|
|
Post by Pixie on May 3, 2016 16:05:51 GMT -5
The federal judge assigned to Eric Conn's case has entered an order precluding him from representing claimants. In relevant part it reads: “[He shall] not actively practice any claim for or involving state or federal public benefits on behalf of any claimant” during the pendency of the court action." This from an OCALJ memo sent today.
The Agency has taken no action against him. Probably waiting on the outcome of the federal case. Pixie.
|
|
|
|
Post by unlisted on May 3, 2016 17:47:08 GMT -5
Whoa! There's another Eric Conn, a prominent partner in the OSHA/EPA private bar. For a moment I thought this thread was referring to him. Totally different guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by ba on May 4, 2016 6:00:49 GMT -5
Whoa! There's another Eric Conn, a prominent partner in the OSHA/EPA private bar. For a moment I thought this thread was referring to him. Totally different guy. Kind of like being named Jerry Sandusky and having nothing to do with Penn State. Unfortunate coincidence. |
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on May 4, 2016 9:19:54 GMT -5
From the agency: We shall continue to allow Mr. Conn to represent claimants....
Debra Bice /s/ John Allen for
Chief Administrative Law Judge
Representative Eric C. Conn — INFORMATION
As you may be aware, Mr. Eric C. Conn was recently indicted for, among other things, conspiring to defraud the Social Security Administration (SSA). While this indictment does not legally change Mr. Conn’s status as an appointed representative, the court has ordered Mr. Conn to “not actively practice any claim for or involving state or federal public benefits on behalf of any claimant” during the pendency of the court action. At this point, it is Mr. Conn’s sole responsibility to comply with the court order.
Therefore, unless SSA formally disqualifies or sanctions Mr. Conn under the Social Security Act, we will continue to follow all usual business practices in cases where Mr. Conn is appointed as a representative. We will not remove Mr. Conn as the appointed representative in a claim unless we receive a withdrawal notice from Mr. Conn or a letter from the claimant terminating representation. Please note that Hearing and Regional offices should continue to process fee matters for Mr. Conn normally for any work he performed prior to the date the court order imposed restrictions, April 12, 2016.
It is possible that a claimant may appear for a hearing in a case where Mr. Conn is the only appointed representative and Mr. Conn does not appear due to the order. In this situation, the administrative law judge (ALJ) should follow the usual procedures if the claimant decides to waive the right to a hearing (see HALLEX I-2-1-82), or request a postponement of the hearing to contact Mr. Conn’s office about why the representative did not appear. If the claimant pointedly asks about the status of Mr. Conn, the ALJ should inform the claimant to contact the law firm if he or she has any additional questions.
While adhering to the usual business process, we are asking that employees inform their management if it appears Mr. Conn is not complying with the court order. If this situation arises, the employee must include the claimant’s name, social security number, and the non-compliance issue when forwarding the information to a manager. Additionally, if Mr. Conn withdraws as a representative without sufficient notice, as described in HALLEX I-2-4-25 C.1.c, employees should inform management. If applicable, managers will track and consolidate this information on a weekly basis. Hearing office management will send the information to the appropriate regional office, which will consolidate the information and send it to the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge by e-mail to |||ODAR OCALJ DFP.
There are no special referral or case handling procedures for any other attorneys at the Conn Law Firm.
If you have any questions concerning whether a case should be processed under these instructions, please seek guidance from local hearing office management. Local management may contact their regional office if they need additional guidance. The staff contact for regional inquiries is Marshall Fiese, who may be reached at (703) 605-7044.
cc: Associate Chief Administrative Law Judges
Regional Office Management Teams
Hearing Office Management Teams
|
|
|
|
Post by anderson on May 4, 2016 11:19:32 GMT -5
Can someone explain why the agency has not taken steps to disqualify this guy?
|
|
|
|
Eric Conn
May 4, 2016 11:31:23 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Judicially Imployed on May 4, 2016 11:31:23 GMT -5
Can someone explain why the agency has not taken steps to disqualify this guy? Short answer, unless he agrees to be disqualified, it requires it's own hearing. That hearing is really short if he has a conviction / been disbarred and significantly longer if he hasn't (i.e. re-litigating). |
|
|
|
Post by milagros on May 4, 2016 11:32:57 GMT -5
Shorter answer: He is innocent until proven guilty.
|
|
|
|
Eric Conn
May 4, 2016 13:16:24 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by anderson on May 4, 2016 13:16:24 GMT -5
Thanks for the replies.
|
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 4, 2016 13:41:42 GMT -5
Is Eric Conn an attorney?
|
|
|
|
Post by ba on May 4, 2016 13:45:56 GMT -5
Shorter answer: He is innocent until proven guilty. So SSA uses preponderance of evidence for everything but protecting its claimants and trust funds, even on a temporary basis until the trial is concluded. Brilliant. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on May 4, 2016 14:04:23 GMT -5
Is Eric Conn an attorney? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on May 4, 2016 14:08:20 GMT -5
And he is a Con
|
|
|
|
Post by wvjabes on May 4, 2016 14:13:53 GMT -5
I'd be curious to know what % of claimants with disability matters pending through his office decided to "exit, stage left".
|
|
|
|
Eric Conn
May 4, 2016 14:17:07 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by gary on May 4, 2016 14:17:07 GMT -5
Depending on the rules applicable to the ALJ, an ALJ may have an obligation as an attorney to report Mr. Conn to "the appropriate professional authority." ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, R 8.3(a).
|
|
|
|
Post by msp on May 4, 2016 14:23:02 GMT -5
That seems to leave claimants in a bit of a pickle. Sure, they can go forward without representation or ask to further postpone a case that may perhaps be growing roots, but man oh man, that has potential for other problems, IMO. Granted, even if another representative was assigned immediately, that person would need to get up to speed, (which of course means delay) but it seems to me that going forward with "just call his office" as the answer makes it look like no one has any idea of what's happening. I'm not suggesting that claimants are told all of the dirty details, but I guess I'm stumped as to why TPTB couldn't/didn't come up with a better plan that would be least harmful to claimants.
|
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on May 4, 2016 15:13:46 GMT -5
Gary, when we had a similar problem and we wanted to notify the local Bar as our rules require, we were told not to by the Agency and that if we had a problem to report it to management and they would decide if it needed to be reported to the Bar. Another scenario revealing the problems of working for the world's largest law firm and one that is managed by non-attorneys... Some of those rules, Reg's, etc., that I am constantly harping about trying to interpret because they are so contradictory, confusing and conflicting...
|
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 4, 2016 15:22:36 GMT -5
Gary, when we had a similar problem and we wanted to notify the local Bar as our rules require, we were told not to by the Agency and that if we had a problem to report it to management and they would decide if it needed to be reported to the Bar. Another scenario revealing the problems of working for the world's largest law firm and one that is managed by non-attorneys... Some of those rules, Reg's, etc., that I am constantly harping about trying to interpret because they are so contradictory, confusing and conflicting... That puts one in quite a dilemma. I doubt the, "I was just following orders," defense would save an ALJs law license. |
|
|
|
Eric Conn
May 4, 2016 15:49:54 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by ba on May 4, 2016 15:49:54 GMT -5
Gary, when we had a similar problem and we wanted to notify the local Bar as our rules require, we were told not to by the Agency and that if we had a problem to report it to management and they would decide if it needed to be reported to the Bar. Another scenario revealing the problems of working for the world's largest law firm and one that is managed by non-attorneys... Some of those rules, Reg's, etc., that I am constantly harping about trying to interpret because they are so contradictory, confusing and conflicting... That puts one in quite a dilemma. I doubt the, "I was just following orders," defense would save an ALJs law license. That's not quite an accurate assessment. See your pm's. |
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on May 4, 2016 15:59:02 GMT -5
I certainly hope that wasn't a criticism of my statement as I was there and that is what we were told. This isn't the first time we have had a problem de3ciding to follow Bar rules of obey management. Sorry, I don't want to give up my license. Management once said we didn't have to maintain our license once we were hired... We were not required to have a law license to remain Judges... DUH....
|
|
|
|
Eric Conn
May 4, 2016 17:07:36 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by ba on May 4, 2016 17:07:36 GMT -5
I certainly hope that wasn't a criticism of my statement as I was there and that is what we were told. This isn't the first time we have had a problem de3ciding to follow Bar rules of obey management. Sorry, I don't want to give up my license. Management once said we didn't have to maintain our license once we were hired... We were not required to have a law license to remain Judges... DUH.... No. I was clarifying something Gary said. Your statement was not where I was going. HTH. |
|
