I can hear the crickets

[Pixie]

It's not a matter of OPM, or anyone else, "thinking highly" of the staff attorneys' work experience. It is a matter of having the qualifying experience to meet the requirements set by OPM and then scoring well enough to be toward the top of the register.

SSA is interested in the staff attorneys because of several factors. First, they know the program and have a much shorter learning curve, allowing them to be more productive quicker. Second, they are a known quantity--either good or bad. If a staff attorney has been productive and has been an asset to the office, then she will be made an offer, assuming her score is high enough to make the certificate of eligibles sent to the agency. All have been around long enough to know to make themselves available for as many locations as possible. This will make it easier for the agency to pick them up.

On the other hand, someone who has not been productive, or who has had "problems" in his office, will not be made an offer, irrespective of the number of locations selected.

So I don't think it is really fair to the staff attorneys to denigrate their work experience. They either have the qualifying experience to make the register and score well, or they don't.

In my opinion, there will be more SSA staff attorneys made offers for the next few classes than at anytime in the past. But that is just my opinion. Pix.

[chris]

I disagree Pixie. I think it is a matter of OPM thinking highly of your work experience. It is very clear that in other areas of the legal world all work experience is not the same and it is a fact that many attorneys from outside SSA do denigrate the SSA attorney experience as we saw on the old board. Whether OPM denigrates that experience too is the issue.

Zero mentioned that "Yet journeymen attorneys with SSA who, with all due respect, have never actually tried a case were advanced to the next level." He seemed to me to be implying that OPM gave preference to attys with SSA experience. I pointed out that OPM probably did not do this because OPM probably does not value SSA experience as much as some other experience. There have been many discussions on the old board about OPM's apparent disregard of SSA experience.

And that's really the issue-is all qualifying experience the same to OPM? I don't know the inner workings at OPM but I doubt that all qualifying experience is treated the same. If it's the same, then someone who has been a federal DA, a federal PD, a partner in a large firm and then a state supreme court judge over the last 25 years would be no higher on the list after the first round than someone who has been an attorney at SSA for the last 25 years. I doubt that all qualifying experience is graded the same.

I understand why SSA is interested in hiring their own attys but SSA doesn't put anyone on the register. OPM does and they are trying to compile a list of the best qualified ALJs they can find for all agencies, not for SSA. SSA attorneys are not a known quantity to OPM. Whether someone is made an offer is an SSA issue, not an OPM issue.

It may or may not be fair to denigrate the SSA work experience but people do it and that is the reality. It will continue to happen as long as SSA cannot compile their own register.

[cinderella]

Pix- as I was reading your good response and nodding my head in agreement, I suddenly had a thought: In a way, it's a bit unfair for the ODAR SAs or AAs to be judged by their productivity or "known quantity" good or bad- as compared to our private practice or other agency candidate counterparts. Who knows if they were productive? Who knows if they were "trouble" (although I think we've certainly seen some hints of that, especially on the other board). Unless all candidates are being ascribed "productivity" or "geniality/teamwork" criteria, it's really not quite a level playing field.

Even within a hearing office itself, the criteria can be skewed. An example: In an office I know, the SAs are under direct supervision (including workload) of the group supervisors, instead of the HOD. Each group has its own way of doing things, and each group supervisor has his/ her own thoughts on workload and process. One SA writes complex denials or district remands. One reviews at leisure, but counts a 10 second review the same as a 2 hour review. The other SA develops every case she/he touches but is up against 10 second review man number wise. In that situation, the 10 second reviewer might have a 120 at the end of the month, while the developer might have 60. See my point? Numbers numbers numbers. It's not always the accurate portrait of true productivity.

[pm]

OPM absolutely does evaluate different qualifying work experience differently. My wife and I have many friends who work for ODAR and we all feel that OPM downgrades ODAR experience. One of our friends has even been informed by an OPM employee that staff attorney experience at ODAR is not highly regarded although that was not someone at the upper levels nor was it someone who helped grade the ALJ applications.

[Pixie]

Chris: I think you missed my point. Maybe I am being obtuse. I have sent you a private message.

Let's move on to something else that doesn't deal with the qualifications of staff attorneys. That horse was beaten to death on the old board.

The topic of staff attorney qualifications in this thread is closed.