Post by valkyrie on Jul 14, 2013 16:20:21 GMT -5
If you truly want to become a great ALJ, here's some advice. If you want to effectively control your HEARING room and docket, (not a COURTROOM), go straight to your local Applebee's or O'Charley's and fill out a server application. They let any customer in without any requirement other than wearing a shirt and shoes, and they can vary in demeanor from kindly to intoxicated, and unable to read the menu to the personification of Evil. They don't even screen the customers first to see if they can pay! Managing these customers in spite of inconsistent support from your kitchen and busboys, while also keeping your stressed out manager off your back will give you a whole hell of a lot more USEFUL experience controlling an ODAR hearing room and docket than any courtroom. From your manager's perspective, the customer is always right, and you are required to bend-over backwards to give your customer a pleasant dining experience in spite of all of their attempts to screw it up. As SSA ALJs we don't have half the structure of courtroom litigation environment. That isn't my opinion, that is the regs! We don't have rules of evidence, and we have minimal procedural rules. Do you get that? The regulatory structure makes virtually EVERYTHING admissible, instead it only guides us on how to WEIGH what is admitted.
How many unruly claimant's and reps are out there? Most of the unruly hearing attendees I have heard have been antagonized by some idiot doing his best Tom Cruise impression from A Few Good Men, or inappropriately pontificating from the bench about the claimant's lifestyle. More frequently you see a claimant pretending to be catatonic or unable to stop crying, which is really no all that difficult to manage. As for the reps, they are cutting their own throats if they make asses of themselves, because there is strong likelihood that they will se you again fro another hearing within the next month or so, and they know it. You can always cut them off by offering them an opportunity to submit a brief, or merely letting them know that you will take their argument or objection under advisement, and that it is on the record for Appeal purposes. Remember, the litigation rules really don't apply in terms of any disciplinary authority you think you might have over the reps. Look at Deltajudge's or DecadeALJ's posts if you would like a further explanation. You get to wear a robe and they even give you a height advantage with the bench. They have to call you "Your Honor,"or "Judge," and all of the pre-hearing information makes it pretty clear who is in charge. If you have at least above average social skills, you can manage an ODAR hearing room.
Finally, it is the height of legal arrogance to assume that the only people out there that can figure out who's lying and who's telling the truth are judges and lawyers. For Pete's sake, aren't any of you parents? Are you really unable to conceive of another occupation where people have to make decisions on a daily basis based upon reams of reports, and the potentially conflicting input of other employees? Lawyers and judges are unquestionably best suited for getting to the heart of a legal dispute and successfully finding the truth of the matter, within the framework of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Civil/Criminal Procedure, or their like. If you throw out the Rules of Evidence and Procedure, you've thrown out most of the SPECIALIZED experience with it. Which brings us to the next pillar of arrogance in some of the arguments on the Board. Do some of you honestly think that those of us with most or entirely ODAR experience have no idea what goes on in and out of a courtroom? I won't for even a second try and say that I could walk into a litigation and be successful, or even know exactly what to do, but I am still far from a layman as well. I have sat through entire trials while aiding in all of the discovery and procedure. My limited law school and clerking experience with litigation does not even begin to qualify me to step into a courtroom and begin litigating, but it certainly has given me the capacity to understand that it is VASTLY different from what goes on in an ODAR hearing room.
How many unruly claimant's and reps are out there? Most of the unruly hearing attendees I have heard have been antagonized by some idiot doing his best Tom Cruise impression from A Few Good Men, or inappropriately pontificating from the bench about the claimant's lifestyle. More frequently you see a claimant pretending to be catatonic or unable to stop crying, which is really no all that difficult to manage. As for the reps, they are cutting their own throats if they make asses of themselves, because there is strong likelihood that they will se you again fro another hearing within the next month or so, and they know it. You can always cut them off by offering them an opportunity to submit a brief, or merely letting them know that you will take their argument or objection under advisement, and that it is on the record for Appeal purposes. Remember, the litigation rules really don't apply in terms of any disciplinary authority you think you might have over the reps. Look at Deltajudge's or DecadeALJ's posts if you would like a further explanation. You get to wear a robe and they even give you a height advantage with the bench. They have to call you "Your Honor,"or "Judge," and all of the pre-hearing information makes it pretty clear who is in charge. If you have at least above average social skills, you can manage an ODAR hearing room.
Finally, it is the height of legal arrogance to assume that the only people out there that can figure out who's lying and who's telling the truth are judges and lawyers. For Pete's sake, aren't any of you parents? Are you really unable to conceive of another occupation where people have to make decisions on a daily basis based upon reams of reports, and the potentially conflicting input of other employees? Lawyers and judges are unquestionably best suited for getting to the heart of a legal dispute and successfully finding the truth of the matter, within the framework of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Civil/Criminal Procedure, or their like. If you throw out the Rules of Evidence and Procedure, you've thrown out most of the SPECIALIZED experience with it. Which brings us to the next pillar of arrogance in some of the arguments on the Board. Do some of you honestly think that those of us with most or entirely ODAR experience have no idea what goes on in and out of a courtroom? I won't for even a second try and say that I could walk into a litigation and be successful, or even know exactly what to do, but I am still far from a layman as well. I have sat through entire trials while aiding in all of the discovery and procedure. My limited law school and clerking experience with litigation does not even begin to qualify me to step into a courtroom and begin litigating, but it certainly has given me the capacity to understand that it is VASTLY different from what goes on in an ODAR hearing room.
