I can hear the crickets

[zero]

Am I the last of the folks that make posts concerning appeals and non-selections? Have all of you moved on to other things? Is there anyone out there who knows anything about the appeals? chirp chirp chirp.

[workdrone]

I think there's no new information at this point, so no one has anything more to add. Wait until OPM starts to respond a few months down the road and I'm sure we'll have plenty of discussions then.

[chris]

There's another member of this board who hasn't posted in a while who is approaching the appeal issue in a different manner. He asked others who made the list if they would review his application and tell him what he did wrong. They did and felt it was a weak effort, so even if he appealed and was allowed to take the WD and the SI, they felt his chances of getting a decent overall score were slim. So he is reworking his application in preparation for reopening of the exam. He didn't feel that it made sense to win an appeal, then go to the time and effort of taking the WD and SI, when a poor overall score was probably waiting for him. I think others who are appealing need to consider this approach. If you win your appeal, you don't make it onto the list automatically. You just get the right to pay to take the SI and WD and if your application really was weak, as OPM probably thought it was, you're just going to get a poor overall score. Too many people think that winning the appeal is going to solve all of their problems. How do you think your WD and SI are going to be scored if you win your appeal and OPM has to do more work? They are professionals but they are also human. Don't be surprised if the winning appellants do not score extremely high on the WD and the SI.

Just something to think about.

[workdrone]

chris said:

Don't be surprised if the winning appellants do not score extremely high on the WD and the SI.

Just something to think about.

Good points. I think the people who didn't make the initial cut falls into 3 main category:

1. Younger attorneys who are under 40 and have less than 10 years of practice experience. For this group, I think it's just a matter of getting a little more experiences and waiting for reopening may be prudent. Short of something extraordinary in their background (or 10 pts VP), their scores are probably not going to be high enough to be in the running even if they win their appeals.

2. People who just made a technical error on their application (missing bar numbers, etc), who otherwise may just be the candidates OPM is looking for. For this group, appealing and being allowed to go to WD/SI might be worthwhile because the initial denial wasn't a "denial on the merit."

3. People who have significant amount of legal experiences (over 15+ years, etc) that got denied under the "0" category. I'm still baffled by this and I really thinking they got nothing to lose at this point by appealing.

Regards,

Drone

[chris]

I totally agree with points 1 and 2. I think what's going on with group 3 is that many didn't write their application precisely enough in response to the 6 competencies. It doesn't matter if you have 15 years of litigation experience if you didn't explain how that experience gave you competency in those six areas. And aside from poor writing, it is theoretically possible (unlikely but possible) that you can have 15 years of experience yet not have sufficient experience in one of the competency areas. I also know more than one person who tried to shoehorn their old federal ALJ application materials into the new format and it just doesn't work.

So, if someone fits within category 3, I would suggest they figure out what they did wrong before going any further. It's always possible that OPM just missed a few, but I'm betting they didn't completely misgrade the apps of many 15 year litigators. It's more likely the applicants screwed up somewhere in writing the application. If they wrote a poor application, they are in the same position as group 1, but for a slightly different reason, and it's probably not to their benefit to proceed with an appeal.

[Pixie]

I am hearing that many who scored zero never had the accomplishments section looked at. They had a fatal error on the application such as the date admitted to the bar was missing or some other detail was omitted. OPM is not going to do unnecessary work, so the ones who submitted "incomplete" applications were culled at the beginning. Don't take this to the bank, and it may have already been stated, but I am hearing it fairly frequently. Pix.

[zero]

I would be willing to have my application reviewed for constructive criticism. However, I know there are people who moved into the next phase with less than 15 years experience and only indirect litigation experience. I also think the "fatal error" folks received a different rejection message.

Predictably, the folks who survived and advanced tend to defend the system while those who were shut out tend to be suspicious of the system.

[workdrone]

zero said:

I know there are people who moved into the next phase with less than 15 years experience and only indirect litigation experience. I also think the "fatal error" folks received a different rejection message.

Yeah, I know about 10 people (both in office and out) that advanced to the WD/SI stage. The common characteristics for all of them is they are over 40 years old and have at least 10 years of practice experience. All the attorneys I know under 40 and with less than 10 years of practice that applied got cut. So the only conclusion I can draw is that 40 years of age and 10+ years of practice seems to be the cut-off line.

And I agree that OPM wasn't reviewing the qualifications closely, because I know at least 2 people who advanced whose 10+ years included years of indirect litigation experience.

zero said:

Predictably, the folks who survived and advanced tend to defend the system while those who were shut out tend to be suspicious of the system.

True. I think we can all agree that in the rush to do things, OPM did not create the most rational process to select ALJs. However, none of us had any control over it. So lets wish everyone the best and take a deep breath. Because realistically, those that don't make it will either win their appeals or be able to take the test when it reopens. So it's not a zero sum game and we don't need to get worked up over it.

Best of luck to everyone, and don't get too stressed out at the SI if you're going this month. Calm under fire is the key. ;D

[zero]

If OPM has been completely above board, it could do itself a favor by being a little more forthcoming in explaining its process.

[deadwood]

I'm under 40 and also have less than 10 years experience as an attorney. I know of one other person who also falls into the under 40/less than 10 years experience category.

At least two of us made it.

[tricia]

chris said:

There's another member of this board who hasn't posted in a while who is approaching the appeal issue in a different manner. He asked others who made the list if they would review his application and tell him what he did wrong. They did and felt it was a weak effort, so even if he appealed and was allowed to take the WD and the SI, they felt his chances of getting a decent overall score were slim. So he is reworking his application in preparation for reopening of the exam. He didn't feel that it made sense to win an appeal, then go to the time and effort of taking the WD and SI, when a poor overall score was probably waiting for him. I think others who are appealing need to consider this approach. If you win your appeal, you don't make it onto the list automatically. You just get the right to pay to take the SI and WD and if your application really was weak, as OPM probably thought it was, you're just going to get a poor overall score. Too many people think that winning the appeal is going to solve all of their problems. How do you think your WD and SI are going to be scored if you win your appeal and OPM has to do more work? They are professionals but they are also human. Don't be surprised if the winning appellants do not score extremely high on the WD and the SI.

Just something to think about.

In what way was his application "weak"? If you mean that some of his answers were rather brief because he felt under the gun time-wise, wouldn't that apply to almost everyone? I was one of the people whose application was probably not read by a human being because a computer noted that I had not given the date of my original license to practice. I am looking at an appeal being the first chance I have for someone to actually read my application.

[Pixie]

Hi Tricia, good to see that you have joined us here. Keep us up to date on your appeal. Pix.

[govtattorney]

I am under 40 with less than 10 years experience and no VP, and made it to the next level.

[nonamouse]

Trish,

I would not say that "almost everyone" did brief answers due to the time crunch. Some of us dropped everything nonessential for the weekend and spent a lot of time writing very detailed answers. I know it was not possible for everyone to hibernate, especially if kids were involved.

I personally found out at 8:30pm on that Friday about the opening. I called people with the info for the remainder of the evening and then started working on the resume the next morning. (Mine was only in hard copy format and a few years old.) I only took breaks for essentials such as meals and church through the weekend. I know that I spent more than 24 hours total over Sat-Mon (am) in gathering info, organizing, reviewing instructions, writing, editing, printing, reading it again, editing and finally sending the darned thing. (Some people may find that excessive, but I figured it might be 9 years before OPM posted the job again.)

The people I know who made it through to the SI and WD all spent at least as much time and detail on their packets as I describe above in addition to having at least 10 years of applicable experience. Everyone had dealt with government applications previously, and each person was very careful to cross every T and dot every I in order to avoid a "technical" denial. I have been burned with a technical denial in the past for a different government job, so I was hypersensitive this time.

I have to agree with the suggestion that people get the application reviewed for "weakness" by someone. I would find someone who has done legal and/or government hiring. If I had not made the cut, I would have gotten some feedback in order to be ready for the next posting regardless of pending lawsuits or appeals.

[workdrone]

nonamouse said:

If I had not made the cut, I would have gotten some feedback in order to be ready for the next posting regardless of pending lawsuits or appeals.

Excellent advice. Don't ever put your eggs all in one basket. While appealing may or may not pan out, it's always good to start planning for the next round of exams just in case, so if OPM does this 1250 applications only again, you'll be ready.

[chris]

tricia said:

chris said:

There's another member of this board who hasn't posted in a while who is approaching the appeal issue in a different manner. He asked others who made the list if they would review his application and tell him what he did wrong. They did and felt it was a weak effort, so even if he appealed and was allowed to take the WD and the SI, they felt his chances of getting a decent overall score were slim. So he is reworking his application in preparation for reopening of the exam. He didn't feel that it made sense to win an appeal, then go to the time and effort of taking the WD and SI, when a poor overall score was probably waiting for him. I think others who are appealing need to consider this approach. If you win your appeal, you don't make it onto the list automatically. You just get the right to pay to take the SI and WD and if your application really was weak, as OPM probably thought it was, you're just going to get a poor overall score. Too many people think that winning the appeal is going to solve all of their problems. How do you think your WD and SI are going to be scored if you win your appeal and OPM has to do more work? They are professionals but they are also human. Don't be surprised if the winning appellants do not score extremely high on the WD and the SI.

Just something to think about.

In what way was his application "weak"? If you mean that some of his answers were rather brief because he felt under the gun time-wise, wouldn't that apply to almost everyone? I was one of the people whose application was probably not read by a human being because a computer noted that I had not given the date of my original license to practice. I am looking at an appeal being the first chance I have for someone to actually read my application.

It was weak because he was giving essentially the same answer in all of the 6 competencies, he was using the small summary as part of his overall answer instead of using it as a summary as directed, and he was essentially telling OPM what a great and experienced attorney he was but was not really answering their specific questions.

With respect to the time pressure, I know people who got the exam info on Friday, worked on it Friday night, all day Saturday and Sunday, then took Monday or Tuesday off to finish up. They didn't have problems with brief answers but in fact had to trim their original answers to meet the word limit.

[tricia]

Chris, thanks for the information. I know that I didn't repeat information from one essay to another.
I heard about the application process being open on Monday, and thought that it might close on Monday, so my essays tended to be brief.
I think that it's worth it for the people, like me, who failed to put in their date of admission, and therefore probably didn't have their applications read by a human being, to pursue the appeals process.
I hope that when people start receiving emails about their appeals, they will post the information here.
I really appreciate this new board.

[zero]

I still think something is rotten in Denmark. I have 12 years of diverse litigation experience. I’ve handled huge cases involving a wide range of issues. I’ve heard that actual judges with decades of experience were turned down. Yet journeymen attorneys with SSA who, with all due respect, have never actually tried a case were advanced to the next level. I also spent an entire weekend working on my application. It’s easy to speculate that I missed dotting an “i” or crossing a “t”. But I wonder whether the people who advanced have flawless resumes.

[nonamouse]

Zero,

You might drive yourself nutty trying to figure out why a certain person was advanced, but it could be that you don't really know all of their resume.

I might look like a journeyman SSA attorney to someone who only knows me from my current positon. However, I have a diverse legal career with civil litigation, criminal prosecution, contested admin hearings and time as a state ALJ. I also had many years in law enforcement which I used for the first 2 of my ARs. (I tell people that I just look young.)

I don't routinely go around advertising my resume, so perhaps you are misinformed as to the actual qualifications of some of the "journeymen" attorneys who made the cut. They might have spent time in other jobs that served them well in filling out the 6 ARs with some variety. I'm not sure what an attorney would have written for the last AR if they had never presided over a hearing or trial.

[chris]

All that being true Zero, you still might be in the bottom half. Most of the people I know personally and from this board who moved on to the WD average over 20 years of litigation experience. Most of the people who did not move on average around 8-12 years in experience. I don't think it's an accident that half of the applicants were cut. OPM took what they perceived as the top half and left everyone else, some of whom are good well qualified attorneys, behind. Similarly, while I'm sure I did well on the WD, that doesn't guarantee I am in the top half of WD scores.

I don't know of any judges with more than 20 years experience who didn't advance but if they exist I would love to see their applications. It is not in OPM's interests to turn down folks with those qualifications. It makes OPM look bad. They know people can appeal and OPM employees value their jobs just as much as anyone else.

You seem to think that SSA attys may have been given preferential treatment, but the vast majority of folks who have expressed an opinion on this issue think that the reverse is true. OPM, and most everyone else outside of SSA, doesn't think highly of the SSA attorney work experience.