|
Post by maquereau on Apr 2, 2014 17:39:16 GMT -5
Insider -- Outsider, what matters to the Administration is: How Many Widgets Can You Produce Today? So, I've tried thousands of cases; I've written winning Supreme Court briefs; I was on Law Review; I won a 25 million dollar verdict in a slip and (really bad) fall case; - - etc - - means much less than your efficiency at pumping out decisions. Sometimes they pay lip service to the "quality" part of the equation, but if you look at agency history, you know exactly for what they are looking.
I surely wish it were different, but beggars and horses and all that.
|
|
|
Post by grandparay1 on Apr 2, 2014 17:51:38 GMT -5
This comment is directed to funky and private, and I hope you guys don't mind me butting into this interesting discussion. I was a Senior Attorney about 10 years ago before going into private practice. When I was hired at ODAR (actually OHA), one of the ALJ's that interviewed me assured me that by taking the job, I would probably never become an ALJ unless I left and went into a litigation practice. She further said that even with a history of working for OHA as an attorney I would have difficulty becoming an ALJ. At that time there was a real prejudice against agency attorneys. When I took the job I was fully aware that there was no advancement potential. In fact, the reason I left was that I had maxed out and I was bored. With the registers starting in 2007/08 things changed dramatically. The registers created upward mobility for the AA/SA. When I worked at OHA, the ALJ's openly discussed how horrible it would be if AA/SA were allowed to compete for ALJ positions. In fact the AALJ fought hard to keep AA/SA's off the OPM's register. Since 2007 many former AA/SA's have become ALJ's and the atmosphere has changed. I don't think the Corps convinced OPM to change the requirements back (considering the number of former AA/SA's in the corps), I think OPM wanted to return to the more litigation based requirements. I wish you both, and everyone on the register well, disappointment is still possible. I was on the register based on the opening in 2007, and on several certs, but most of the openings were filled by transfers (I had a small GAL). Sadly I no longer have a dog in the hunt.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 2, 2014 17:51:54 GMT -5
And I can't wholly disagree with you private. There is definite value in litigation experience and I can get behind the general idea that judges need some.
But to say one that has nothing but AA experience is incapable of sniffing out incredible claimant statements or bogus med reports is laughable. Thats what they do every day. I have great judges in my office, but I don't get much more than "not credible" or "no weight" in their instructions. Writers are the ones that look at those reports and listen to that testimony searching for ways to support the judges decision.
When I got here, I could cross examine and argue with anybody. But I had no idea that a positive straight leg raise in a seated position with a negative result in the supine was doctor code for the claimant isn't credible. And I bet most of the big time litigators that make judge won't know that either. But ask someone who has spent the last 10 years figuring out how, under the law and with the evidence, to legally support a decision a judge made with a thumbs up or thumbs down and they will know.
I wouldn't put a 10 year odar AA in a medicare or labor hearing. But, I'd bet most anything they would do better than an equally experienced litigator in a disability hearing.
My office has roughly an equal split between former in and out judges. They all do a good job and I can't say one set is better suited in the longrun. I will say the learning curve is significantly shorter for former innies.
In the end, knowing a leading question or what constitutes evidence is a learned skill. We, as attorneys, should all possess basic understanding of those. Will litigators have better honed skills? sure. Just like AAs will be better skilled in the rules and regs of disability. Both are highly important. Why is one group allowede to learn on the job but not the other?
Again, I dunno how to fix the problem. I agree litigation exp is important. But so is giving hard working insiders a chance to advance. Otherwise the odar aljs better get ujsed to doing a whole lot more of their own heavy lifting in decision writing. You judges know who the least motivated most careless writer in your office is. You know the PITA it is to have that writer do one of your cases. Wait till they are all that way.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Apr 2, 2014 17:56:02 GMT -5
I just had a conversation with a fellow odarite. A friend from a different office that was cut after the online part. He is working on his appeal. Please don't take this as any reignition of the outsider v insider fire, my neutrality in that war has been well established in other posts. But, the new process leading to much fewer insiders even on the register sucks. When a person takes a job, the list of considerations is generally universal. While some may list salary first, others benefits or quality of life or working environment, all those factors come to play to some degree. Included in that is upward mobility. While it may not be as big a deal to some as to others, its definitely a concern. When someone takes an AA job with odar they know its a grind, there is no excitement and its a high burnout type gig given the neverending tide of hearing requests and dispositions. Being a gov job, the security is excellent and the benefits are great. The salary isn't private sector caliber, but neither is the stress. The trade off generally works, if you go into with your eyes open. The one area that's deficient without much trade off is advancement. Someone who has taken an AA job, dedicated their career to public service and done very well in meeting all expectations ought to have at least a chance at advancement. You don't get raises for superior work and bonuses and awards can't come close to matching private sector incentives. You should at least be able to dream of moving up a rung. As an AA, you top out at GS 12. And you get there pretty quick (maybe not the top step of that level but to that level). Advancement opportunities are limited to three options. You can apply for a group sup, but those are few and far between and not everyone wants management jobs. Perhaps you could make senior attorney, but those appear to be even more rare and with the adjudication authority curtailed many wonder if they will even fill vacant senior slots. The one gig that's the hope is alj. Once there you get a good pay bump, get more interesting responsibilities and have further advancement chances to hocalj, regional or national positions. But the new process focus on litigation experience means that door is essentially closed to most that have done nothing but administrative work their entire career. I realize the process is competitive and I am very thankful I got the litigation experience and made it to the register. But, I care more than just about my own personal aspirations. I also want to see odar get and keep the best public servants they can. Right now, morale among my colleagues is the lowest I've seen it. Perhaps the "insider advantage" is real and those like me that got through will benefit from fewer other insiders in competition. But, I hope odar can figure a way to remedy this deficiency. Otherwise all the new aljs will find their cases are written by folks that have no incentive to do more than the minimum. Attorneys with no ambition or reason to go above and beyond. Think odar can attract and retain qauality in that situation? Good luck on your appeals folks. I liked your post. But I don't agree with it. If you have only been an AA, your are not qualified to be a federal ALJ. Its not all about ODAR, my friend. Its about doing the job as an adjudicator. You can't learn what is REALLY evidence until you have tried cases. Surely those who have been in court and tried cases know this. I know you do. Now I know that you are going to say that the rules of evidence don't apply in a ODAR hearing and you are right. But still you have to know what is leading and why and what is a direct exam and proper response and why and what are bs medical reports and why to evaluate all of it. And its not all book learning--what I am talking about is metaphysical--learning to ride the bike of being a true litigator so you can be a true jurist. Disagree fine, but the truth is most ALJs agree with me and that's why the Corps convinced OPM to change their requirements back again. Funkster, your friends need to be seasoned like you. Completely agree to your point about the ALJ corps as a whole, and I understand why a career SAA should not jump into a DOL or NTSB ALJ role. I also understand why OPM wants to include as many attorneys with courtroom experience as possible. That said, I completely disagree about the applicability to ODAR specifically, however. Being an ODAR ALJ doesn't require magic skills. It requires the ability to critically analyze hundreds of pages of medical records for objective findings and subjective allegations to providers then determine whether those findings support the claimant's allegations and/or medical opinions of record. The ability to know what questions to ask at a hearing doesn't require significant litigation experience, either. It requires a knowledge of what information is relevant to the issues at hand. To that end, I'd put a career AA or SAA's ability to review a file, hold a hearing, and reach an appropriate and fair determination up against the ability of a 20+ year SEC attorney with 250+ jury trials any day of the week. That's not to say that the latter attorney can't or won't learn how to do it, but my point is that being an ODAR ALJ does not require the same exact set of skills that the judges of other agencies' might. There's a reason Posner called the work tedious when compared to the work of other ALJs. It's not the same, and I don't believe I'm pulling back any curtain in making that statement.
|
|
|
Post by grandparay1 on Apr 2, 2014 18:05:26 GMT -5
I'm afraid that ODAR and OPM are on a dangerous path. The actions of both (ODAR changing the ALJ job description, and OPM changing the register requirements and the cert process), may very well lead to the creation of ODAR AJ's or Hearing Examiners as has been discussed in other threads by others. I agree that claimants deserve the protection of Due Process afforded by the APA and ALJ's.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 2, 2014 18:12:01 GMT -5
Grandparay,
I hear you and that's maybe the big difference. With few exceptions, almost all the writers in my office were brought in 2007, 08 or 09. They were part of a mass of hiring made neccessary, in part, to the tide breaking and many odar attorneys being picked up as aljs. They saw that happen. And unlike new hires past, they were told that alj was a real possibility one day.
Now, they feel duped. No one has left my office yet. But many now talk about it. Some to go find "litigation experience," some now just waiting for the first early out they qualify for, some considering joining the rep brigade and making real money. Most won't leave. Instead they will stay and just won't care as much.
Can you imagine the great talent we will get to replace them if they do go?
"Ok young lawyer, as an attorney with odar you will sit in a closet sized office and write decisions 8 hours a day. You will work for the next 30 years for a salary within the same grade as you start."
"I can advance tho right?"
"Sure, about once a decade a group sup or senior slot comes open and you can compete for it against every other attorney here or willing to move here."
"wow, ok, what about alj?"
"sure, assuming you have 7 years litigation experience, which of course you won't have since you will be working for us. Or you can try real hard, pray and hope to beat a test designed to keep you out."
"well, not like I have any other options. Sign me up."
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Apr 2, 2014 18:17:58 GMT -5
And I think that there is also a difference between an AA and a senior attorney. One is an adjudicator one is not. Now that alone may not be adequate experience and may be the issue. Out of the senior attorneys who moved on this time most seem to have outside litigation experience in addition to the ODAR experience. I think that may be a factor... The combined experience.
|
|
|
Post by redsox1 on Apr 2, 2014 18:21:09 GMT -5
I just had a conversation with a fellow odarite. A friend from a different office that was cut after the online part. He is working on his appeal. Please don't take this as any reignition of the outsider v insider fire, my neutrality in that war has been well established in other posts. But, the new process leading to much fewer insiders even on the register sucks. When a person takes a job, the list of considerations is generally universal. While some may list salary first, others benefits or quality of life or working environment, all those factors come to play to some degree. Included in that is upward mobility. While it may not be as big a deal to some as to others, its definitely a concern. When someone takes an AA job with odar they know its a grind, there is no excitement and its a high burnout type gig given the neverending tide of hearing requests and dispositions. Being a gov job, the security is excellent and the benefits are great. The salary isn't private sector caliber, but neither is the stress. The trade off generally works, if you go into with your eyes open. The one area that's deficient without much trade off is advancement. Someone who has taken an AA job, dedicated their career to public service and done very well in meeting all expectations ought to have at least a chance at advancement. You don't get raises for superior work and bonuses and awards can't come close to matching private sector incentives. You should at least be able to dream of moving up a rung. As an AA, you top out at GS 12. And you get there pretty quick (maybe not the top step of that level but to that level). Advancement opportunities are limited to three options. You can apply for a group sup, but those are few and far between and not everyone wants management jobs. Perhaps you could make senior attorney, but those appear to be even more rare and with the adjudication authority curtailed many wonder if they will even fill vacant senior slots. The one gig that's the hope is alj. Once there you get a good pay bump, get more interesting responsibilities and have further advancement chances to hocalj, regional or national positions. But the new process focus on litigation experience means that door is essentially closed to most that have done nothing but administrative work their entire career. I realize the process is competitive and I am very thankful I got the litigation experience and made it to the register. But, I care more than just about my own personal aspirations. I also want to see odar get and keep the best public servants they can. Right now, morale among my colleagues is the lowest I've seen it. Perhaps the "insider advantage" is real and those like me that got through will benefit from fewer other insiders in competition. But, I hope odar can figure a way to remedy this deficiency. Otherwise all the new aljs will find their cases are written by folks that have no incentive to do more than the minimum. Attorneys with no ambition or reason to go above and beyond. Think odar can attract and retain qauality in that situation? Good luck on your appeals folks. Well said Funky and I agree. There are plenty of good ALJ's with only ODAR experience. As we see from this thread, the insider outsider debate is not limited to applicants.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Apr 2, 2014 18:28:28 GMT -5
Grandparay, I hear you and that's maybe the big difference. With few exceptions, almost all the writers in my office were brought in 2007, 08 or 09. They were part of a mass of hiring made neccessary, in part, to the tide breaking and many odar attorneys being picked up as aljs. They saw that happen. And unlike new hires past, they were told that alj was a real possibility one day. Now, they feel duped. No one has left my office yet. But many now talk about it. Some to go find "litigation experience," some now just waiting for the first early out they qualify for, some considering joining the rep brigade and making real money. Most won't leave. Instead they will stay and just won't care as much. Can you imagine the great talent we will get to replace them if they do go? "Ok young lawyer, as an attorney with odar you will sit in a closet sized office and write decisions 8 hours a day. You will work for the next 30 years for a salary within the same grade as you start." "I can advance tho right?" "Sure, about once a decade a group sup or senior slot comes open and you can compete for it against every other attorney here or willing to move here." "wow, ok, what about alj?" "sure, assuming you have 7 years litigation experience, which of course you won't have since you will be working for us. Or you can try real hard, pray and hope to beat a test designed to keep you out." "well, not like I have any other options. Sign me up." In this legal job market the replacement talent is likely to be very high.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Apr 2, 2014 18:33:53 GMT -5
If I were king and choosing people to work for me, I would choose known individuals with a documented track record within the agency who already knew the challenges and who performed to some high level of expectation. Then I would move on to folks who worked in other govt jobs or private practice with ridiculously busy high expectation jobs who performed well despite low pay or similar circumstances thus demonstrating an excellent work ethic. In other words I would seek out people who work hard regardless of the reward. If I were king.... LOL!
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 2, 2014 18:39:51 GMT -5
Grandparay, I hear you and that's maybe the big difference. With few exceptions, almost all the writers in my office were brought in 2007, 08 or 09. They were part of a mass of hiring made neccessary, in part, to the tide breaking and many odar attorneys being picked up as aljs. They saw that happen. And unlike new hires past, they were told that alj was a real possibility one day. Now, they feel duped. No one has left my office yet. But many now talk about it. Some to go find "litigation experience," some now just waiting for the first early out they qualify for, some considering joining the rep brigade and making real money. Most won't leave. Instead they will stay and just won't care as much. Can you imagine the great talent we will get to replace them if they do go? "Ok young lawyer, as an attorney with odar you will sit in a closet sized office and write decisions 8 hours a day. You will work for the next 30 years for a salary within the same grade as you start." "I can advance tho right?" "Sure, about once a decade a group sup or senior slot comes open and you can compete for it against every other attorney here or willing to move here." "wow, ok, what about alj?" "sure, assuming you have 7 years litigation experience, which of course you won't have since you will be working for us. Or you can try real hard, pray and hope to beat a test designed to keep you out." "well, not like I have any other options. Sign me up." In this legal job market the replacement talent is likely to be very high. Yep. Fill the slots with the ones that got cut free from firms, could never get hired by firms and couldn't make it with a shingle. Not being facetious. The talent pool is vast. But how long will the best of them stay if they know its a deadend job. Only those that can't eventujally find better or those that don't care. In any event, why would they want to do more than the minimum required? Look, I really don't know how to fix it. I fear grandparay may be right and this is ultimately just another step toward "hearing examiners." I definitely think this process found very high caliber candidates (one in particular seems to cover all the bases ). But if you care about the quality of the work odar does (and if you wanna work there I hope you do) you should also care anytime the quality of the staff is threatened. And there is no doubt that essentially turning the AA position into a GS12 deadzone threatens that quality.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Apr 2, 2014 18:40:34 GMT -5
Based upon all the people I know that were cut at phase 2 shows that the cuts made were not completely objective. If you were an insider, you got some type of negative which could only be overcome by your prior/other work experience. Now, I would be the last person to argue that all insiders generally are more qualified. But a good insider, who has been evaluating medical records for several years, frankly is a million times more valuable than any outsider coming in who has no medical experience. This is unquestionable. Of course I'm speaking solely from a SSA perspective, and is why I would love OPM to be completely severed from the hiring process.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Apr 2, 2014 18:43:13 GMT -5
Oh I am in agreement that there are ODAR ALJs out there who only knew writing for ODAR before they got the call and are GREAT ALJs. Don't misuderstand me. In another thread a while back while discussing this I was summarily dismissed in my opinons by the comment of "...well, he/she would never go to another Agency so what's your point"? My point is what Judge Posner was touching upon--a forest and trees sort of thing. Let's say hypothetically an applicant is interviewing and you are serving on a OPM Panel. The applicant framed all of her/his answers in the context of being an ODAR/AA--like, this is how we do this at ODAR, etc., etc. I don't think they are ever making the Register. They are not interviewing to be an ODAR ALJ but unfortunately they never get that. Reminds me of the V8 commercial... Of course now that you are going to FC to see the Puzzle Palace Wizards, disregard the above. Truth be told that is where more than a few hard boiled litigators had their V8 moments...
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Apr 2, 2014 18:53:50 GMT -5
Based upon all the people I know that were cut at phase 2 shows that the cuts made were not completely objective. If you were an insider, you got some type of negative which could only be overcome by your prior/other work experience. Now, I would be the last person to argue that all insiders generally are more qualified. But a good insider, who has been evaluating medical records for several years, frankly is a million times more valuable than any outsider coming in who has no medical experience. This is unquestionable. Of course I'm speaking solely from a SSA perspective, and is why I would love OPM to be completely severed from the hiring process. And yet we do not know for a fact what each individual actually wrote to prove their experience. Person A may have 30 years as a state ALJ but person B may have worded and proved the elements of what was asked in a clear and concise manner. Whereas person A may have said look at me I have 30 years of experience without detailing it. We do not have the details that are privy to those who grade these things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2014 19:14:42 GMT -5
The one area that's deficient without much trade off is advancement. Someone who has taken an AA job, dedicated their career to public service and done very well in meeting all expectations ought to have at least a chance at advancement. You don't get raises for superior work and bonuses and awards can't come close to matching private sector incentives. You should at least be able to dream of moving up a rung. Funky, your comments about the lack of a chance for advancement for AAs are thoughtful (as usual), and your concern for your colleagues is commendable. However, there simply are some jobs in which there isn't a higher position to which you can advance. It's just a fact, and I'm in such a job now (and have been for quite a while), outside the federal gov't. (To be clear, I'm an employee, and not The Boss.) I knew going in that any chance for advancement would have to come from somewhere else -- that just came with the territory. Becoming an ALJ, if I'm fortunate enough to make it that far, certainly would be such a move for me; but if I don't make it that far, I'm in a good job with similar benefits to those you described -- just not the chance for advancement within my office.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 2, 2014 19:29:16 GMT -5
Thanks funky for driving into the insider versus outsider trap. I have worked in many jobs where you would top out and not be able to advance. There was no guarantee you could move up into the hierarchy or partnership of the firm. What do you do? You find another job. Funky you say we will suffer as new ALJs and the system will suffer for people leaving who know how to do the job well. I will tell you people are suffering right now due to understaffing at SSA causing longer and longer waits. I will tell you talk to Bartleby who for one will tell you he is frequently rewriting decisions because of some poor staff writers. Just because you work for SSA doesn't guarantee you will be an ALJ. The issue is whether or not you are a highly qualified as an attorney and can understand and read medical records. I know many non-SSA employee attorneys, who can read and understand medical reports much better than most, if not all AAs or possibly SAAs. I understand the frustration for AAs and SAAs who didn't make the Register, but there is no guarantee of advancement in any position or job. I am sure there are just as many, if not more experienced litigators who didn't make the Register, too. I think continuing any insiders versus outsiders discussion isn't going to be productive. I see good in both types of individuals and as I stated earlier the process has whittled it down to the best of the best of both types.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Apr 2, 2014 19:30:00 GMT -5
In this legal job market the replacement talent is likely to be very high. Yep. Fill the slots with the ones that got cut free from firms, could never get hired by firms and couldn't make it with a shingle. Or those that needed a regular paycheck with benefits because * [fill in the blank].
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 2, 2014 19:50:39 GMT -5
Mpd,
You continue to fail to see my point. I don't care if one is an in or out, as long as they are good, conscientious judges that can do the job.
That job can only be accomplished if the staff is equally good and conscientious. I know there are some shitty writers in the ranks now. No doubt bart and others see their workproduct regularly. But whether they admit it or not, there are some. damn good ones that really care and have pulled a couple bad cases from the fire for those same judges.
You can work for a firm, do rep work or whatever but unless you have been in an odar office you can't fathom the degrees of hell having a bunch of writers that just don't care, that won't help fix your mistakesor just do the bare minimum can cause an office.
My office has a share of shitty writers. Most didn't even apply and the ones that did couldn't write the AQ well enougth to break phase 1.
I have no doubt from our many board convos and pm discussions you will makea fine alj. But I don't care what experience you have, you are gonna have only as much success as the staff in your office lets you have. Get a crappy decision? More work for you in an already crammed schedule. Remember, you have no supervisory authority over the writers. And you can't direct your opinions to the writers you want.
I know some have problems with the perceived insider advantage. That's fine. Its a competition. But at least recognize that anything that gives a disincentive to the staff isn't good for you.
No one is saying every AA or SAA "deserves" to make alj or should. But the deck also shouldn't be stacked so high against them that the best of them still can't advance.
If these folks were told from the beginning this was a no advance job, like ul mentioned above, then that's one thing. I guess future hires have fair warning. But to be told since 07 they had a Shot and to have it almost entirely removed is just wrong. It leads to complacency and contempt, two things that are all to frequently encountered in gov work anyway.
Finally, and for hoepfully the last time, I don't think being an insider makes you better for the alj job than an outsider. Suitability for the job hinges on much more subjective criteria. That said, some outsiders who dislike the perceived insider advantage in odar hiring need to reassess any penchant for degrading or downplaying the knolwledge, experience, work ethic and value of the AAs. All it does is show you have no funkin idea what you are trying to get into or how huge a part those staffers you degrade will play in your quality of life as a judge.
|
|
|
Post by x on Apr 2, 2014 19:53:16 GMT -5
Indeed. As we speak, there are people flying in for interviews from top-80 law schools all over the country.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 2, 2014 19:56:32 GMT -5
And in todays legal market many may take it. Even if they are told up front there salary will top out at a junior associate level and they will never see a promotion.
|
|