|
Post by tripper on Jul 14, 2021 21:53:04 GMT -5
I didn’t find much objectionable about the testing portion of creating the register. It seems to me that the hiring from the register (top 3, rule of 3, geographical availabilit poker games, etc) was the part that the agency and the candidates hated the most and interfered with the best people going to the place that makes the most sense (says the ALJ still waiting for a transfer “home”). Keep the first half, dump the second half.
|
|
|
Post by rightspeech on Jul 15, 2021 6:42:29 GMT -5
Don't forget the dirty little secret, they hated veteran's preference too big time. It forced their hand in hiring scores of ALJs with no disability law experience.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Jul 15, 2021 9:40:46 GMT -5
I didn’t find much objectionable about the testing portion of creating the register. It seems to me that the hiring from the register (top 3, rule of 3, geographical availabilit poker games, etc) was the part that the agency and the candidates hated the most and interfered with the best people going to the place that makes the most sense (says the ALJ still waiting for a transfer “home”). Keep the first half, dump the second half. The agency’s issue with the register is that it doesn’t result in a list of candidates that are great or even good fits for SSA. If a hypothetical test pilot were to be run where 40 applicants were hired to be ALJs - The top 20 scoring applicants on the register plus 20 random applicants who didn’t even get a score, I’d be willing to bet there is no meaningful difference in how the 2 groups would perform. If true, then what’s the point of the register? For as expensive and time consuming as it is, we can do better
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 15, 2021 11:55:04 GMT -5
I didn’t find much objectionable about the testing portion of creating the register. It seems to me that the hiring from the register (top 3, rule of 3, geographical availabilit poker games, etc) was the part that the agency and the candidates hated the most and interfered with the best people going to the place that makes the most sense (says the ALJ still waiting for a transfer “home”). Keep the first half, dump the second half. The agency’s issue with the register is that it doesn’t result in a list of candidates that are great or even good fits for SSA. If a hypothetical test pilot were to be run where 40 applicants were hired to be ALJs - The top 20 scoring applicants on the register plus 20 random applicants who didn’t even get a score, I’d be willing to bet there is no meaningful difference in how the 2 groups would perform. If true, then what’s the point of the register? For as expensive and time consuming as it is, we can do better One way to ensure high performing judges is to hire those AAs, SAAs and Group Supervisors who have a proven track record at getting quality cases out the door. Not much breadth of experience, but they would be productive. Eventually, with these high producers making up the majority of the judge corps, the Agency would be able to up the quota to 60 per month. Pixie There is no word in the English language that is made plural by adding, "apostrophe s ( 's )." Can we, as a collective nation, not grasp this?
|
|
|
Post by ba on Jul 16, 2021 7:49:57 GMT -5
The agency’s issue with the register is that it doesn’t result in a list of candidates that are great or even good fits for SSA. If a hypothetical test pilot were to be run where 40 applicants were hired to be ALJs - The top 20 scoring applicants on the register plus 20 random applicants who didn’t even get a score, I’d be willing to bet there is no meaningful difference in how the 2 groups would perform. If true, then what’s the point of the register? For as expensive and time consuming as it is, we can do better One way to ensure high performing judges is to hire those AAs, SAAs and Group Supervisors who have a proven track record at getting quality cases out the door. Not much breadth of experience, but they would be productive. Eventually, with these high producers making up the majority of the judge corps, the Agency would be able to up the quota to 60 per month. Pixie There is no word in the English language that is made plural by adding, "apostrophe s ( 's )." Can we, as a collective nation, not grasp this?Or those same individuals will see it as a promotion that can’t be taken away and will decide that the level of performance they engaged in to get the job is nowhere near what they need now that they have it. And since they have no actual litigation experience, the quality of their performance could also be seriously lacking. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.
|
|
|
Post by medinadodger on Jul 16, 2021 8:24:09 GMT -5
One way to ensure high performing judges is to hire those AAs, SAAs and Group Supervisors who have a proven track record at getting quality cases out the door. Not much breadth of experience, but they would be productive. Eventually, with these high producers making up the majority of the judge corps, the Agency would be able to up the quota to 60 per month. Pixie There is no word in the English language that is made plural by adding, "apostrophe s ( 's )." Can we, as a collective nation, not grasp this?Or those same individuals will see it as a promotion that can’t be taken away and will decide that the level of performance they engaged in to get the job is nowhere near what they need now that they have it. And since they have no actual litigation experience, the quality of their performance could also be seriously lacking. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Why do you assume that they have no actual litigation experience?
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Jul 16, 2021 9:06:14 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't get this at all. We have AAs, SAs and ALJs in our office with significant litigation experience.
|
|
|
Post by ba on Jul 16, 2021 9:27:35 GMT -5
Or those same individuals will see it as a promotion that can’t be taken away and will decide that the level of performance they engaged in to get the job is nowhere near what they need now that they have it. And since they have no actual litigation experience, the quality of their performance could also be seriously lacking. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Why do you assume that they have no actual litigation experience? There are certainly those that do, and I didn’t mean to imply to the contrary. However, the past system was effective at effectively considering those individuals. But there are also those that don’t. The way things are expected to be will give an inappropriate boost to those individuals that don’t by treating the position as a mere “promotion.” My comments were directed to the latter, rather than the former.
|
|
trent
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by trent on Jul 16, 2021 11:16:40 GMT -5
I also question the underlying assumption that actual litigation experience equates to being a successful ALJ. I have seen many ALJs come from private practice/DOJ, where they were used to being overly zealous, and subsequently struggle with the non-adversarial nature of SSA proceedings where normal evidentiary rules do not apply.
Many, but of course not all, of these ALJs approach hearings as the ALJ vs. the claimant/rep instead of being an independent evaluator with no stake in the outcome. This can lead to many remands early in a career when it comes to things like developing the record even when a claimant is represented.
The agency thinks that being a good ALJ means shutting up, doing as you are told, and efficiently synthesizing voluminous medical records into a fairly standard five step equation. People within the agency who are successful and receive promotions have shown all of these things and are a known commodity who keep their head down and do not cause trouble with management. And people working for the agency at that level generally have years of experience concerning the social security act and related regulations/rulings. Given the choice, the agency would likely rather choose these malleable individuals with institutional knowledge most of the time regardless of litigation experience. All my personal opinion of course.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 16, 2021 11:37:25 GMT -5
I also question the underlying assumption that actual litigation experience equates to being a successful ALJ. I have seen many ALJs come from private practice/DOJ, where they were used to being overly zealous, and subsequently struggle with the non-adversarial nature of SSA proceedings where normal evidentiary rules do not apply. Many, but of course not all, of these ALJs approach hearings as the ALJ vs. the claimant/rep instead of being an independent evaluator with no stake in the outcome. This can lead to many remands early in a career when it comes to things like developing the record even when a claimant is represented. The agency thinks that being a good ALJ means shutting up, doing as you are told, and efficiently synthesizing voluminous medical records into a fairly standard five step equation. People within the agency who are successful and receive promotions have shown all of these things and are a known commodity who keep their head down and do not cause trouble with management. And people working for the agency at that level generally have years of experience concerning the social security act and related regulations/rulings. Given the choice, the agency would likely rather choose these malleable individuals with institutional knowledge most of the time regardless of litigation experience. All my personal opinion of course.I don't think you are right; I know you are right. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by ba on Jul 16, 2021 11:55:19 GMT -5
I also question the underlying assumption that actual litigation experience equates to being a successful ALJ. I have seen many ALJs come from private practice/DOJ, where they were used to being overly zealous, and subsequently struggle with the non-adversarial nature of SSA proceedings where normal evidentiary rules do not apply. Many, but of course not all, of these ALJs approach hearings as the ALJ vs. the claimant/rep instead of being an independent evaluator with no stake in the outcome. This can lead to many remands early in a career when it comes to things like developing the record even when a claimant is represented. The agency thinks that being a good ALJ means shutting up, doing as you are told, and efficiently synthesizing voluminous medical records into a fairly standard five step equation. People within the agency who are successful and receive promotions have shown all of these things and are a known commodity who keep their head down and do not cause trouble with management. And people working for the agency at that level generally have years of experience concerning the social security act and related regulations/rulings. Given the choice, the agency would likely rather choose these malleable individuals with institutional knowledge most of the time regardless of litigation experience. All my personal opinion of course.I don't think you are right; I know you are right. Pixie And therein lies the problem.
|
|
|
Post by recoveringalj on Jul 16, 2021 13:03:01 GMT -5
I also question the underlying assumption that actual litigation experience equates to being a successful ALJ. I have seen many ALJs come from private practice/DOJ, where they were used to being overly zealous, and subsequently struggle with the non-adversarial nature of SSA proceedings where normal evidentiary rules do not apply. Agreed. But let’s be clear, we are talking about being an SSA ALJ versus being an ALJ at another agency. The “overly zealous” part comes from a difficulty in making the transition from being an advocate to being a neutral decision maker. The inquisitorial-style hearing is not the norm in the US and it takes many forms, some of which require the judge to serve a more active and investigative role. SSA is an odd hybrid. Insiders have been steeped in the SSA system and it should not be as big an adjustment for them as it would be for a total outsider, so I get the agency’s preference for known quantities. But if SSA ALJs don’t have to meet the same minimum litigation experience requirements as other ALJs, then they should be called something else.
|
|
|
Post by aa7 on Jul 16, 2021 13:37:18 GMT -5
I have worked with many, many ALJs for many, many years. I have found that the best ones (most thoughtful, thorough, attention to detail, etc.) have been individuals who had some previous real legal experience and then worked as a decision writer for SSA prior to being picked up. By far the worst ALJs have been the late in career attorneys going straight into the ALJ role. I chalk this up to a number of reasons, but bristling against the the culture of SSA (you have to sign in and out; you don't have assistants or associates to do your dirty work; lack of control) and you feel, as an experienced attorney, you shouldn't have to grind to learn the intricacies of relevant law, seem to be reasons. I have not seen high-producing agency attorneys, drop their level of performance upon becoming an ALJ. There is no golden ring that these employees have been working towards that caused them to be productive. They do the job well for its intrinsic benefit. That doesn't change when they become ALJs. [steps off soapbox]
|
|
|
Post by medinadodger on Jul 16, 2021 14:23:43 GMT -5
I have worked with many, many ALJs for many, many years. I have found that the best ones (most thoughtful, thorough, attention to detail, etc.) have been individuals who had some previous real legal experience and then worked as a decision writer for SSA prior to being picked up. By far the worst ALJs have been the late in career attorneys going straight into the ALJ role. I chalk this up to a number of reasons, but bristling against the the culture of SSA (you have to sign in and out; you don't have assistants or associates to do your dirty work; lack of control) and you feel, as an experienced attorney, you shouldn't have to grind to learn the intricacies of relevant law, seem to be reasons. I have not seen high-producing agency attorneys, drop their level of performance upon becoming an ALJ. There is no golden ring that these employees have been working towards that caused them to be productive. They do the job well for its intrinsic benefit. That doesn't change when they become ALJs. [steps off soapbox] I wish the forum would allow me to like this message ten times!!!
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jul 16, 2021 14:41:59 GMT -5
I beg to differ. The ALJ's who had litigation experience understood the purpose of questions, and didn't take umbrage that I did an effective job of undercutting the VE's pat rollout of the jobs as cashier at a movie theatre (big one in Covid times), etc.
The ones that got all hot and bothered about lawyers doing their jobs were ALJ's who were steeped in the system, many of whom had never represented any person, let alone a practice worth. I think there is an advantage to hiring litigators who have represented individuals.
I also feel that with any organization, it helps to have some cross pollination--I've never seen an organizational study that suggested the best way to assure that an agency ran well was to hire only from within, and only those with prior government experience, or a study that said that the reason the agency had problems was that they had hired those with outside experience.
With all due respect, just as those in private practice sometimes need to be told that government attorneys aren't a lesser group of counsel, agency legal staff need to consider that there's no magic to what they do, that perhaps being an attorney who has to learn the law of several jurisdictions as well as local court rules and practices (as well as unwritten rules of each judge's courtrooms) may give them a degree of flexibility that someone who has only litigated cases centering on one statute and one set of regulations may not have.
|
|
|
Post by nappyloxs on Jul 20, 2021 3:41:41 GMT -5
The agency’s issue with the register is that it doesn’t result in a list of candidates that are great or even good fits for SSA. If a hypothetical test pilot were to be run where 40 applicants were hired to be ALJs - The top 20 scoring applicants on the register plus 20 random applicants who didn’t even get a score, I’d be willing to bet there is no meaningful difference in how the 2 groups would perform. If true, then what’s the point of the register? For as expensive and time consuming as it is, we can do better One way to ensure high performing judges is to hire those AAs, SAAs and Group Supervisors who have a proven track record at getting quality cases out the door. Not much breadth of experience, but they would be productive. Eventually, with these high producers making up the majority of the judge corps, the Agency would be able to up the quota to 60 per month. Pixie There is no word in the English language that is made plural by adding, "apostrophe s ( 's )." Can we, as a collective nation, not grasp this?High performers or high producers? Apples or oranges?
|
|
|
Post by steelrain on Jul 20, 2021 8:55:40 GMT -5
One way to ensure high performing judges is to hire those AAs, SAAs and Group Supervisors who have a proven track record at getting quality cases out the door. Not much breadth of experience, but they would be productive. Eventually, with these high producers making up the majority of the judge corps, the Agency would be able to up the quota to 60 per month. Pixie There is no word in the English language that is made plural by adding, "apostrophe s ( 's )." Can we, as a collective nation, not grasp this?High performers or high producers? Apples or oranges? Exactly! 2 out of the 3 “high producers” in my office are horrible writers that churn out barely legible drafts in record time. Management loves them and the judges despise their work product. When I have a particularly complicated case I send an email to management begging for it to be sent to what we call our “strong writers.” In 2019 management forced out one of stronger writers because they were “underperforming.” The judges tried their best by sending glowing emails regarding her work product to management. But to no avail. There is a “marked” or dare I say “extreme” difference between a “high producer” and “high performer”.
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jul 20, 2021 9:43:05 GMT -5
New OHO motto- Produce, don't perform.
Or, in Latin to class it up over the doors-
"Fabricato, nec praestare!!"
(sounds like a Harry Potter spell)
|
|
|
Post by rightspeech on Jul 20, 2021 10:33:52 GMT -5
High performers or high producers? Apples or oranges? Exactly! 2 out of the 3 “high producers” in my office are horrible writers that churn out barely legible drafts in record time. Management loves them and the judges despise their work product. When I have a particularly complicated case I send an email to management begging for it to be sent to what we call our “strong writers.” In 2019 management forced out one of stronger writers because they were “underperforming.” The judges tried their best by sending glowing emails regarding her work product to management. But to no avail. There is a “marked” or dare I say “extreme” difference between a “high producer” and “high performer”. It's a vicious cycle because of the incentive structure. We are basically only rated on DWPI and agree rate. Those 2 out of 3 high producers are probably the ones getting performance bonuses and next in line for promotions to management. DWPI is king. The low quality high producers are further propped up by good ALJs, like you, that take the time to make quality edits basically rewriting the decision, which saves the producers agree rate. The only solution is for ALJs to refuse to sign trash decision drafts and keep sending them back, but I know that's a headache and slows down your 500 to 700. Then, you actually screw over your good writers by begging for the complicated decisions to be sent to them because those complicated ones take longer to write, setting your good writer back further in the DWPI fight leading to them being forced out for low DWPI by management. Oh and local management probably has no say, region has just identified the low DWPI writers in the office and started asking questions. Perhaps that good writer got forced out because they were so busy competently writing all your complicated cases. We literally have office wide, region wide, and nationwide DWPI rankings in our How MI Doing homepage tool that shows your 'rank' recalculated on a daily basis. The rank obviously has nothing to do with decision quality. The writers entire incentive structure is based on having the highest possible DWPI while maintaining at least 85% agree rate. No one knows how bad the quality is if the ALJ is editing like crazy to keep that agree rate above 85. Also, a lot of poorly written decisions can survive AC review. The agency considers that a win basically. It could be written with terrible structure, typos, grammatical errors, etc. but if it survives AC review then it was legally sufficient.
|
|
|
Post by lawyeredbylaws on Jul 20, 2021 13:58:04 GMT -5
Litigation experience is overrated for an ALJ at SSA. The new judges with heavy litigation experience always struggle the most. Guess who gets to fix their instructions and make up for their mistakes? The GS-12s that a lot of you think should never be able to be ALJs. Odds are a GS-12 who is productive and effective (yes there are plenty of these) will be a better ALJ than some random outsider litigator.
Honestly, it's pretty insulting that some of the ALJs on here think that the person who writes all of their decisions shouldn't be ALJs.
|
|