|
Post by privateatty on Feb 17, 2014 10:59:57 GMT -5
Methinks the Lady doth protest too much. I'm not sure about that. If I, or those that I had been close to, was called a lousy attorney I think I'd bristle. While bartleby did qualify it with a "usually", the utility of his remark has limited value; i.e., his own. Nonetheless taking a meat cleaver to the surgical table is a bit beneath an excellent attorney--ask any Judge. What I find most interesting in all of this is that as a SSA ALJ someone else is writing a decision that you are signing--and a whole heckuva lot of them by many others too. Having been someone who always wrote what I preached I find this, in and of itself, nothing short of amazing. Of course everyone at ODAR takes this for granted, but as a fundamental premise I think it is being overlooked. Are you going to always say, gee, I wish I wrote this as I feel like a fraud signing this? Are you ALWAYS saying this is utter crap and I won't sign it? Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle? Maybe the mere fact that most of us are sitting at home today with the kids (or in my case the Underwoods ) is more than enough proof that I am grateful to be here.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Feb 17, 2014 14:10:56 GMT -5
bartleby- it should be obvious by now that the venus mindset is now the norm in ODAR and once the toothpaste is out of the tube, there is no going back. As delta and I have long posted, the working relationship between ALJ and writer began to disintegrate more than two decades ago and there comes a time when you can no longer ethically sign the poop in front of you. But have no fear public, SSA can always find someone to march to their tune, due process be darned. B- it may also be time to think about buying a blender!
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Feb 17, 2014 14:56:11 GMT -5
8-)My wife began her career as a Hearing Assistant, back when they traveled with the ALJs, pulled the files and did all the work at the hearings. In fact, that is how I met her, she being sent to help on detail when my HA got sick. She was then accepted into the old Haring Analyst (writer) position, for which she was sent off for extensive training, and further to had prove her writing abilities with written demonstrations. Later when the position was upgraded to Para-legal, with a GS-12 designation, she had to repeat the process. She ended her career with a well deserved promotion to Group Supervisor. I think the agency's devotion to a "legally defensible" decision went out the window When HPI came along and HAs were given automatic promotion to writers, with rudimentary training. My wife never let me forget my fervent opposition to the original Hearing Analyst position, as most ALJs did back then, standing up for staff attorneys. So decade, I stand beside you in support of bartleby, who has apparently seen the light, and those such as venus have been blinded by it.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Feb 17, 2014 15:19:36 GMT -5
8-)My wife began her career as a Hearing Assistant, back when they traveled with the ALJs, pulled the files and did all the work at the hearings. In fact, that is how I met her, she being sent to help on detail when my HA got sick. She was then accepted into the old Haring Analyst (writer) position, for which she was sent off for extensive training, and further to had prove her writing abilities with written demonstrations. Later when the position was upgraded to Para-legal, with a GS-12 designation, she had to repeat the process. She ended her career with a well deserved promotion to Group Supervisor. I think the agency's devotion to a "legally defensible" decision went out the window When HPI came along and HAs were given automatic promotion to writers, with rudimentary training. My wife never let me forget my fervent opposition to the original Hearing Analyst position, as most ALJs did back then, standing up for staff attorneys. So decade, I stand beside you in support of bartleby, who has apparently seen the light, and those such as venus have been blinded by it. There are those of us who are excellent writers and are routinely praised for good work. It isn't ALL bad. The majority of the writers in my office have an excellent rapport with 90% of the ALJs as well. I do understand what you are saying having seen some of the bad work product, however, I do not think that is the current norm. Maybe I am lucky and work in a good office but I would not like to see those who are outsiders get the wrong impression from your bad experiences. I think it is probably more precise to say there are a few bad apples, just like in any job.
|
|
|
Post by philliesfan on Feb 17, 2014 15:21:13 GMT -5
I guess my experience has been different than Bart's. I have had many cases drafted by attorneys at my Regional Office (Region III), all of which have been uniformly excellent, not requiring any rewriting. I could sign them as soon as I was done reading them. This has also been true of many cases that have been sent to other Region III Hearing Offices for drafting. However, on a couple of occasions, I did resubmit them to my GS to be redrafted, but this has not been the norm.
The ALJs in my office are also lucky because the decision writing staff, both attorneys and paralegals, generally does excellent work, with one exception. Therefore, I generally only have to make minor edits to their drafts. I have to say, it makes my life a lot easier than what I have gleaned from this board has been the experience of other ALJs.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Feb 17, 2014 17:03:43 GMT -5
Admittedly, I don't agree with a lot of what bartleby says and/or I take it with a grain of salt, but I don't believe the characterization of bartelby by venus is fair or called for. Perhaps it is just me, but I do believe that bartleby cares about claimants and very likely does his best to provide a claimant a fair hearing and decision. I base this on some of the things he says about how he performs the job. That said, I also understand why venus would be peeved by his post as well... though, if you take his statement as written and not as intended, he's saying that writers and technicians at processing centers actually do care. I don't believe it's any secret that there is a disparity in the quality of the product produced by writers. I think that's also true of ALJs, supervisors, technicians, and any other job that happens to be filled by humans. If you work in an office where the writing quality is relatively high across the board, then consider yourself fortunate. I think all attorney writers have had the pleasure of writing a remanded decision. While there are certainly times where remands are caused by new evidence on appeal or other issues beyond our control, there are quite a few times where looking at the initial decision is painful given the deficiencies. On top of that, you have to think that the judge already did some additional editing work to that decision in an effort to save it (although I do know some judges that just click "sign" when it comes to them). I think writing quality would be my biggest concern should I land one of these spots.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Feb 17, 2014 17:23:47 GMT -5
I appreciate sratty's take about writers in her office and her completeness to detail. However, as she states there are bad apples in every profession, including writers and ALJs. Also, I agree with hopefalj about the concern of the quality of the written decisions should I become an ALJ. I would hate to put my name on an inferior written decision by a writer, which will then likely be overturned on appeal. There are always concerns of one type or another.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Feb 17, 2014 18:24:15 GMT -5
Are there bad writers? of course there are. There are those that seem to have no basic english comp skills, those that can recite facts but not a persuasive argument and those that are just plain lazy. From what I have personally seen, however, the vast majority are caPable of doing the job well.
I see three reasons their work product is often less than it could be.
In descending order of affect and in my opinion:
3. the FIT program. Typical of the gov to try a blunt instrument where scalpels are called for. These cookie cutter templates were designed to ensure all decisions were uniform. Unfortunately all cases aren't uniform. In probably 75% of the cases, plug and play works. The training the writers get pounds into them to not change the templates. Thus, many don't see the issues in the 25% of cases where the templates need tweaking to be accurate. IE a deceased claimant or when a claimants testimony is credible but doesn't prove disability. Thats right outties, if the decision is a denial FIT automatically calls the claimant a liar. Not to mention the issues not addressed at all by FIT that leads to the need to merge templates.
2. The numbers game. Again, in cookie cutter fashion, the agency says all denials take 8 hours to write and all pay cases get 4. If your case is a step 2 sga denial, 8 hours. If its a step 5 with 3000 pages of VA med records, same 8 hours.
And 1., aljs that don't do their jobs. As the judge, you have to make the decision on each step in the process and give clear instructions on what decision you made and why. That means listing the severe impairments and, if you decide something is nonsevere, how bout at least a sentence as to why? We can't always tell why a judge found diabetes nonsevere but controlled hypertension severe. On mental imps, give the b criteria so we don't have to make it up. What about post onset earnings? You wanna say not sga or unsucc work attempt? And please, give us a lil more than "less than sed" for the rfc.
I know judges are pressed for time. but anything you don't decide and put in your instrux causes us to have to interrupt you later or read your minds. Some are better at that than others.
Just as many of the aljs are disturbed by bad writing, the writers aren't always that impressed with their instrux. As for remands, I haven't seen the first one based on a dangling participle. On the other hand, quite a few based on not explaining why a treating source opinion was granted little weight have been floated thru the office. Some of those are on the writer that didn't write a good enough argument. A lot, though, could be remedied by a few words in the instrux from the judge on why they weren't persuaded by the opinion at issue.
Its an odd predicament. When I took this job, I described it to my wife as being like 2 people in a cafe. One orders. The other then has to explain to the waiter, chef and other diners why the first person ordered what they did. It's a whole lot easier if the first tells the second some background info like they're watching their weight, allergic to tomatoes or prone to shart uncontollably when they eat cheese.
I leave you with the words of the guy that mentored me (now an alj) when I brought him a set of instrux that simply had boxes checked: Garbage in, garbage out.
|
|
venus
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by venus on Feb 17, 2014 18:49:05 GMT -5
Wow, Venus, wow, touché, did I hit a nerve?? I am not the only Judge that complains about that. Trust me, we would all rather have our own people write the decision than a CAC Unit or an independent Writing Unit. I have never had anyone say, "Look at this decision from out of office, it is brilliantly written." I do give credit where it's do. I sent management four (4) e-mails last week telling management what good decisions I got from our writers. I almost wonder if you aren't some management schmuck that is so frustrated because you know how little you add to the quality and product of the work we do. I am sorry if reality offends you, but it is what it is. Oh, by the way, when I was a writer I had to rewrite many, many decisions that were written outside the office over the years. Bartleby, As usual, your conclusion is unsupported by anything more than your own inflated ego. In this matter, and I suspect most others where you attempt to think, you are dead wrong. I am neither a management schmuck nor any other brand of schmuck. I also know how to differentiate between do and due. I am appalled that you would state that outside writers don't care. If you were one tenth of the public servant that you pretend to be, you would invest your time and energy on worthwhile endeavors like helping those decision writers that fail to meet your embellished and fraudulent personal standard for excellence. Instead, you chose to get on a public forum and demean their integrity by saying they don't care. I am not an outside writer, but I have seen a lot of their work. As a senior attorney, I have corrected many decisions from both inside and outside writers. People make mistakes. Some are better writers than others. As many have said on here, ALJs make mistakes too. Noone but Bart and his Band of Brothers Grimm would take issue with that. This is a fact: Any ALJ that blames a writer for a remand is either a liar or incompetent. Once the decision is signed by the judge, it is solely the judge's responsibility. If they are not proof reading for legal sufficiency, they are not doing their job! Bart is the best evidence that pleasing ALJs is sometimes a fool's errand. In house writers have a natural advantage with critical judges because of experience tiptoeing around them. From the start, they are given scouting reports on finicky nuances and sometimes ignorant demands made by those with a severe case of black robe syndrome. Out of office writers don't have access to that information, and they also have to remember to include the correct locale specific language in each case they write. They don't just write for one district or circuit court audience day in and day out. Some regions rely heavily on VE testimony, others avoid it like Bart does humility. There are many subtle and not so subtle details that these writers have to decipher and include from the chicken scratch handwriting of some ALJs who think its ok to sleep through a hearing and then draw a smiley/frowny face on a fact sheet instead of providing instructions. It's neither accurate or helpful to say that no ALJ cares because some (like the chicken scratchers) are bad at their job or because some (like Bart and his ALJ friend from Huntington) are bad people. It is just as wrong to say that all outside writers (and pullers, for Pete's sake) are bad because Blackheart Bart is not impressed. ODAR is filled with impressive talent. Bart, if everywhere you look you find people that you don't agree with, odds are that you are the problem. Sorry if that reality offends you. P.S. I need to apologize for my earlier post. I did not mean to insult trolls or horse's backsides by comparing them to Bartleby.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2014 19:45:07 GMT -5
Methinks the Lady doth protest too much. I'm not sure about that. If I, or those that I had been close to, was called a lousy attorney I think I'd bristle. While bartleby did qualify it with a "usually", the utility of his remark has limited value; i.e., his own. Nonetheless taking a meat cleaver to the surgical table is a bit beneath an excellent attorney--ask any Judge. What I find most interesting in all of this is that as a SSA ALJ someone else is writing a decision that you are signing--and a whole heckuva lot of them by many others too. Having been someone who always wrote what I preached I find this, in and of itself, nothing short of amazing. Of course everyone at ODAR takes this for granted, but as a fundamental premise I think it is being overlooked. Are you going to always say, gee, I wish I wrote this as I feel like a fraud signing this? Are you ALWAYS saying this is utter crap and I won't sign it? Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle? Maybe the mere fact that most of us are sitting at home today with the kids (or in my case the Underwoods ) is more than enough proof that I am grateful to be here. I love this thread, those of us that have been in private practice since law school (and not sitting at home today, but working to make overhead) must love the infighting from a group of attorneys that don't have to do anything for a paycheck except to show up for work. Bartleby is not my favorite person on this board either, but I get where he is coming from in that if you cannot easily go back to the writer to address your concerns, then the work from that source has limited value. Venus, you need to chill a little!
|
|
|
Post by lildavey on Feb 17, 2014 19:52:11 GMT -5
I'm not sure about that. If I, or those that I had been close to, was called a lousy attorney I think I'd bristle. While bartleby did qualify it with a "usually", the utility of his remark has limited value; i.e., his own. Nonetheless taking a meat cleaver to the surgical table is a bit beneath an excellent attorney--ask any Judge. What I find most interesting in all of this is that as a SSA ALJ someone else is writing a decision that you are signing--and a whole heckuva lot of them by many others too. Having been someone who always wrote what I preached I find this, in and of itself, nothing short of amazing. Of course everyone at ODAR takes this for granted, but as a fundamental premise I think it is being overlooked. Are you going to always say, gee, I wish I wrote this as I feel like a fraud signing this? Are you ALWAYS saying this is utter crap and I won't sign it? Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle? Maybe the mere fact that most of us are sitting at home today with the kids (or in my case the Underwoods ) is more than enough proof that I am grateful to be here. I love this thread, those of us that have been in private practice since law school (and not sitting at home today, but working to make overhead) must love the infighting from a group of attorneys that don't have to do anything for a paycheck except to show up for work. Bartleby is not my favorite person on this board either, but I get where he is coming from in that if you cannot easily go back to the writer to address your concerns, then the work from that source has limited value. Venus, you need to chill a little! Talk about the need for a chill pill -- physician heal thyself. If you, as you say, have spent every working hour since law school in private practice, then you have no clue whatsoever what government attorneys do day to day.
|
|
|
Post by philliesfan on Feb 17, 2014 19:52:22 GMT -5
I think Funky has hit on one reason that ALJs get badly drafted decisions, the instructions or lack thereof. When I was writing decisions, I got instructions that ranged from FF or UF (favorable, unfavorable)and nothing else to 10 pages of single spaced instructions. I almost preferred the former to the latter. Many ALJs don't know how to give concise instructions that deal with the relevant issues. I use the FIT instructions, which require all five steps in the sequential evaluation to be dealt with and because, at times, I can barely read my own handwriting, especially my hearing notes, I type the instructions. I rarely exceed two pages of instructions, usually less, except in a DA&A case or a partially favorable. I indicate why I do not find the claimant's statements totally credible and what weight to give each medical opinion, including those from the State agency. Maybe that's why I don't have to spend a lot of time re-writing drafts. They are the kind of instructions I would have wanted when I was writing decisions.
I will say this though. When my cases have been sent to other hearing offices to be drafted, I hold my breath when I have to edit them because I know there are bad decision writers out there or ones who figure if they write a lousy decision it isn't coming back to them, so they don't care about the quality. I had a different attitude when I wrote decisions for other offices, I didn't want to be embarrassed by the quality of my decision when the ALJ in the other office read it. My reputation means something to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2014 20:07:39 GMT -5
If that makes you sleep at night, OK.
But I do know what Government Attorneys do, as I can only reach them between the hours of 9 AM and 5 PM, and you are full of cow manure if you attempt to say otherwise. Private Attorneys, I get calls seven days a week and mostly about 12 hours a day. Plus there is a reason why over 6,000 attorneys applied for the ALJ job, so whatever makes you feel good about your hard work ethic!
Seems like more than Venus needs a chill pill, I'm here at the Office at 7 PM writing checks to the US Treasury in the five digit ($00,000.00) range to pay taxes and employees fees while listening to whiney federal employees crying about their JOB. I never once whined in my 20 years of Active Federal service in the U. S. Army to include a combat tour, but I get it! Poor you and Venus.
P.S. Every enlisted soldier whines a little, but you get the point.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Feb 17, 2014 20:11:29 GMT -5
I love this thread, those of us that have been in private practice since law school (and not sitting at home today, but working to make overhead) must love the infighting from a group of attorneys that don't have to do anything for a paycheck except to show up for work. Bartleby is not my favorite person on this board either, but I get where he is coming from in that if you cannot easily go back to the writer to addr ess your concerns, then the work from that source has limited value. Venus, you need to chill a little! Talk about the need for a chill pill -- physician heal thyself. If you, as you say, have spent every working hour since law school in private practice, then you have no clue whatsoever what government attorneys do day to day. I spent a great deal of time in private practice prior to coming to work for odar. Both in a high frenzy firm and running my own shop where some months the secretary made more than me. From that experience, I know first hand that quality of lifeissues are better than on the gov side. Still, one that claims all a gov attorney has to do is show up has a lot to learn. But, by all means, tell that belief to your ssa interviewers should you make a cert. I'm all for someone else's ignorance increasing my own chances at bliss.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Feb 17, 2014 20:16:24 GMT -5
8-)Sadly, you all are part of s quasi-legal organization that is neither professional or ethical. Its only objective is to get the cases out the door. I know, as well as decade, because we have been there. Now you believe what you want, but management will fudge and manipulate the numbers in all sorts of ways to make themselves look good and place the blame on ALJs and staff.
|
|
|
Post by lawbird on Feb 17, 2014 20:20:45 GMT -5
Though I don't post much, I have appreciated the usually courteous discourse that occurs on this list. I respect and appreciate Bartleby's opinions and I am learning much from the information he provides; he is a sitting judge, and I am not (yet). Venus, I appreciate what you are trying to say, but you have obfuscated it with your vitriole and general nastiness. Is life difficult for you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2014 20:24:39 GMT -5
Funky, be nice. You are loved on this board because of your humor; not for being an A-hole.
I will ace my interview when that time comes because I have 20 years of enlisted experience in the U. S. Army and 14 years of a great criminal defense practice. I have succeeded at everything in life since dropping out of high school in the 11th grade, so chill my brother, I got this under control, so long as I get the right score (thank God for 10 point war veteran bump). See you in Falls Church!
The way you succeed in life is becoming one of the very best or close to it in whatever job that you undertake.
|
|
venus
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by venus on Feb 17, 2014 20:26:07 GMT -5
Tigerlaw,
Their is obviously some confusion. It should not be difficult for Bart or any ALJ to send a case back for corrections (in house or out of office). It merely takes a real life backbone and a well articulated reason for return. Heck, most professionals would appreciate the opportunity to correct a perceived mistake. The process doesn't have to be hostile, confrontational or difficult. Bartleby doesn't extend that courtesy. He gets on an anonymous message board and attacks people that neither he nor I have ever had meaningful contact with. That isn't right. I am frankly stunned that more people aren't offended by his bullying.
I'm not arguing that outside writers are better or worse than in house writers. I think both do a good job. I think a lot of private attorneys also do a good job...in another life I was one of those too (private attorney, not saying I was great at it).
I don't think that you have a poor work ethic because you applied for an ALJ position with the government. If selected, hopefully you will pour as much of your energy into the position as you seem to do now in private practice. There are many dedicated public servants that work hard, demonstrate competence, and enjoy federal holidays. The last condition does not negate the first two. I truly wish you good luck through the process. If you get a glimpse of the ODAR life, I don't think you will be disappointed by the people or the perks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2014 20:44:51 GMT -5
Tigerlaw, Their is obviously some confusion. It should not be difficult for Bart or any ALJ to send a case back for corrections (in house or out of office). It merely takes a real life backbone and a well articulated reason for return. Heck, most professionals would appreciate the opportunity to correct a perceived mistake. The process doesn't have to be hostile, confrontational or difficult. Bartleby doesn't extend that courtesy. He gets on an anonymous message board and attacks people that neither he nor I have ever had meaningful contact with. That isn't right. I am frankly stunned that more people aren't offended by his bullying. I'm not arguing that outside writers are better or worse than in house writers. I think both do a good job. I think a lot of private attorneys also do a good job...in another life I was one of those too (private attorney, not saying I was great at it). I don't think that you have a poor work ethic because you applied for an ALJ position with the government. If selected, hopefully you will pour as much of your energy into the position as you seem to do now in private practice. There are many dedicated public servants that work hard, demonstrate competence, and enjoy federal holidays. The last condition does not negate the first two. I truly wish you good luck through the process. If you get a glimpse of the ODAR life, I don't think you will be disappointed by the people or the perks. Thanks Venus, I have a great deal of insight into ODAR life locally and you are correct. As with all government jobs, there are good and bad folks and I will enjoy the perks and become one of the best ALJs if given the chance. I still think you went a little too hard on Bart, and again, I don't care for the Dude at all. I go too far some times too, but it's all good, good luck in your future.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Feb 17, 2014 20:49:44 GMT -5
Funky, be nice. You are loved on this board because of your humor; not for being an A-hole. I will ace my interview when that time comes because I have 20 years of enlisted experience in the U. S. Army and 14 years of a great criminal defense practice. I have succeeded at everything in life since dropping out of high school in the 11th grade, so chill my brother, I got this under control, so long as I get the right score (thank God for 10 point war veteran bump). See you in Falls Church! The way you succeed in life is becoming one of the very best or close to it in whatever job that you undertake. I have found "humerous a-hole" to be my lot in life. Best of luck tigerlaw. I truly appreciate your service. As the proud son of a disabled vietnam vet, I was raised to honor and apprciate those that serve. I don't begrudge any vet their preference points. I would point out though, that this future register is going to be quite vet heavy from all indications. As for the private practice experience, well, opm has more of less ensured each of the remaining candidates has ample litigation experience. From posts it appears most have that from private practice. So, while you should have pride in your past, I can't see your resume being all that different from the herd. What has seemed to set you apart from most on here is your repeated posts delineating your resume as if no one else here has ever overcome obstacles, attained acheivement or experienced any hardship. That and your denigration of gov employees. Just some friendly advice, but empathy and understanding are pretty huge portions of the job. The judge that views everyone thru the "I've had worse" spectrum is not fit to serve as a dispassionate adjudicator. Second, those gov employees you openly disdain may one day be your coworkers. Now, as I have said, I left private practice when tort reform and competition became such I couldn't meet the overhead and income standards I wanted. Along with the need forinsurance to cover a special child. Iimagine the 6000+ applicants for alj had many who had similar motivations. One then wonders why, if your criminal defense practice is so successful in these hard legal times, would you leave it to take a gov job? Especially since you seem to harbor such contempt for gov attorneys? Is it ego driven? I hope not. I may very well not make it and end up working in the same office as you. Unfortunatelyin our profession, people that are so egotistical as to think they or their accomplishments/history/education are special are a dime a dozen. No offense bro. Just hopin my read on you is based on bad intel analysis.
|
|