|
|
Post by counsel on Dec 3, 2007 11:43:56 GMT -5
Does anyone see an advantage to listing additional references or publications? They ask for 3 in each category but provide 4 spots to enter the information. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by aaa on Dec 3, 2007 15:21:33 GMT -5
Do you think it will hurt us if we haven't ever been published? At least I've never had any legal documents published (not in Law Review, etc.).
|
|
jazz
Full Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by jazz on Dec 3, 2007 15:40:55 GMT -5
I have not been published either. I have done appellate work, and I have had opinions in those cases published in the reporter. Of course, I didn't author the decisions in the reporter, just the brief. I am considering including those and stating that I wrote briefs in the case, but not the opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Dec 3, 2007 15:41:31 GMT -5
Do you think it will hurt us if we haven't ever been published? At least I've never had any legal documents published (not in Law Review, etc.). I can't imagine, if you will, how a Law Review article would help at this stage of the game. But that's how I feel when, after 23 years of practice, they ask me what my law school GRADES were. I would be surprised if anyone who has not been a staff attorney for an ALJ or for a Board --- someone who has been drafting opinions ---- has anything to put in this area. Yes, yes, - I am aware that there are those who are contributing to journals and the like, but most of us are really rather busy just keeping up with motion practice, much less "publishing." And them there motions ? Ah don' think they are what the questionnaire is looking for! |
|
|
|
Post by aaa on Dec 3, 2007 15:56:42 GMT -5
Jagghagg - I like your style! Here's hoping we both get hired and are in the same office! My "publishing" consists of multiple stories in local, regional and national stock car racing publications. I don't think anyone would be real excited about reading those ramblings. And any of my writing in private practice was so long ago and far away that I couldn't find anyone to verify it even if I could remember it. And anything I've written for the Agency wasn't published.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnthornton on Dec 3, 2007 16:08:05 GMT -5
Remember that you are being evaluated for your ability to follow directions (witness the applicants who haven't made it this far in the process because they left out a minor piece of information requested). If you claim authorship of a reported decision, it is likely to be frowned upon. I view the publication question as a trap. Also remember that you are likely to be Googled in the evaluation process.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Dec 3, 2007 16:43:02 GMT -5
I'm with johnthornton. They are basically assuming that you are competent. If you happen to have some high quality publication that's fine, it doesn't hurt, but they don't need it. They can use it to verify that you have basic writing skills, but I think they are looking more at your ability to follow directions and looking for any evidence that might be detrimental to you. In short, I don't think they're trying to pick out the superstars. I think they're trying to find potential problem children.
Same thing with your references. They expect them to be positive, after all, you picked them. What they are really looking for is any kind of problem. If a judge or anyone else has something negative to say, that will get their attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by judicature on Dec 3, 2007 16:52:04 GMT -5
It is impossible to follow the directions if we do not have "at least 3 written items" as required in the questionnaire, but I don't think you can do anything about this fact. OPM has certified us as qualified; SSA is looking at other factors to create a separation among candidates. I suspect that not very many of us will have "at least 3" publications - so it will not yield much in the way of valuable information. I have been a trial court judge for over 8 years and none of my written decisions are published in the sense that I believe this question requires.
|
|
jazz
Full Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by jazz on Dec 3, 2007 17:37:07 GMT -5
I knew that what I had done in my appellate work was not what they were looking for. Thanks for the responses. I guess I am just going to leave it blank.
|
|
|
|
Post by conanthebarbarian on Dec 5, 2007 12:34:18 GMT -5
Judicature: An excellent response. I agree with your well-reasoned view. Thanks. CTB
|
|
|
|
Post by Asterisk on Dec 5, 2007 12:47:16 GMT -5
Conan; Judicature; I'm still undecided on this issue...I tend to concur with your view; are you going to just not respond to the publication issue, ie/. leave it blank?
btw:I haven't received any updated email re: the FEIA as yet, so looks like docs might be going into the fax machine this week before FRI. Has anyone received such an email???
|
|
|
|
Post by conanthebarbarian on Dec 5, 2007 13:42:50 GMT -5
gettingthere: I have not received an updated e-mail yet thus my inclination will be to fax what I have by tomorrow at the latest. I will most likely not leave the "publications" issue blank and will somehow fashion an appropruate response. Thanks. CTB
|
|
|
|
Post by conanthebarbarian on Dec 5, 2007 13:44:14 GMT -5
Sorry-that should be "appropriate". My bad. CTB
|
|
|
|
Post by judicature on Dec 5, 2007 14:05:39 GMT -5
I wrote a piece for a local paper some years ago that I will probably list, but other than that I do not really have anything that qualifies. The SSA person I spoke to said that newsletters would be ok but that she didn't think that CLE materials were really what they were looking for.
|
|
|
|
Post by texasatty on Dec 5, 2007 19:53:56 GMT -5
As I indicated on another thread, I received an email from OPM advising of a "corrected" FEAI which will be sent to me today, and of the new dealine of 12/12.
|
|
