|
Post by nikster on Dec 16, 2014 10:26:01 GMT -5
The past, the present and the future walked into a bar. It was tense. HA! You're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by happy on Dec 16, 2014 13:09:25 GMT -5
As a writer back in the 90s, I saw it all. Illegible handwriting that even the judge couldn't decipher when asked. A smiley face or a frowny face, with no other instructions. A simple reference to 201.00h (with nothing further) -- was that favorable or unfavorable? I got to know my judges and could write efficiently no matter what, tweaking as needed for the particular judge's preferences. It didn't take much time to personalize, but I only had to write for 10-17 judges and it was easy to get to know them. I truly pity the NCAC/DWU writers who are, in a sense, writing blindly. In my instructions, I always try to connect the dots so that the writer can get a sense of my train of thought. We all make mistakes -- that's not my complaint. But when someone just doesn't "get it," it is quicker for me to just trash the draft and write it myself from scratch, rather than trying to fix the writer's mess. Once the writer has demonstrated an utter lack of interest in improving, I simply don't have time to provide extensive feedback to management. I suspect that a lot of ALJs feel that way when they are having problems. They don't provide constructive feedback because (1) it takes time away from productivity; and (2) it's unlikely to result in change. As a former HOCALJ, I would listen to judges complain and would urge them to provide examples to the supervisors because, if they don't know about the problem, they can't (try to) fix it. But now, as a line judge, I completely understand. Let me just say that I do a little Snoopy "happy dance" when I get a draft that I can sign with little-to-no editing. I am close to ecstatic. I do see a few of those from time to time and am so grateful for small blessings!
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Dec 16, 2014 13:16:04 GMT -5
As a writer back in the 90s, I saw it all. Illegible handwriting that even the judge couldn't decipher when asked. A smiley face or a frowny face, with no other instructions. A simple reference to 201.00h (with nothing further) -- was that favorable or unfavorable? I got to know my judges and could write efficiently no matter what, tweaking as needed for the particular judge's preferences. It didn't take much time to personalize, but I only had to write for 10-17 judges and it was easy to get to know them. I truly pity the NCAC/DWU writers who are, in a sense, writing blindly. In my instructions, I always try to connect the dots so that the writer can get a sense of my train of thought. We all make mistakes -- that's not my complaint. But when someone just doesn't "get it," it is quicker for me to just trash the draft and write it myself from scratch, rather than trying to fix the writer's mess. Once the writer has demonstrated an utter lack of interest in improving, I simply don't have time to provide extensive feedback to management. I suspect that a lot of ALJs feel that way when they are having problems. They don't provide constructive feedback because (1) it takes time away from productivity; and (2) it's unlikely to result in change. As a former HOCALJ, I would listen to judges complain and would urge them to provide examples to the supervisors because, if they don't know about the problem, they can't (try to) fix it. But now, as a line judge, I completely understand. Let me just say that I do a little Snoopy "happy dance" when I get a draft that I can sign with little-to-no editing. I am close to ecstatic. I do see a few of those from time to time and am so grateful for small blessings! Exactly right. It takes a considerable amount of time for me to highlight all the errors, explain why they are errors, make suggestions on how to improve, knowing all the time that the writer will NOT get better. I have been rewriting a lot of decisions and it is having an effect on my disposition numbers. I just really feel as though there should be some kind of testing done so that we can be sure a person is capable of a high degree of written expression before he or she is hired into the position. We should not have to wait until they consistently demonstrate bad work product to try to remediate things. Typically, once a person lands a job here, he has it forever unless he demonstrates outright criminal behavior.
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper on Dec 17, 2014 8:02:48 GMT -5
The past, the present and the future walked into a bar. It was tense. HA! You're welcome. I presume they didn't come in together ... ht
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper on Dec 17, 2014 8:59:53 GMT -5
As a writer back in the 90s, I saw it all. Illegible handwriting that even the judge couldn't decipher when asked. A smiley face or a frowny face, with no other instructions. A simple reference to 201.00h (with nothing further) -- was that favorable or unfavorable? I got to know my judges and could write efficiently no matter what, tweaking as needed for the particular judge's preferences. It didn't take much time to personalize, but I only had to write for 10-17 judges and it was easy to get to know them. I truly pity the NCAC/DWU writers who are, in a sense, writing blindly. In my instructions, I always try to connect the dots so that the writer can get a sense of my train of thought. We all make mistakes -- that's not my complaint. But when someone just doesn't "get it," it is quicker for me to just trash the draft and write it myself from scratch, rather than trying to fix the writer's mess. Once the writer has demonstrated an utter lack of interest in improving, I simply don't have time to provide extensive feedback to management. I suspect that a lot of ALJs feel that way when they are having problems. They don't provide constructive feedback because (1) it takes time away from productivity; and (2) it's unlikely to result in change. As a former HOCALJ, I would listen to judges complain and would urge them to provide examples to the supervisors because, if they don't know about the problem, they can't (try to) fix it. But now, as a line judge, I completely understand. Let me just say that I do a little Snoopy "happy dance" when I get a draft that I can sign with little-to-no editing. I am close to ecstatic. I do see a few of those from time to time and am so grateful for small blessings! Exactly right. It takes a considerable amount of time for me to highlight all the errors, explain why they are errors, make suggestions on how to improve, knowing all the time that the writer will NOT get better. I have been rewriting a lot of decisions and it is having an effect on my disposition numbers. I just really feel as though there should be some kind of testing done so that we can be sure a person is capable of a high degree of written expression before he or she is hired into the position. We should not have to wait until they consistently demonstrate bad work product to try to remediate things. Typically, once a person lands a job here, he has it forever unless he demonstrates outright criminal behavior. For me, writing has always been about two things: 1) understanding language (i.e., grammar, spelling, syntax, etc.); and, 2) understanding context (the purpose and audience of what you are writing). The paradox is that all writers, in any profession or job, face the same dilemma ... speed vs. thoroughness and accuracy. Do you sacrifice accuracy for speed? Or, is there a way to achieve both? The first aspect of communicaiton, language, is the foundation on which all writing is based. You must be able to put together complete coherent thoughts with subject-verb agreement, spelled correctly. The second, is more about understanding the purpose and function the communication is intended to fulfill and the audience to whom it is addressed. We can teach writers (and judges) the formulaic approach necessary to ensure a legally defensible opinion - that covers all the bases. Like first year law school legal research and writing courses taught us, it is all about context - understanding the purpose and the audience; and in my view all legal writing tends to be very formulaic. What we should not have to teach anyone is grammar. There must be a foundation already present before you try to teach them how to write an opinion that follows the suggested format/formula. I'm not talking about perfect written decisions, I can handle editing opinions where the masculine pronouns "him" and "he" are used when the claimant is a female, because I know the writer has "cut and pasted" canned language they used in another opinion. (Although it would be nice if they would do a global find and replace, but it is not a major problem.) What I am talking about is something more basic that goes back to the first aspect of any written communication. It must be clear, concise and correct. Thus, failure to ensure subject-verb agreement and inclusion of incomplete sentence fragments, should be the rare exception rather than the general rule. Where I think the agency is in error is in promoting those with a high school diploma only - up through the ranks of "clerkdom" into a writing role. Seems to me there are literally thousands of law school graduates who would jump at the chance to become writers. I'd love to see writers move out from under the auspices of Group Supervisors and have a more direct role with judges. I know that's not the model the agency is pursuing. But if it works for the Judiciary and Judge Posner, I suspect it could work for the agency. We are all judged by our level of production. The paradox is ensuring a higher quality of communication as we prepare formulaic decisions. I suspect that we could design a test that would eliminate some of those individuals who do not have the basic language skills necessary. I know I am new to the agency, but I am old to management and leadership. And I am all about fixing what you can fix. Time to take off these rose-colored glasses. ht
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Dec 17, 2014 9:10:14 GMT -5
Hilltopper: Don't assume that because someone has more education that he is more qualified to do this job. Some of the best writers in my office are those who came up "through the ranks of clerkdom." And some of the worst have been lawyers. In fact, I have wondered how some of these lawyers based a bar exam, unless it was all multiple choice, scan-tron. They absolutely could not write a coherent decision to save their souls. After 20+ years with ODAR, I have come to the conclusion that writing ability has very little to do with post-high school education and more to do with native intelligence and natural talent. Some folks have it and others just don't.
As for the relationship between the writers and the judges, that may be more a matter of office culture than anything else. Again in this office the writers and judges are very collegial. That interaction has always been encouraged by management. If you wish to cultivate the same culture in your office, what stops you from visiting with the writers and opening that dialogue?
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Dec 17, 2014 9:11:08 GMT -5
Thank you, Hilltopper. I have long maintained that we can teach someone how to write a decision if the person already knows how to write. If the person does not know how to write, there is little that we can do for him at this level. We had an interesting visit from the assistant regional chief. We complained en masse about the writing problems in the office and in the so-called writing units. The assistant chief said that they would look into providing the right kind of support so that the writers could develop more and do a better job. (1) I'm the one who needs the "support" if they expect to see numbers out of me. (2) I asked how they proposed to turn a bad writer into a good writer, as it was clear that the task of good, persuasive writing was clearly beyond the capabilities of a number of our writers. I was told that management's position was that ALL writers could be good writers with the right support.
The answer is just ridiculous, but I guess that is what they are supposed to say.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Dec 17, 2014 9:23:28 GMT -5
Hilltopper: Don't assume that because someone has more education that he is more qualified to do this job. Some of the best writers in my office are those who came up "through the ranks of clerkdom." And some of the worst have been lawyers. In fact, I have wondered how some of these lawyers based a bar exam, unless it was all multiple choice, scan-tron. They absolutely could not write a coherent decision to save their souls. After 20+ years with ODAR, I have come to the conclusion that writing ability has very little to do with post-high school education and more to do with native intelligence and natural talent. Some folks have it and others just don't. I think the big difference between hiring attorneys and paralegals is that attorneys are almost all new hires, and part of that process includes submitting a writing sample with the application. The office should have at least some warning of what they're getting, and the attorneys that have been hired on in my office after I came on board all do a good job with their writing because management took the time to evaluate writing samples. AFGE does not allow management to request writing samples from non-attorneys seeking paralegal positions. It's unreal. I've suggested that GSs send potential hires lengthy emails to elicit lengthy responses, but they would probably face a grievance if they tried it.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Dec 17, 2014 10:47:10 GMT -5
Hilltopper: Don't assume that because someone has more education that he is more qualified to do this job. Some of the best writers in my office are those who came up "through the ranks of clerkdom." And some of the worst have been lawyers. In fact, I have wondered how some of these lawyers based a bar exam, unless it was all multiple choice, scan-tron. They absolutely could not write a coherent decision to save their souls. After 20+ years with ODAR, I have come to the conclusion that writing ability has very little to do with post-high school education and more to do with native intelligence and natural talent. Some folks have it and others just don't. I think the big difference between hiring attorneys and paralegals is that attorneys are almost all new hires, and part of that process includes submitting a writing sample with the application. The office should have at least some warning of what they're getting, and the attorneys that have been hired on in my office after I came on board all do a good job with their writing because management took the time to evaluate writing samples. AFGE does not allow management to request writing samples from non-attorneys seeking paralegal positions. It's unreal. I've suggested that GSs send potential hires lengthy emails to elicit lengthy responses, but they would probably face a grievance if they tried it. Simply ridiculous. A writing job, but no... you cannot request a writing sample. And THIS is why so many people are irritated with unions and federal employees. When common sense completely leaves the arena, we get employees in jobs who have zero true qualification. I am not in that union so there is no way to make input. But THIS is something that must change! What would taxpayers / general public say? Sigh.
|
|
|
Post by alj on Dec 17, 2014 11:25:28 GMT -5
The problems faced by writers and judges are different in each office. I have been in several offices and have seen all of the problems discussed in this thread. Fortunately, in the offices I have served, all of the writers have been able to write a grammatically correct sentence. They are, however, under constant pressure for numbers, which causes inconsistent quality in the writing.
Having served as mentor for new writers for a number of years, I have an unique perspective on the job they do, even though I have no prior experience with the agency. Their job isn't made easier by instructions received from many of the judges. In almost every set of instructions I review, there is a fatal error, which is the reason the writer brought the problem to me.
For example, there are impairments given without corresponding limitations in the RFC. Or there are limitations given in the RFC for which no severe impairment is given, or if given, it isn't supported by the medical evidence. Experienced writers know how to handle these types of situations and do the best they can with what they have, but new writers aren't experienced enough to know what to do and many are too timid to approach the judge. So, they bring it to me. I either give them a way to handle it, if it is fixable, or I go to the judge to see which way the writer should proceed. It is easy for me to do this as I have a good relationship with the other judges, and probably served as their mentor when they first came to the office.
When I take a problem to another judge, almost invariably the response I get is, "What was I thinking? Boy, I sure screwed that up! I get in such a rush, there is not always time to do these things properly." And why was he or she in such a rush? Numbers.
And these errors are committed by judges with extensive prior experience as AA or SAA! They know the system from the writer's standpoint, but still make the same mistakes and make the writer's already difficult job even more difficult. I will say the judges with prior writing experience make fewer of the reversible mistakes, but not that many fewer.
When I was in new judges' school, I asked an experienced SA (supervisory attorney back then) how was I going to communicate my thoughts on the case to the writer. His response was that as an experienced writer, all he wanted was a thumbs up or a thumbs down, without the judge getting in his way of writing the decision, and he would do the rest. Obviously, a new writer would have a difficult time with this approach, but I have seen instructions that cause more harm than they help. One of our judges has prior experience as an AA, so one would think he knows the system and the best way to communicate his thoughts on the case. But I absolutely cringe when a writer brings me his instructions with a question. They are complex and serpentine in reaching the desired result. Sometimes even I can't figure out the decisional path.
And let's not forget that when a judge gets a remand, the writer is charged with it also. Sometimes it is a writer's error that caused the remand, but many times it is a judge error at the hearing that can't be corrected in the decision. For a writer I think those are the most frustrating, to know the decision is going to come back, but unable to do anything to fix it.
Not too long ago I had an experienced AA come to me with a question on instructions. I read the instructions, read them again, and made the comment, "This is terrible." His response, "Welcome to my world."
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Dec 17, 2014 12:19:22 GMT -5
I recently went to a Group Supervisor, the one over the writers. I had a remand and I was not paying it for the second time. I asked the GS to please assign it to a good writer as it had a few quirks in it that had to be properly addressed. A few days later I looked and he had assigned it to the worse writer in the office. When I confronted him about this he told me that all writers were equal and that was the way it was...
|
|
|
Post by alj on Dec 17, 2014 12:27:16 GMT -5
I recently went to a Group Supervisor, the one over the writers. I had a remand and I was not paying it for the second time. I asked the GS to please assign it to a good writer as it had a few quirks in it that had to be properly addressed. A few days later I looked and he had assigned it to the worse writer in the office. When I confronted him about this he told me that all writers were equal and that was the way it was... Typical bureaucratic response. This is what drives so many of us insane. Fortunately, I haven't been faced with this type of thinking in the offices I have been in.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Dec 17, 2014 13:52:30 GMT -5
ALJ, that has been my experience also. After about a year on the job, I was better off just knowing what the judge wanted as the end result. I received many poor instructions, some baffling, some unintelligible. That's what got me thinking about the ALJ job; I felt certain I could do a better job communicating how I reached a conclusion. I would say the ration was pretty even, 50/50, for good instructions versus bad. With writing, at some offices I would say that more than 50% of the draft decisions were good (what I would call "acceptable"), but currently, I would say that, at most, 25% are acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Dec 17, 2014 14:15:50 GMT -5
As an 'outie' I really appreciate being a fly on the wall to this conversation. It is extremely illuminating, please keep sharing your experiences.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Dec 17, 2014 18:25:46 GMT -5
ALJ, fantastic post above! Thanks
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Dec 17, 2014 19:18:38 GMT -5
The problems faced by writers and judges are different in each office. When I was in new judges' school, I asked an experienced SA (supervisory attorney back then) how was I going to communicate my thoughts on the case to the writer. His response was that as an experienced writer, all he wanted was a thumbs up or a thumbs down, without the judge getting in his way of writing the decision, and he would do the rest. Obviously, a new writer would have a difficult time with this approach, but I have seen instructions that cause more harm than they help. One of our judges has prior experience as an AA, so one would think he knows the system and the best way to communicate his thoughts on the case. But I absolutely cringe when a writer brings me his instructions with a question. They are complex and serpentine in reaching the desired result. Sometimes even I can't figure out the decisional path. And let's not forget that when a judge gets a remand, the writer is charged with it also. Sometimes it is a writer's error that caused the remand, but many times it is a judge error at the hearing that can't be corrected in the decision. For a writer I think those are the most frustrating, to know the decision is going to come back, but unable to do anything to fix it. Not too long ago I had an experienced AA come to me with a question on instructions. I read the instructions, read them again, and made the comment, "This is terrible." His response, "Welcome to my world." Right on.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Jan 23, 2015 12:41:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Jan 23, 2015 13:22:49 GMT -5
Thanks for the update, Funky.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jan 23, 2015 13:25:24 GMT -5
The affirmation is an interesting read without a doubt! Thanks Funky!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 13:32:37 GMT -5
The just issued 7th CCA decision is indeed an interesting read for current and future ALJ's, especially in Hon. Posner's comparison of the work of SSA ALJ's to that of chicken deboners on an assembly line.
One should bear in mind that said job per the DOT is an SVP 2 level job; e.g., unskilled laborer.
AALJ v SSA
|
|