New Poll on ALJ Application Experience listed

[care]

Hi: I just posted a poll asking:
How many years of trial and administrative law experience (combined) did you put on your 2013 ALJ application?
Enjoy!

[hoping4alj]

30

[westernalj]

I read the announcement as indicating that if you have 7 years litigation experience and are licensed, you move on to the online testing. "Applicants who have cleared the preliminary qualifications screening (i.e., the experience and licensure requirements) also are required to successfully complete the other components of the ALJ examination." If you don't meet both requirements, you get a Notice of Results indicating your are ineligible. In other words, I don't think the resume and assessment questionnaire are scored. But this is my first time going through this process, so perhaps I am misinterpreting this.

[zebra51]

Don't think longevity counts for too much in this marathon. Look at the task. First us Pass/Fail as long as you are over 7 year everyone is equal. Next steps SJT (graded test longevity counts zero ), WT (graded test longevity counts zero), EA (multiple choice experience with narrative. Here longevity may make some but probably little difference because a applicant with 7 years may be able to show just as much as one with 30 in the way questions are answered). Next steps WD (graded test longevity counts zero), LBT (graded test longevity counts zero), SI (graded interview longevity may count a bit but it is more about impressions).

Out of six parts. 4 have no longevity influence. I would submit the other two have very little longevity input.

[bradydarcy]

18 yrs of litigation, 8 yrs of admin.

[interestedlawyer]

I'm a worrier. If there is any consistent theme on this board over the years, it's worrying. So my current worry is what sort of "specificity" was required to show I met 7 years of litigation and administrative law experience to avoid being screened out for lack of "specificity?"

Should I have gone back, counted, and listed exactly how many times I have tried a case? Is formal representation of a client in court litigation, or is it litigation only if the case went to trial? Should I have tried to count how many hearings I have attended in 20+ years of practice and listed a specific number? Note the instructions say if you do both litigation and non-litigation, you should have listed what percentage of your time is spent in litigation. Since nobody literally litigates full time, should I have listed a percentage? Does the lack of listing a percentage mean the application will be screened out for lack of specificity in showing that I met the requirement?

I am half kidding, but there were plenty of people on prior applications who were rejected as failing to meet the basic qualifications, for omissions such as lack of an exact date admitted to practice. I just wonder how harsh the computer screening process will be in scrutinizing specificity in the application.

[privateatty]

Mar 17, 2013 11:04:10 GMT -5 interestedlawyer said:

I'm a worrier. If there is any consistent theme on this board over the years, it's worrying. So my current worry is what sort of "specificity" was required to show I met 7 years of litigation and administrative law experience to avoid being screened out for lack of "specificity?"

Should I have gone back, counted, and listed exactly how many times I have tried a case? Is formal representation of a client in court litigation, or is it litigation only if the case went to trial? Should I have tried to count how many hearings I have attended in 20+ years of practice and listed a specific number? Note the instructions say if you do both litigation and non-litigation, you should have listed what percentage of your time is spent in litigation. Since nobody literally litigates full time, should I have listed a percentage? Does the lack of listing a percentage mean the application will be screened out for lack of specificity in showing that I met the requirement?

I am half kidding, but there were plenty of people on prior applications who were rejected as failing to meet the basic qualifications, for omissions such as lack of an exact date admitted to practice. I just wonder how harsh the computer screening process will be in scrutinizing specificity in the application.

Worrying is only asking for what you don't want. There will be plenty of time to worry--like at the SI at OPM and SSA and when folks start getting picked up here...

[71stretch]

It's not a "computer screening process". Real live people will look at your application. I don't think anyone needed to count trials or hearings. If seven years of litigation and/or admin experience can be seen from what you've provided, you are fine. I gave my experience back to them using the same phrases they used in describing the two categories. I'm so far past seven that I'm not worried.

[dcflyer]

I have 25 years of experience, more than 18 years in DOJ, first as a Trial Attorney, then as Senior Trial Counsel. I was sole counsel in 150 cases that went to trial in some form, and was co-lead counsel on a group of 4,700 more (those cases were based on a common claim). The "real live people" who screened mine said I didn't have seven years of experience.

[callmeyahonor]

I had never applied before or known about the message boards. Maybe that's good. I typed my experience in about 3 sentences in 3 minutes and didn't know I should be worried until I started reading. They said I had the requisite experience so now I'm glad I did not over-think it. Btw, I have 15 yrs of qualifying experience.

[christina]

Agreed it's pass fail but given that some of our colleagues with over 7 years are in the appeals process, the poller raised a good point. in my case, pretty sure I plastered over 20 all over the place so OPM could figure out that "over 20>7". the only other time I took exam, I did not get past first step and wondered if my breakdown of lit v admin got in the way.

[lurker/dibs]

I will ditto what devildog said. I have also tried approx 170 cases solo, all appointed criminal defense cases. The only cases in my state where an indigent defendant is appointed multiple attorneys for his/her defense is in a capital case, i.e. murder. Even complex rape and manslaughter cases are only appointed a single defense attorney. So, it is very likely that someone who has many more years of experience than me would have the capability of trying hundreds more cases than me. Just my two cents.

[hod]

I agree. Only the high profile Court TV cases and cases involving people with lots of money or, as noted above, maybe a capital case in some states, gets more participants. I have not practiced in the private sector for a long time, but I can assure you, only the Senior partners got to take a second chair. We did not even get paralegal help in the lower levels. The only other time I remember another attorney being brought on board was a "mentee/supervisor" situation (or if there was a passing chance of something hitting the 6 oclock news :-) ).

[bartleby]

I doubt if OPM really wants to get involved in a class action law suit involving age discrimination.. I have seen them hire ALJ's in their seventies and we just had a HOCALJ that died and he was 94 and had been the HOCALJ since the 70's. Most of the ones not making the first cut probably left off their date of admission or something that seemed trivial at the time. Many rush through the app and think, I will look up my Bar number before I send it and then send it without it.. I know, none of us would do that, but you might be surprised..

[shadowyfigure]

I doubt option 1 is correct. 25 years of experience would make the person late 40s if they graduated law school at 22. Late 40s/early 50s is a typical age for new SSA ALJs and I know several who were in the sixties or seventies when hired.

[lurker/dibs]

I was passed through to the second round. I have a full 7 years criminal experience and 8 administrative. So, in my case, they could have passed me through on either or both. I can't speak for the experience of others. From my reading, I believe they would consider both criminal and administrative as qualifying experience.

[marten77]

May 31, 2013 10:19:26 GMT -5 @aljfaq said:

Given all of the people with 25+ years experience who have been rejected, I think it must be because (1) OPM is either screening out people who they think are too close to retirement, (2) a higher proportion of those folks struggled with filling out the online forms correctly, or (3) from the way they described their work history, it was too complicated to figure out whether the last seven years or more were spent engaged in a qualifying job.

I am also skeptical of people who say they have tried hundreds of cases solo. What kind of cases were those that someone could try them solo? Even the lamest dog bite cases seem to have trial teams of at least two or more lawyers.

When I was at the Attorney General's Office, few trials happened that involved two or more lawyers on one side or the other. Usually, if there was a team in the offices I worked at, it was typically comprised of a newbie and a veteran mentor. However, those were usually for the first one to five trials and then you were on your own. While I was at the US Attorney's Office, I only tried one case with a co-counsel. All the rest were on my own and it was frowned upon (at least in my District) for a lawyer to team up with someone else unless it was an exceptionally large and cumbersome paper case with an expected trial length of more than two weeks. Likewise, on the defense side of things, I only had about a half dozen to maybe 10 where there was a team representing just one client. I'm sure that is not the practice at every US Attorney's Office or other prosecutorial offices. I don't have hundreds of trials under my belt, but I left enough blood, sweat, tears and pride on the federal courtroom floor to know my way around it. Plus, I only tried one case with a requested co-counsel. There were several people that I worked with that did have hundreds of trials. Those people always did it on their own whether it was a run of the mill felon in possession of a firearm case to complex governmental waste and bribery cases or murder cases involving the death penalty.

That being said, I don't know that OPM is selectively screening out those with 25+ years since there is no mandatory retirement age for the ALJ spot. I know that realistically, most who are at the tail end of their career would not mind having an ALJ spot to ride into retirment on and OPM is likely aware of that fact. There are others that have the job and do not reitre and just keep on going and going. In any event, such a screening practice would most definitely violate the Age Discrimination Act and I doubt OPM wants to open that can of worms.

As to technical proficiency, a lot of the old dogs have learned the new tricks. But others haven't. One ALJ I worked with asked me if I could type while listening to testimony. When I told him I could, he shook his head and talked about how he felt the old timers were being pushed out because of all of the requirements of the new tech. Now whether the old dogs that are out there now had difficulties filling out the online portion, who knows? I'm sure there were some. But I also recall a large number of posts from others of the younger ilk that were not boasting 25 years and hundreds of trials that could not figure out how to make Application Manager work when this process began. In the end, I tend to think those that had the 25 years and hundreds of trials were excluded on technicalities, (i.e., no Bar ID number, insufficient description of job duties in OPM-ese, etc., etc.).

[nj4096]

At this point I do not recall exsctly how I articulated my approximately 13 years of qualifying experience. I do recall indicating the percentage of time spentIin litigation/administrative law activities. From this board many with years more of qualifying experience were rejected. Very likely due to no fault of their own. I know like many of youhave applied for government attorney positions for which you were imminently qualified and did not even get an intervuew and when you look on the agencys website staff bios indicate folks with much less exoerience. This situation differs in that there is a system in place for appealing nonselection. If you were cut unfairly and prematurely avail yourself of the appeal
Process and get some answers. Good luck.

[hod]

And just as a BTW-I believe the Appeal end date is June 2-which is this Sunday so maybe by the laws of not counting a non-work day as the last day, Monday would do. But I would not count on it since the Appeal is by e-mail and there is no delivery service issue with e-mail. Good Luck to all!