|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 20, 2014 10:36:40 GMT -5
Of all the folks discussing a need to appeal, you that were cut for bar licensure issues after going to all the expense and stress of dc testing continue to be, in my opinion, the most heinously aggreived.
I was discussing your plight with a friend and we looked at the appeal rights email. It appears you guys fall into the 4th category of appellants.
That category says "An applicant, who after further review (implying an initial review had passed you), was determined not to have satisfied the licensure requirement in 5 CFR 930.204(b) because the applicant did not provide sufficient licensure information at the time of application submission, did not meet the minimum required score on the WD and/or SI, did not receive a final numerical rating, and was not placed on the ALJ Register."
So, from my reading of that, (a) you guys were initially deemed to have met the licensure requirements by someone and (b) not meeting the requirements on this second review was not enough to get you cut, you also had to have not made wd or si minimum.
I know we have had one poster say they were advised they missed the cut on both the si and wd. But most have reported their cut emails as just saying one or the other, complete with the opmese codes "IMWD" and "IMSI".
So, if you weren't told you also missed the boat on the minimums, something doesn't smell right. From a simple reading, the implication is if your second review of licensing had revealed a prob but you met the minimums, you wouldn't be cut. presumably they'd go with the first reviewers opinion or somehow let you correct the problem.
But, if you had a licensure prob and also failed to hit the minimums you were cut. But why then worry about the licensure issues at all? you'd be cut anyway for failing to meet the minimums.
Really strange. I hope you folks get to the bottom of this.
|
|
|
Post by burghbum on Mar 20, 2014 10:55:00 GMT -5
Of all the folks discussing a need to appeal, you that were cut for bar licensure issues after going to all the expense and stress of dc testing continue to be, in my opinion, the most heinously aggreived. I was discussing your plight with a friend and we looked at the appeal rights email. It appears you guys fall into the 4th category of appellants. That category says "An applicant, who after further review (implying an initial review had passed you), was determined not to have satisfied the licensure requirement in 5 CFR 930.204(b) because the applicant did not provide sufficient licensure information at the time of application submission, did not meet the minimum required score on the WD and/or SI, did not receive a final numerical rating, and was not placed on the ALJ Register." So, from my reading of that, (a) you guys were initially deemed to have met the licensure requirements by someone and (b) not meeting the requirements on this second review was not enough to get you cut, you also had to have not made wd or si minimum. I know we have had one poster say they were advised they missed the cut on both the si and wd. But most have reported their cut emails as just saying one or the other, complete with the opmese codes "IMWD" and "IMSI". So, if you weren't told you also missed the boat on the minimums, something doesn't smell right. From a simple reading, the implication is if your second review of licensing had revealed a prob but you met the minimums, you wouldn't be cut. presumably they'd go with the first reviewers opinion or somehow let you correct the problem. But, if you had a licensure prob and also failed to hit the minimums you were cut. But why then worry about the licensure issues at all? you'd be cut anyway for failing to meet the minimums. Really strange. I hope you folks get to the bottom of this. Can't speak for anyone else, but I only I have IMBL as my code. Nothing that hints at not meeting the minimum on any of the other test components. The much larger question I have is whether I was completely scored before this ineligible conclusion was reached. Would love to know if I had a score and what it was -- might make my future decisions on what path to take a whole lot clearer.
|
|
|
Post by basileia on Mar 20, 2014 10:56:56 GMT -5
I just got an email acknowledging my "appeal" in response to a message sent to the help desk that specifically stated that it was NOT an appeal.
|
|
|
Post by owl on Mar 20, 2014 13:12:08 GMT -5
Of all the folks discussing a need to appeal, you that were cut for bar licensure issues after going to all the expense and stress of dc testing continue to be, in my opinion, the most heinously aggreived. I was discussing your plight with a friend and we looked at the appeal rights email. It appears you guys fall into the 4th category of appellants. That category says "An applicant, who after further review (implying an initial review had passed you), was determined not to have satisfied the licensure requirement in 5 CFR 930.204(b) because the applicant did not provide sufficient licensure information at the time of application submission, did not meet the minimum required score on the WD and/or SI, did not receive a final numerical rating, and was not placed on the ALJ Register." So, from my reading of that, (a) you guys were initially deemed to have met the licensure requirements by someone and (b) not meeting the requirements on this second review was not enough to get you cut, you also had to have not made wd or si minimum. I know we have had one poster say they were advised they missed the cut on both the si and wd. But most have reported their cut emails as just saying one or the other, complete with the opmese codes "IMWD" and "IMSI". So, if you weren't told you also missed the boat on the minimums, something doesn't smell right. From a simple reading, the implication is if your second review of licensing had revealed a prob but you met the minimums, you wouldn't be cut. presumably they'd go with the first reviewers opinion or somehow let you correct the problem. But, if you had a licensure prob and also failed to hit the minimums you were cut. But why then worry about the licensure issues at all? you'd be cut anyway for failing to meet the minimums. Really strange. I hope you folks get to the bottom of this. Can't speak for anyone else, but I only I have IMBL as my code. Nothing that hints at not meeting the minimum on any of the other test components. The much larger question I have is whether I was completely scored before this ineligible conclusion was reached. Would love to know if I had a score and what it was -- might make my future decisions on what path to take a whole lot clearer. Just a guess, but maybe by OPM logic (note: not the same as regular logic) you have to be a licensed lawyer to sit for the WD & SI, and thus, if "after further review" they find your licensure proof insufficient, your scores on the WD & SI are invalidated and thus below the required minimum. Hopefully this is, in fact, the case for the IMBL crowd, because if you win your appeal they can just revive your WD & SI scores and plug you into the register where you belong.
|
|
|
Post by guardian on Mar 20, 2014 20:34:09 GMT -5
Do you know if anyone did appeal this issue? This appears to be why I was dinged.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 20, 2014 23:35:29 GMT -5
Do you know if anyone did appeal this issue? This appears to be why I was dinged. A couple of people have mentioned that they already filed appeals on the bar issue. Since we heard from at least one person who was told they were DQed on the bar issue AND either the WD or the SI, it would appear to me that everyone has been scored, including those who were found not to have passed the licensure issue, so that if the DQ was only on the licensure issue, and is successful, the score will be released and the candidate added to the register.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 21, 2014 6:07:05 GMT -5
Do you know if anyone did appeal this issue? This appears to be why I was dinged. A couple of people have mentioned that they already filed appeals on the bar issue. Since we heard from at least one person who was told they were DQed on the bar issue AND either the WD or the SI, it would appear to me that everyone has been scored, including those who were found not to have passed the licensure issue, so that if the DQ was only on the licensure issue, and is successful, the score will be released and the candidate added to the register. Makes sense to me and it would be the right thing to do, but it is still conjecture at this point. We will need to see if the process works. As Funkster said, this notification of inadequate bar liscense documentation after you have taken all this time and expense to come to DC and test (not to mention the fact that you were lead to believe all was well) sucks in the extremes. Remember you are explaining all of this to folks who are not as well versed in Bar nomenclature as you are (if they are at all) so don't assume that they know what and whom you are talking about. Plain simple English devoid of any word, term or status a lay person would not know. Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 21, 2014 6:23:47 GMT -5
I work for the judicial branch and, at the time of application, my bar membership was regular inactive, which in my state was permissible for people who worked for the judiciary. In the state where my bar membership is, we were considered to be in good standing and could switch back to active at anytime. It basically was a way to save some money on bar dues yet not be considered as being engaged in unauthorized practice of law while working for the court. I then moved to another State, again employed in the judicial branch. That state also does not require bar dues or CLE from judicial employees. I am required to be a bar member of any state for that job and my regular inactive status was acceptable for that. When I applied for the ALJ register, I explained this on the application, but out of caution, I also went ahead and switched my bar registration back to regular active. I had fully active status again by the time I got the notification to go to DC and I remain active now. I viewed myself as falling under this definition, which was quoted in the NOR and on the application: "being in "good standing" is acceptable in lieu of "active" status in States where the licensing authority considers "good standing" as having a current license to practice law." I assumed it was indeed acceptable, given that I explained the situation on the application and was moved on. I would have accepted that it was not had they timely told me so. But after quite a bit of time and expense to find out now, I am quite annoyed. As a public employee, I don't draw a huge salary and that trip to DC was a significant expense for me. I will appeal, but I don't have high hopes. On the good side, I do love my current job. I believe I would enjoy being an ALJ and would be good at it. It would also be a significant increase in salary for me. However, I don't think it could match the current quality of life (other than monetary) and satisfaction that I get from my current position. So it isn't the end of the world or anything. I am more angry about the late decision on this than anything. It all seems like a colossal waste of time and money now. I don't follow your reasoning. At the time of your application, you did not posses an active membership liscense for at least 7 years. It is not as if, as with others, that you had no choice but to be in judicial status, you could have been active and chose not to to save money. You can't mix the status of "active" with "good standing" when in fact there is an "active" status in your State that you did not meet. If at the time you reapply you meet the qualifying criteria then by all means reapply, but I don't see how you can retroactvely fix your application insofar as the mistake was yours, not theirs.
|
|
|
Post by FlaTreeFarm on Mar 21, 2014 6:52:36 GMT -5
Regardless of the merits of anybody's arguments on status, I agree the worst part of this is that they could not make this decision before they had you come to D.C.on your own dime! Probably no hope of winning, but I would think about filing a claim...
|
|
leo68
Full Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by leo68 on Mar 21, 2014 8:26:08 GMT -5
Ditto here. IMBL is my only code. Nothing suggests I failed to meet any of the required minimums.
|
|
|
Post by basileia on Mar 21, 2014 8:26:34 GMT -5
I work for the judicial branch and, at the time of application, my bar membership was regular inactive, which in my state was permissible for people who worked for the judiciary. In the state where my bar membership is, we were considered to be in good standing and could switch back to active at anytime. It basically was a way to save some money on bar dues yet not be considered as being engaged in unauthorized practice of law while working for the court. I then moved to another State, again employed in the judicial branch. That state also does not require bar dues or CLE from judicial employees. I am required to be a bar member of any state for that job and my regular inactive status was acceptable for that. When I applied for the ALJ register, I explained this on the application, but out of caution, I also went ahead and switched my bar registration back to regular active. I had fully active status again by the time I got the notification to go to DC and I remain active now. I viewed myself as falling under this definition, which was quoted in the NOR and on the application: "being in "good standing" is acceptable in lieu of "active" status in States where the licensing authority considers "good standing" as having a current license to practice law." I assumed it was indeed acceptable, given that I explained the situation on the application and was moved on. I would have accepted that it was not had they timely told me so. But after quite a bit of time and expense to find out now, I am quite annoyed. As a public employee, I don't draw a huge salary and that trip to DC was a significant expense for me. I will appeal, but I don't have high hopes. On the good side, I do love my current job. I believe I would enjoy being an ALJ and would be good at it. It would also be a significant increase in salary for me. However, I don't think it could match the current quality of life (other than monetary) and satisfaction that I get from my current position. So it isn't the end of the world or anything. I am more angry about the late decision on this than anything. It all seems like a colossal waste of time and money now. I don't follow your reasoning. At the time of your application, you did not posses an active membership liscense for at least 7 years. It is not as if, as with others, that you had no choice but to be in judicial status, you could have been active and chose not to to save money. You can't mix the status of "active" with "good standing" when in fact there is an "active" status in your State that you did not meet. If at the time you reapply you meet the qualifying criteria then by all means reapply, but I don't see how you can retroactvely fix your application insofar as the mistake was yours, not theirs. You are likely right, which I way I said that I don't have high hopes. However, there is a portion of the cfr that mentions good standing aside from the judicial definitions and I now have letter from my bar stating that my license was valid and in good standing whether active or inactive. Also, as to the seven years, I think that is separate from the bar license issue. The application required seven years of litigation experience and specifically included work in the judiciary. In any event, I also had an active license for seven years. I was only inactive for a couple of years and I have 17 years total experience. I still don't have high hopes, but figure it can't hurt to appeal. Nothing to lose by it anyway. My only real beef with this is that I recognized the potential problem and made this argument on my initial application. When I was passed through, I assumed that meant it was OK. So I feel a bit duped given that I spent nearly $1,000 to travel to DC for the testing.
|
|
|
Post by pubdef on Mar 21, 2014 8:36:59 GMT -5
I still don't have high hopes, but figure it can't hurt to appeal. Nothing to lose by it anyway. My only real beef with this is that I recognized the potential problem and made this argument on my initial application. When I was passed through, I assumed that meant it was OK. So I feel a bit duped given that I spent nearly $1,000 to travel to DC for the testing. Your feelings of being duped are valid, but I'd feel extremely duped if I were in your position. I personally know someone who didn't move beyond phase 1 because she neglected to list her state bar license date in the XX/XX/XXXX format. I also listed mine as XX/XXXX but made it to DC. I assumed that was the end of the analysis of my application. If they had reanalyzed and said I wasn't qualified, I would be furious about spending the money to test. Best of luck with your appeal.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 21, 2014 9:54:50 GMT -5
I don't follow your reasoning. At the time of your application, you did not posses an active membership liscense for at least 7 years. It is not as if, as with others, that you had no choice but to be in judicial status, you could have been active and chose not to to save money. You can't mix the status of "active" with "good standing" when in fact there is an "active" status in your State that you did not meet. If at the time you reapply you meet the qualifying criteria then by all means reapply, but I don't see how you can retroactvely fix your application insofar as the mistake was yours, not theirs. You are likely right, which I way I said that I don't have high hopes. However, there is a portion of the cfr that mentions good standing aside from the judicial definitions and I now have letter from my bar stating that my license was valid and in good standing whether active or inactive. Also, as to the seven years, I think that is separate from the bar license issue. The application required seven years of litigation experience and specifically included work in the judiciary. In any event, I also had an active license for seven years. I was only inactive for a couple of years and I have 17 years total experience. I still don't have high hopes, but figure it can't hurt to appeal. Nothing to lose by it anyway. My only real beef with this is that I recognized the potential problem and made this argument on my initial application. When I was passed through, I assumed that meant it was OK. So I feel a bit duped given that I spent nearly $1,000 to travel to DC for the testing. Oh, I would feel duped. However, I wrote my post as a warning to others. OPM does not do well with explanations in the initial stages of applying. And, the rules are strictly applied.
|
|
|
Post by guardian on Mar 24, 2014 20:24:15 GMT -5
My best guess is that I was dinged solely for not putting a date into Application Manager for my bar admission date. I did appeal and now is about to let this go. I am curious about the code discussion however. My code is IBQL. Anyone else have this code? I have not seen it mentioned. Good luck to all.
|
|
jmgjr
Full Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by jmgjr on Mar 24, 2014 21:19:44 GMT -5
I am licensed in Washington State and only listed the year I was admitted. I am on the register.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 24, 2014 22:21:04 GMT -5
My best guess is that I was dinged solely for not putting a date into Application Manager for my bar admission date. I did appeal and now is about to let this go. I am curious about the code discussion however. My code is IBQL. Anyone else have this code? I have not seen it mentioned. Good luck to all. Did they ding you for the Bar issue (active/ good standing) and the seven years issue, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by gingerbread on Mar 26, 2014 22:29:58 GMT -5
Guardian, I also had the IBQL code; I left a note in your inbox.
|
|