|
|
Post by advocatusdiaboli on Mar 27, 2014 16:44:41 GMT -5
His Dark Satanic Majesty sends his regards and wants the community to know how badly he feels for those applicants disqualified on bar licensure issues, especially those disqualified at the eleventh hour. Accordingly, he asked that I share with the community some provisions from the CFR and FR, which comprise my constant bedside reading.
The bar licensure requirement is part of the qualification standard for administrative law judge positions. archive.opm.gov/qualifications/alj/alj.asp Qualification standards appear to be defined as “employment practices” under the regulations. 5 CFR 300.101 (2014). The regulations further appear to require that “employment practices” have a rational relationship to performance in the job to be filled. 5 CFR 300.103(b)(1) (2014). On March 20, 2007, OPM published its paean to the bar licensure requirement at 72 FR 12947. Of particular note, “[t]he purpose of a professional license is to ensure that administrative law judges, like attorneys, remain subject to a code of professional responsibility. These ethical requirements cannot be waived.” 72 FR 12948. Here is another gem: “the requirement that a bar membership applies to both applicants and employees is in accordance with all other OPM qualification standards for the competitive service. Failure at any time (applicant or incumbent) to meet a minimum qualification requirement means the individual is not qualified to perform the duties of the position.” 72 FR 12948. After noting the historical grounding of the bar licensure requirement, OPM went on to finish with what I thought was a nice rhetorical flourish, saying “[m]inimum qualification requirements do not disappear after an individual is appointed as an administrative law judge. As described in the following discussion of comments, a standard for career-entry
promotes the efficiency of the competitive service only if it applies continuously to applicants and incumbents alike.” 72 FR 12949. So, naturally, OPM relieved incumbent ALJs of their obligation to maintain a law license effective January 2, 2014. 78 FR 71987.
Dura lex, sed lex.
For myself, I was not smart enough to be invited to DC for the logic based measurement test (LBMT) so some of you big, strong logical types will have to check my reasoning here, but if A (attorney w/ law license) = B (judge with law license), and NOT B, then NOT A. Let me hasten to add that nothing in this post constitutes or is intended to constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is created or intended to be created hereby. To the contrary, I am merely sharing with my virtual friends the fruits of my eclectic reading habits from publicly available sources in a free and democratic society under the full panoply of First Amendment protections guaranteed to me by the Constitution and laws of the United States as well as M.M. Smith & Wesson.
Should anyone wish to file an appeal with OPM or, perhaps, amend an appeal already filed, why that is entirely their own affair and they should, of course, exercise professional care in so doing. Anyone choosing of their own free will to file such an appeal, most emphatically should not inform OPM that “the devil made ‘em do it.” Our friends at OPM lack a sense of whimsy.
In the future, if you should speak of the devil, speak well.
|
|
|
|
Post by advocatusdiaboli on Mar 27, 2014 16:46:16 GMT -5
Discuss, but not too heatedly. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 27, 2014 17:04:03 GMT -5
The most pertinent information as to this issue is from the application itself and is more restrictive:
2. LICENSURE:
An applicant must be licensed and authorized to practice law as an attorney under the laws of a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territorial court established under the United States Constitution. Judicial status is acceptable in lieu of "active" status in States that prohibit sitting judges from maintaining "active" status to practice law. 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.
An applicant must possess a license to practice law, as described in the preceding paragraph, at the time of application and continuously throughout the selection process including any period on the ALJ competitive register, as defined below. An applicant can be deemed ineligible at any time if it is determined that he/she does not satisfy or no longer satisfies the licensure requirement at any point during the selection process.
This last part, that the "applicant can be deemed ineligible at any time" is the sad part as there have been applicants duped into thinking they were ok until after spending time and money going to DC then only to find out they did not meet the requirement in some way. Perhaps, merely a lack of giving the required information such as bar number or date.
It has been said before, and I will say it again, that this process is brutal at times, knocking very qualified people out of the game for a simple technical omission. But the fact is that OPM made the rules and they are clearly sticking to them. Good luck in your appeals.
|
|
|
|
Post by dpageks on Mar 27, 2014 17:04:48 GMT -5
Mercy . . . devil advocate's opening comment made my head hurt.  |
|
|
|
Post by futuressaalj on Mar 27, 2014 17:07:45 GMT -5
Welcome back Dark Lord
|
|
|
|
Post by dpageks on Mar 27, 2014 17:15:20 GMT -5
His Dark Satanic Majesty sends his regards and wants the community to know how badly he feels for those applicants disqualified on bar licensure issues, especially those disqualified at the eleventh hour. Accordingly, he asked that I share with the community some provisions from the CFR and FR, which comprise my constant bedside reading.
The bar licensure requirement is part of the qualification standard for administrative law judge positions. archive.opm.gov/qualifications/alj/alj.asp Qualification standards appear to be defined as “employment practices” under the regulations. 5 CFR 300.101 (2014). The regulations further appear to require that “employment practices” have a rational relationship to performance in the job to be filled. 5 CFR 300.103(b)(1) (2014). On March 20, 2007, OPM published its paean to the bar licensure requirement at 72 FR 12947. Of particular note, “[t]he purpose of a professional license is to ensure that administrative law judges, like attorneys, remain subject to a code of professional responsibility. These ethical requirements cannot be waived.” 72 FR 12948. Here is another gem: “the requirement that a bar membership applies to both applicants and employees is in accordance with all other OPM qualification standards for the competitive service. Failure at any time (applicant or incumbent) to meet a minimum qualification requirement means the individual is not qualified to perform the duties of the position.” 72 FR 12948. After noting the historical grounding of the bar licensure requirement, OPM went on to finish with what I thought was a nice rhetorical flourish, saying “[m]inimum qualification requirements do not disappear after an individual is appointed as an administrative law judge. As described in the following discussion of comments, a standard for career-entry
promotes the efficiency of the competitive service only if it applies continuously to applicants and incumbents alike.” 72 FR 12949. So, naturally, OPM relieved incumbent ALJs of their obligation to maintain a law license effective January 2, 2014. 78 FR 71987.
Dura lex, sed lex.
For myself, I was not smart enough to be invited to DC for the logic based measurement test (LBMT) so some of you big, strong logical types will have to check my reasoning here, but if A (attorney w/ law license) = B (judge with law license), and NOT B, then NOT A. Let me hasten to add that nothing in this post constitutes or is intended to constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is created or intended to be created hereby. To the contrary, I am merely sharing with my virtual friends the fruits of my eclectic reading habits from publicly available sources in a free and democratic society under the full panoply of First Amendment protections guaranteed to me by the Constitution and laws of the United States as well as M.M. Smith & Wesson.
Should anyone wish to file an appeal with OPM or, perhaps, amend an appeal already filed, why that is entirely their own affair and they should, of course, exercise professional care in so doing. Anyone choosing of their own free will to file such an appeal, most emphatically should not inform OPM that “the devil made ‘em do it.” Our friends at OPM lack a sense of whimsy.
In the future, if you should speak of the devil, speak well.
I feel compelled to post the following link:
|
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 27, 2014 17:18:50 GMT -5
Color me as one more than a bit tired of the multiple accounts that seem to be popping up here.
For those of you playing the game-- If you want to stay, stay, under your original username. Go away for a while and come back under that name if you like. But, this game of multiple names is getting old. And not amusing, at least to me. Never mind whether it's consistent with the rules of this forum, which I believe it is not. This forum is not alone in that regard.
Rant over.
|
|
|
|
Post by advocatusdiaboli on Mar 27, 2014 17:23:19 GMT -5
Dear Sratty:
My point is not the brutality of the process, but its inanity. How does OPM maintain that an applicant's possession of a law license, ANY law license is rationally related to performance in a job that does not require a law license? If such a rational relationship exists, I confess it eludes me.
As for the vacancy announcement, it says what it says. But ststutes are published in the U.S. Code and regulations are published in the Federal Register and then the Code of Federal Regulations. I have not come across a vacancy announcement in any of these sources.
AD |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 27, 2014 17:26:39 GMT -5
Color me as one more than a bit tired of the multiple accounts that seem to be popping up here. For those of you playing the game-- If you want to stay, stay, under your original username. Go away for a while and come back under that name if you like. But, this game of multiple names is getting old. And not amusing, at least to me. Never mind whether it's consistent with the rules of this forum, which I believe it is not. This forum is not alone in that regard. Rant over. Amen! I am always a bit unnerved and uneasy with behavior that resembles something a stalker would do and multiple identities is along those lines. Disturbing and creepy. But in the interest of reading between all the crap of the guise I attempted to address what I "think" I deciphered as the actual issue. I agree the whole thing is not amusing. Having a sense of humor is one thing, deceit is another.  Nuff said and now my rant is over. LOL! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 17:29:33 GMT -5
Discuss, but not too heatedly. Observer53, I seriously don't think she is DLOTS, but I hope most ignore her posts. IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 27, 2014 17:29:41 GMT -5
Dear Sratty:
My point is not the brutality of the process, but its inanity. How does OPM maintain that an applicant's possession of a law license, ANY law license is rationally related to performance in a job that does not require a law license? If such a rational relationship exists, I confess it eludes me.
As for the vacancy announcement, it says what it says. But ststutes are published in the U.S. Code and regulations are published in the Federal Register and then the Code of Federal Regulations. I have not come across a vacancy announcement in any of these sources.
AD OPM put specific questions in their application. It is the choice of the applicant to follow the rules. If the applicant says "well I don't think this is related.....etc" and then fails to give the required information, well .... Good luck with that. |
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 27, 2014 17:33:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 27, 2014 17:34:28 GMT -5
Color me as one more than a bit tired of the multiple accounts that seem to be popping up here. For those of you playing the game-- If you want to stay, stay, under your original username. Go away for a while and come back under that name if you like. But, this game of multiple names is getting old. And not amusing, at least to me. Never mind whether it's consistent with the rules of this forum, which I believe it is not. This forum is not alone in that regard. Rant over. Amen! I am always a bit unnerved and uneasy with behavior that resembles something a stalker would do and multiple identities is along those lines. Disturbing and creepy. But in the interest of reading between all the crap of the guise I attempted to address what I "think" I deciphered as the actual issue. I agree the whole thing is not amusing. Having a sense of humor is one thing, deceit is another. Nuff said and now my rant is over. LOL! Color me in agreement with sratty and observer53. Everyone gets one name. Period. Those that feel that they are entitled to redress themselves in new clothes must feel superior to all of us. Sorry, you're not. We're all equal here. Oh and PS: the excess drama and cloaking if you will get old. |
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 27, 2014 17:35:31 GMT -5
Dear Sratty:
My point is not the brutality of the process, but its inanity. How does OPM maintain that an applicant's possession of a law license, ANY law license is rationally related to performance in a job that does not require a law license? If such a rational relationship exists, I confess it eludes me.
As for the vacancy announcement, it says what it says. But ststutes are published in the U.S. Code and regulations are published in the Federal Register and then the Code of Federal Regulations. I have not come across a vacancy announcement in any of these sources.
AD OPM put specific questions in their application. It is the choice of the applicant to follow the rules. If the applicant says "well I don't think this is related.....etc" and then fails to give the required information, well .... Good luck with that. Agree. To me, the issue with the DQ's for bar membership is that they came at the end of the process, instead of at phase 1, or even 2, and that there appears to be inconsistency between some of those that passed muster with a month and year of bar admission, and others who did not. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 27, 2014 17:38:47 GMT -5
OPM put specific questions in their application. It is the choice of the applicant to follow the rules. If the applicant says "well I don't think this is related.....etc" and then fails to give the required information, well .... Good luck with that. Agree. To me, the issue with the DQ's for bar membership is that they came at the end of the process, instead of at phase 1, or even 2, and that there appears to be inconsistency between some of those that passed muster with a month and year of bar admission, and others who did not. That seems to be a true appeal point. Exact date including day vs month and year vs year. I have seen it posted that there is a variety and this is inconsistent. |
|
|
|
Post by advocatusdiaboli on Mar 27, 2014 17:42:15 GMT -5
Best of luck to all and sundry. With your unwarranted assumptions (I'm not DLOTS), ad hominem attacks, and failure to address the argument, y'all appear to be precisely the candidates that the agency is looking for.
|
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 27, 2014 17:45:46 GMT -5
Apologies from me for taking the cue from others that you might be a duplicate account. Unfortunately, we've had a bit of that going on lately, or at least have strong evidence that we do, and people are a bit gunshy. And, I DID address the argument. So did others. You might want to delete the duplicate post.... |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 27, 2014 17:49:41 GMT -5
Alrighty then. That was weird! Sratty then Rolls her eyes and turns her attention to the dog who clearly has the qualities that Sratty lacks. Pure obliviousness and gullibility being 2 such qualities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 17:51:58 GMT -5
Best of luck to all and sundry. With your unwarranted assumptions (I'm not DLOTS), ad hominem attacks, and failure to address the argument, y'all appear to be precisely the candidates that the agency is looking for. Bye and good luck, I already don't miss you! |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 27, 2014 17:58:20 GMT -5
Apologies from me for taking the cue from others that you might be a duplicate account. Unfortunately, we've had a bit of that going on lately, or at least have strong evidence that we do, and people are a bit gunshy. And, I DID address the argument. So did others. You might want to delete the duplicate post.... Too many references to dark lord. I am of a mind that if it looks like a zebra it's probably a zebra. Occam's razor. |
|
Nuff said and now my rant is over. LOL!