|
Post by deltajudge on Jun 27, 2010 9:40:03 GMT -5
8-)Most of the hearings in the "elite" agencies are adversary, so more fun and interesting, as compared to SSA hearings which are not and basically cover the same issues, hearing after hearing, and day in and day out. I had adversary hearings as a worker's comp judge, and believe me they are a lot more fun, bout as close as you can get to a real court trail, and my record went all the way to the state supreme court. However, if you go to SSA instead of an "elite" agency, the work will be a lot easier with a lot of management interference with the decisional process, but as I said earlier, the pay is the same.
|
|
|
Post by civilserpent on Jun 30, 2010 13:50:52 GMT -5
My comment goes to privateatty's first post on this thread. I have worked as an ALJ for both SSA and another agency. I humbly disagree that an SSA attorney with no other legal background would be able to rule on evidence with only some OTJ training. The rigors of dealing with skilled attorneys, and with weighing evidence in adversarial hearings require litigation skills. I am not saying that the work of SSA isn't arduous. However, without litigation experience, an ALJ with my agency would be easily manipulated by counsel and would most likely miss a lot of details. Although SSA's Appeals Council can pick apart a case, they've got nothing on opposing counsel who are paid by the hour.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jun 30, 2010 17:19:07 GMT -5
My comment goes to privateatty's first post on this thread. I have worked as an ALJ for both SSA and another agency. I humbly disagree that an SSA attorney with no other legal background would be able to rule on evidence with only some OTJ training. The rigors of dealing with skilled attorneys, and with weighing evidence in adversarial hearings require litigation skills. I am not saying that the work of SSA isn't arduous. However, without litigation experience, an ALJ with my agency would be easily manipulated by counsel and would most likely miss a lot of details. Although SSA's Appeals Council can pick apart a case, they've got nothing on opposing counsel who are paid by the hour. Actually, I'm glad you disagree. I think this is a subject most worthy of discussion. It does appear that this is a bit of a yawner for the Board and that's too bad. I know for me my use of objections and a host of other tactics morphed from pre-meditated to rather reflexive over the years of deposition and courtroom battle. Certainly, litigators get better after seasoning. And I did post a story some time back about a Judge who had insufficient experience/knowledge to rule on trial objections. It wasn't pretty. However, I think if someone truly desires to be an adversarial bench trial Judge, they can do it. "OJT", I agree is not enough, you have to study and anticipate. If you think that is not enough, certainly I can't argue the point effectively. Alot of ALJs agree with you.
|
|
Wolfiemom
Full Member
Irish Wolfhounds Rule!
Posts: 47
|
Post by Wolfiemom on Jun 30, 2010 21:18:20 GMT -5
I once had a jury trial in front of a judge who couldn't rule on an objection. He most often would say "let's move on, counselor," which I guess was his version of "overruled." Where I come from, common pleas judges are elected, and as long as you have a good Irish name or are female, you have a pretty good chance of getting elected. These judges, many with no real litigation experience, get to preside over murder trials, complicated medical malpractice trials, etc. You get the picture. It is was a very frustrating experience. The worst part was when I went back after the trial to get prejudgment interest on my verdict because the insurance company did not act in good faith, he basically refused to hold the hearing. He intimated that if we did not settle the claim, he was going to rule against my client, even though she has a strong claim for PJI. So, I am sure that what you say would be true. A judge without enough experience to make proper evidentiary rulings should not be presiding at an adversarial hearing. He or she will be unhappy, probably lousy at their job, and disrespected by the litigants. While they may be able to grow into the job, they will have to work hard to maintain their credibility during the learning period. Just my opinion--I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by kxmulli on Jul 1, 2010 0:05:54 GMT -5
Learning to be a trial judge without first learning to be a trial lawyer has always sounded pretty impossible to me. But SSA hearings aren't trials, are they?
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Jul 1, 2010 6:29:08 GMT -5
And neither are HHS hearings, and between the two Agencies, you have a large majority of the ALJ corps. Having done both trial litigation and worked for SSA, I personally feel that it is easier for a non-litigation attorney to learn the rules of evidence than for a non-medically oriented attorney to learn all of the medical material and disability material and nuances and minutiae of SSA practice. Also, I find it hard to believe we are dealing with top notch trial litigators here in the first place as the salary of an ALJ pales compared to a big dog litigator. There is nothing at SSA or HHS that requires any litigation experience. JMHO, as usual..
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jul 1, 2010 7:23:44 GMT -5
And neither are HHS hearings, and between the two Agencies, you have a large majority of the ALJ corps. Having done both trial litigation and worked for SSA, I personally feel that it is easier for a non-litigation attorney to learn the rules of evidence than for a non-medically oriented attorney to learn all of the medical material and disability material and nuances and minutiae of SSA practice. Also, I find it hard to believe we are dealing with top notch trial litigators here in the first place as the salary of an ALJ pales compared to a big dog litigator. There is nothing at SSA or HHS that requires any litigation experience. JMHO, as usual.. That's a bit demeaning. It isn't all about the money, some of us took big paycuts for this job. As for the medical/disability side of it, I do think a work comp, personal injury practitioner has a leg up to be a better SSA ALJ. It has more to do with a practical and instinctive knowledge of disability than knowing the difference between spondylosis and spondylolisthesis.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Jul 1, 2010 7:44:33 GMT -5
In my 13 years with SSA, I have yet to meet a known name litigator that has given up the Glory life to become an ALJ.. It's not demeaning, it's pretty factual. I am just tired of hearing how litigation experience is so important to becoming an ALJ. The great majority of ALJ's are in non-adversarial offices. I also have found very few people that actually took a cut in pay to come to the ALJ corps. Someone that is used to living on $200,000-250,000 a year is going to have a tough time adjusting to 125,000 a year. Let's all just be happy once we make it and quit acting like litigators are a special breed. Just for information, my LL.M. is in litigation, so been there and done it. There are a whole lot of litigators out there making $100,000 a year, but they are not Special and don't walk on water and wouldn't be taking a cut in pay for this job. However, knowledge of Rules of Evidence, straight forward enough, means very little to the great majority of ALJ positions.
|
|
|
Post by Well on Jul 1, 2010 8:04:20 GMT -5
One of the best local judges I ever practiced under had almost no practical trial experience but he did have the whole matter of being brilliant and diligent on his side. One of the worst was a veteran trial lawyer who was a tad too veteran, he saw his rise to the bench as the triumph of his causes and lord help those who represented those he used to litigate against.
I figure they are the exceptions that prove the rule though.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jul 1, 2010 8:35:54 GMT -5
The trial experience qulaification issue has been beaten to death- seems to come up every class about this time in the process. Bottom line is that SSA wasn't the only agency clamoring to diminish the qualifying criteria of litigation experience so they could reach their own on the register. The toothpaste is out of the tube folks and there is no way OPM is going to go back to the old qualification standad. Might as well give it a rest.
|
|
|
Post by pedaltone on Jul 1, 2010 8:47:46 GMT -5
The trial experience qulaification issue has been beaten to death- seems to come up every class about this time in the process. Bottom line is that SSA wasn't the only agency clamoring to diminish the qualifying criteria of litigation experience so they could reach their own on the register. The toothpaste is out of the tube folks and there is no way OPM is going to go back to the old qualification standad. Might as well give it a rest. I forget. Where other agencies, like ITC, looking to diminsh the credit for litigation experience or where they looking to have "specilized" certificates drawn from the register (or a combination)? Of course, giving greater weight to subject matter experience would, in relative terms, diminish other factors.
|
|
|
Post by iapplied on Jul 1, 2010 8:49:21 GMT -5
All of litigation experience that one can gather from private practice is most used when practicing multiple areas of law before district court judges. The rules of evidence are not applicable to most of SSA's hearings.
That is not to say that litigation experience, such as proffering interrogatories, stipulating/inquiring into the qualifications of experts, subpoenaing witnesses, determining whether a lay witness can/should testify, for example, are not important to SSA hearings. I'm simply suggesting that the full extent of one's litigation experience had in private practice is not fully needed in the context of SSA hearings. Therefore, that full litigation experience is not a disqualifier for those who do not have it.
In terms of "crafty" litigants, a good attorney can see through "craftiness" and so can a good ALJ. SSA is not hiring people with little or no experience. The pool of applicants is just too large now. I would imagine (and I could be wrong of course) that ALJs typically have and will come with a wealth of experience. So those ALJs would have experience with seeing misconstrued facts and law, which I have seen from newbie attorneys to experienced attorneys. Of course, an ALJ would want to save himself/herself the embarrassment of having to hold a second or third hearing for example because that ALJ forgot to do something simple like an oath but mistakes (some simple, some not) happen even with the most experienced of ALJs.
Also, if there is an assumption that an SSA attorney is not a litigant, that assumption comes from a lack of knowledge of what some SSA attorneys now do. I can't speak for all SSA attorneys as some parts of the agency/some positions do more litigation than others. However, the role of some SSA attorneys has drastically changed over the years. Some, if not most, SSA attorneys do litigate. There used to be time where some of the litigation was parceled out but for the most part, that is not the case anymore.
Furthermore, I think learning is just that. Learning on the job, learning through books, learning on a different job, is still learned knowledge. How to evaluate evidence was learned in school (one might even simply say it was taught, but not really learned in school depending on numerous factors like sleep and sobriety). Then it was learned on the job. Experience comes from repetition. Thus, the more anyone does anything (say typing for example), one learns to do it. Surely, if one can learn to type, learn a new electronic process, learn a new computer program, and learn how to deal with people (though I would argue THAT skill can’t but should be learned), one can learn how to rule on evidence. The most common issue in Social Security is weighing evidence, not ruling on whether it is admissible or not.
In terms of respect, I have yet to see a babe on the job get any significant level of respect unless the babe is overqualified for the position and is more like a elder in babe's clothing. Otherwise, respect is earned by almost all newcomers to a position. Take for example a former ALJ who has not done any Social Security law. That ALJ has valuable judicial experience but will still have to learn the applicable law. Social Security law and worker's compensation law are very different. In other words, some skills (litigation and judicial and administrative) are transferable to another position; however, unless you were previously a Social Security ALJ, you will have to learn some ropes as a Social Security ALJ. Thus, the training you get upon becoming an ALJ. My personal feeling/prediction is that the respect will have to come once one sees you consistently and proficiently performing your job well as an ALJ; otherwise expect little respect as a new ALJ.
|
|
Wolfiemom
Full Member
Irish Wolfhounds Rule!
Posts: 47
|
Post by Wolfiemom on Jul 1, 2010 11:35:27 GMT -5
Not at all. I did not mean to imply that you need to have been a hard-core litigator to be a SSA ALJ. I was thinking more about some of the adversarial ALJ positions, such as NLRB, though I am not speaking from personal experience. From my experience, I believe the best SSA ALJ's keep an open mind until the hearing is finished, listen to the testimony rather than sitting there reading the medical evidence for the first time, know the law, and promptly render a fair decision. I assumed that everyone realized that Social Security hearings are non-adversarial.
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Jul 1, 2010 13:26:37 GMT -5
I personally feel that it is easier for a non-litigation attorney to learn the rules of evidence than for a non-medically oriented attorney to learn all of the medical material and disability material and nuances and minutiae of SSA practice. I agree with the statement about medical knowledge. Ability to plow through couple hundred pages of medical document and know what is relevant and probative is much more important for SSA and OMHA work than any understanding of the rule of evidence. Additionally, being a judge is very different than being a litigator. Being a litigator is all about zealously representing your client and exploiting the facts and the law to the fullest extent possible. Being a judge for SSA is all about rendering a decision fairly, efficiently, and promptly. I have seen some trial attorneys becoming great judges. I have also seen others overwork individual cases and can't keep up with the pace. No single category of lawyers have the magic formula to be a good ALJ and candidates ultimately have to rest on their individual merits. So let's give this old horse a rest.
|
|
|
Post by Well on Jul 1, 2010 13:52:57 GMT -5
Interesting point Workdrone. Someone used to pounding out the tiniest of details in trial prep would feel like they were drinking from a wide open fire hydrant at SSA and probably be ill-at-ease worrying about missed details. Hadn't thought about that.
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Jul 1, 2010 15:21:38 GMT -5
Interesting point Workdrone. Someone used to pounding out the tiniest of details in trial prep would feel like they were drinking from a wide open fire hydrant at SSA and probably be ill-at-ease worrying about missed details. Hadn't thought about that. Trust me. I seen it in action when the person couldn't make the change and it was not pretty. Worked every case to death, hand 2 hour hearings, and ended up paying most of them after 6 months. The decisions were probably the prettiest FF cases out there. Unfortunately, said ALJ was only doing about 250 a year including dismissals. So there was much dismay in the office back then. Very smart judge, but totally wrong approach and attitude to this area of the law.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jul 1, 2010 15:28:40 GMT -5
Interesting point Workdrone. Someone used to pounding out the tiniest of details in trial prep would feel like they were drinking from a wide open fire hydrant at SSA and probably be ill-at-ease worrying about missed details. Hadn't thought about that. Trust me. I seen it in action when the person couldn't make the change and it was not pretty. Worked every case to death, hand 2 hour hearings, and ended up paying most of them after 6 months. The decisions were probably the prettiest FF cases out there. Unfortunately, said ALJ was only doing about 250 a year including dismissals. So there was much dismay in the office back then. Very smart judge, but totally wrong approach and attitude to this area of the law. We have a judge in my office (workers' comp appeals) who was a WC practitioner for many years, and was "wordy" as a practitioner, with simple notices being pages long. As a judge, he is worse. The simplest case is written in grievous detail. He even used to cite to the hearing transcripts until he was told to stop. Our volume isn't what SSA's is, but if we all did that, we'd be backlogged forever.
|
|
|
Post by iapplied on Jul 3, 2010 13:25:19 GMT -5
how much 'litigation experience' to OGC attorneys get? The vast majority of disability cases at the DC level dont have actual hearings and are decided on brief. Again your question shows: 1) a narrow view of "litigation experience;" 2) a narrow view/understanding of what OGC attorneys do; and 3) a general smugness/bias against believing anyone in OGC would have litigation experience. OPM says: "Qualifying litigation experience involves cases in which a complaint was filed with a court, or a charging document (e.g., indictment or information) was issued by a court, a grand jury, or appropriate military authority, and includes: * participating in settlement or plea negotiations in advance of trial; * preparing for trial and/or trial of cases; * preparing opinions; * hearing cases; * participating in or conducting arbitration, mediation, or other alternative dispute resolution approved by the court; or * participating in appeals related to the types of cases above." www.opm.gov/qualifications/alj/alj.aspSo litigation experience is a little more broader than you suggest. Do OGC attorneys have "trial" experience? Those like me who did some government work and private practice work before joining the agency have both trial and litigation experience outside of the agency and outside of Social Security law. There are very few OGC attorneys who have only worked for SSA straight out of law school. Furthermore, most OGC attorneys do other areas of law: civil rights, employment, tort law, bankruptcy, etc. So in my opinion and it's just that, OGC attorneys are just as qualified as any to do the job if they have done their OGC job well. Again, I'll say that times have changed from when I joined the agency when all we did was write a disability brief. Oh how I miss those days! But had it not been for all the work that I have done since those times, I would have not felt comfortable in applying for this ALJ job. Whether I, or most of us, get the job or not remains to be seen and how high the litigation experience bar is set remains to be seen. But the qualifying litigation experience is there. Now if SSA work in district court doesn't qualify as litigation experience, then that would also disqualify all private attorneys whose practice consists of 95% Social Security law.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Jul 3, 2010 21:01:17 GMT -5
8-)I came off the street as a practicing attorney and as an administrative law judge with a state workmen's compensation commission, with with the hearings were adversary. Now I don't know how much litigation plays with qualification as an ALJ, I think the main thing is contact with the proletariat, dealing with the public. Sitting in an office, and not dealing with those out there, bodes ill when you come in contact with them in a hearing. You have to know how to deal with people.
|
|
|
Post by ALJD on Jul 3, 2010 21:36:26 GMT -5
You're the smug one, here. All I did was ask a question. Check your attitude at the door, fella. Sloppy, I'm not sure what's up with you. Based on the few posts you have on this board, you're doing a good job of offending people, whether intentionally or not. I still haven't forgotten the original "Elite agency" post that started this thread, even though you deleted it. Anyway, take 3 days off and reflect on your shortcomings. Check your attitude at the door next time or you're off this board.
|
|