney except in an administrative capacity, i.e., time and attendance, assigning certain types of cases, accepting leave slips, etc. It is a blatant Union violation for a non-attorney supervisor to exercise "oversight" or "supervise" the attorney's work-product or how the attorney writes the case or spends his/her time. In short, regarding work product, attorneys must be supervised by attorneys. NTEU can and will contact management and put a stop to any non-attorney attempting to supervise an attorney's work product. As to ALJs, if a non-attorney is exercising any type of influence on how you decide your cases, let your HOCALJ know immediately. If that does not settle the issue, contact your Union rep and/or the RCALJ.
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Dec 11, 2009 3:36:54 GMT -5
Folks who have read my posts on this blog for awhile know our difficulties in Region 4 are caused by management officials with no legal education- all of our SAs are now under the control of a high school graduate GS in my office which for me is the last straw since that GS has told the writers to disregard my citations to caselaw. No way! How can a non-attorney GS tell the writers to disregard your instructions? Not to get off the subject, but it is time this issue was addressed. Our office is in the same situation. Why individuals with no college background are being promoted to the same level as Senior Attorney, while Staff attorneys remain GS-12s, is beyond me. Not to mention the fact that the job can be done by a Senior Attorney. Where did this system go wrong? With HPI? But we know HPI was a joke...so why does it continue? It's been 10 yrs. since HPI. Why has there been no oversight since then? IMHO, HPI is where it went wrong. Prior to that point, the offices had a supervisory staff attorney and a hearing office manager. The SAA supervised all the writers - they took care of training new hires, spot checked the work of old writers and basically acted as a liason between the writers and the judges, handling complaints from both sides. The HOM manages the remainder of the staff and the generic office facility/supply type tasks. Early versions of HPI had the HOD as an attorney position. The unions got that changed so that it could be an attorney or a non-attorney. I don't think the powers that be throught through the fact that many attorneys would be content taking a GS 13 position as a Senior Attorney over the GS 13 group supervisor position. Same pay, but fewer headaches. Many offices now, particularly with so many attorney HODs being selected to the ALJ position, have all non-attorneys in their management. Not the best situation to those concerned with quality issues. When HPI first rolled out, alot of staff attorneys expressed concerned about non-attorneys supervising their work product. Changes were made so that if an attorney pressed, the HOCALJ would be the one to sign their performance appraisals, if no other manager was an attorney. Further, policy guidance was issued stating that non-attorney managers can address administrative tasks only, not content of decisions. Unfortuneately, most HOCALJs will not step into that role. putting ALJs in the position of trying to persuade writers to do good work, fixing bad decisions on their own, or holding their noses as they sign. The best way for SAA to resolve the problem would be to reinstate the Supervisory Staff Attorney position.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Dec 11, 2009 19:00:32 GMT -5
Maybe its time for Pix or some other person close to the throne in the crystal palace to add some rationale for this development but obviously the high-school graduate GS supervising GS-13 SAs is not an unusual situation and my understanding is that NTEU signed-off on it. For you new to this business be advised that taking an action that you believe required by the Cannons, like reporting attorney misconduct can get you deep kimshee. The Commish obviously believes that agency policy can trump state bar ethics provisions. E.g. it is not the policy of the regional chief judge (RCJ) to enforce the APA right to subpoena records. And the HOCALJ can protest all he wants but if the RCJ allows the regional management offical (RMO) to dictate the "business practices" in the region. good luck. Sorry to tell you this but you ignore agency policy at your peril, and there is a policy for everything. Talk to someone who has been around awhile before chasing ethical wind-mills. coloradoman has a point. And the ABA Model Rules (which I bet is similair if not identical to your Bar Rules) state the following: Model Rules of Professional Conduct Law Firms And Associations Rule 5.2 Responsibilities Of A Subordinate Lawyer (a) A lawyer is bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct notwithstanding that the lawyer acted at the direction of another person. (b) A subordinate lawyer does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct if that lawyer acts in accordance with a supervisory lawyer's reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty.
Since SSA/ODAR requires its attorneys have a State Bar license, then they cannot have their cake and eat it too and "declare" that their mis-guided interpretation of federal regulation (which one I ask) somehow "trumps" state law. They'd get laughed out of court on that one. ODAR attys, like everyone else, have follow DRs, the Nuremberg defense won't necessarily save them. And Judges, well what can I say? They have this and the APA...
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Dec 12, 2009 12:32:53 GMT -5
You can bet the farm that the Commish is relying on 5.2(b) for his authority to discipline ALJs (and he has which is why I invoked someone closer to the throne to comment) for acting outside the policy for reporting attorney misconduct.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Dec 12, 2009 12:35:20 GMT -5
P.S. This topic has been the subject of discussion before. Maybe someone more computer literate than I can reference the prior thread.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Dec 12, 2009 12:36:22 GMT -5
GO NAVY_ BEAT ARMY!
|
|