|
|
Post by nappyloxs on Jul 20, 2021 15:49:54 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”. Crazy part is FC knows about the poor quality and high DWPI. Mid-Management has tried to pressure me about our strongest attorney. The person writes several of the most difficult cases with high quality and is specifically requested by a number of judges to draft difficult cases. I try to balance cases assignments, but I am not perfect. In short,I have told them, it isn't happening under me. You have to step up for your employees. There are many ways to help employees, easiest being standing up for them when needed. I have also experienced the opposite, SMH. NCAC attorneys should get a pass most of the time since they get sent the dog cases from all over country. |
|
|
|
Post by nappyloxs on Jul 20, 2021 16:13:56 GMT -5
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. Here is a suggestion. Inform the supervisors prior to heavily revising or before signing the draft. In HACPS, we should be able to save the writer's version as long as it is still in EDIT. Or just send a slightly revised copy to the GS. I get emails from judges that they spent hours revising the draft, but there is not much I can do about it since I don't have a copy of the writer's version. Granted, I am not one to hold it against the writer unless warranted. There are other GSs who try to work writers to improve quality. However, we can only help if we know about the issues. NCAC GSs have been great about it from my experience. Another suggestion is provide both good and constructive feedback to the writer. I know an ALJ reached out to me when I was writing about errors I was routinely making in my drafts and it was extremely helpful. Most people are receptive to the feedback or advice as long as it isn't nitpicking or too stylistic. Your last comment is so true. The attorney who reviewed my first appellate brief as a 1L would say otherwise. Damn red pens. |
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Jul 20, 2021 18:18:17 GMT -5
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”. Crazy part is FC knows about the poor quality and high DWPI. Mid-Management has tried to pressure me about our strongest attorney. The person writes several of the most difficult cases with high quality and is specifically requested by a number of judges to draft difficult cases. I try to balance cases assignments, but I am not perfect. In short,I have told them, it isn't happening under me. You have to step up for your employees. There are many ways to help employees, easiest being standing up for them when needed. I have also experienced the opposite, SMH. NCAC attorneys should get a pass most of the time since they get sent the dog cases from all over country. some of the National/regional writing units also get/got to write dismissals when those existed, so some of it balances out. Moreover, now that cases are being shipped to outside offices, those with deficient instructions are generally returned so offices end up keeping “bad instructions” in house which acts to the detriment of local writers while outside offices get “better” instructions. I have worked in different offices in multiple regions. DWPI is not a fair comparison nationwide. Cases in Office A where there is little to no statewide healthcare will have 1/3 the page count of cases in Office B where there is expanded healthcare, etc. I personally saw an ALJ who was extremely picky about cases in an office like A retire because he transferred to an office like B where cases were more voluminous. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jul 20, 2021 19:16:48 GMT -5
Most of the people who write determinations have the legal knowledge and program experience to be ALJs. If that was paramount, I would agree that writers should just be promoted to ALJ. It's more than that.
People come to hearings anxious, confused, fearful, drunk, high, embarrassed, crying, combative, delusional and even violent. And I'm just talking about the reps (just kidding). A good judge knows how to deal with these people, make them comfortable enough to discuss deeply personal problems, and extract enough evidence to render a decision. A lot of patience and flexibility while still strictly adhering to procedure is needed. So is compassion and objectivity, a delicate balance. While understanding and correctly applying the law is a given, being a judge, even a lowly chicken de-boner, needs other skills.
I spent many years in litigation and saw plenty of good judges and many lousy ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by nappyloxs on Jul 21, 2021 16:19:15 GMT -5
Most of the people who write determinations have the legal knowledge and program experience to be ALJs. If that was paramount, I would agree that writers should just be promoted to ALJ. It's more than that. People come to hearings anxious, confused, fearful, drunk, high, embarrassed, crying, combative, delusional and even violent. And I'm just talking about the reps (just kidding). A good judge knows how to deal with these people, make them comfortable enough to discuss deeply personal problems, and extract enough evidence to render a decision. A lot of patience and flexibility while still strictly adhering to procedure is needed. So is compassion and objectivity, a delicate balance. While understanding and correctly applying the law is a given, being a judge, even a lowly chicken de-boner, needs other skills. I spent many years in litigation and saw plenty of good judges and many lousy ones. Excellent post. Public interaction should be a huge factor in the future OHO attorneys. If OHO wants in-house attorneys to become efficient ALJs, the attorneys need more consistent interactions with reps, claimants, and others. Drafting decisions in isolation only teaches one aspect. Management also prepares on one for many of the issues you mentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by rightspeech on Jul 21, 2021 16:40:24 GMT -5
I know seeing isn't doing but I feel like listening to thousands of hearings conducted by dozens of different ALJs over the course of years has quite a bit of value. You get a sense of what works and what doesn't, how handling a situation one way was successful for one ALJ but unsuccessful for another who handled it differently. It must be at least as valuable to a future disability claim adjudicator as say a random lawyer litigating a commercial contract dispute. Yea, he was actually in front of the person at the disposition asking the questions but I've heard the questions asked thousands of times. I'm not just going to suddenly freeze when donning a robe. Dismissing writer experience is wrong. It's true we are monks solemnly studying in the monastery but the good ones know the law, they know the medical, and they've seen what works.
I get the sense that ALJs are bit like writers in a way. You rarely see the work of your fellow ALJs, so you have few comparables. You really only see coworker work when one of their cases is remanded and it ends up back on your desk or a CDR that originally went to hearing. Thats the only time I see another writer's draft or at least a draft with ALJ edits.
The ALJs know the best writers in the office and the writers know the best ALJs. I really have very little insight into the quality of the other writers in my office.
Good news is management is prepping us with the CEO program 😁👍
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jul 21, 2021 17:34:03 GMT -5
I would love it it attorneys viewed CEOs as some sort of opportunity for advancement, but I get the feeling they are just an inconvenience to be overcome.
I'd say 80% of the time when I speak with the claimant at the hearing there ends up being additional treating sources that somehow got missed during the CEO.
|
|
|
|
Post by rightspeech on Jul 21, 2021 17:38:58 GMT -5
It is an inconvenience to be overcome. It messes with my DWPI. There's no clear standard of how much alternate work time will be granted. I know exactly how long I get to complete a step 5 unfavorable I have no idea how long my supervisor thinks each CEO should take
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jul 21, 2021 17:46:11 GMT -5
It is an inconvenience to be overcome. It messes with my DWPI. There's no clear standard of how much alternate work time will be granted. I know exactly how long I get to complete a step 5 unfavorable I have no idea how long my supervisor thinks each CEO should take I get it. When I'm in charge (HAH!!!!) it will be different. |
|
|
|
Post by droboy on Jul 21, 2021 19:16:20 GMT -5
People come to the local fast food joint anxious, confused, fearful, drunk, high, embarrassed, crying, combative, delusional and even violent every day. And pimply-faced teenagers with no law degrees or extensive life experience deal with them appropriately everyday. The secret is being kind and respectful, as opposed to coming across as a combative, domineering, know-it-all.
Most of the OHO writers I knew would have made excellent ALJs, even those with no other legal experience. Let’s not forget that people coming to SSA hearings, whatever their constitutional and acquired limitations or challenges, tend to be on their best behavior. People asking for things usually are.
And lets not make being an ALJ at SSA sound more difficult than it really is. I had bigger challenges dealing with customers as a pump-jockey at the corner station in high school, with parties in a municipal court, and dealing with my own clients in private practice than I ever did in an OHO hearing room. Being an ALJ at SSA was the easiest job I ever had, even with the frustrations attendant to poorly developed/organized files and the work product of the few highly productive but not so conscientious writers that seem to prosper at the expense of their more professional peers in every office. My colleagues (judges, writers, and admin staff) were, by and large, impeccable people.
It would have been the best job I ever had but for the plodding, methodical, risk-averse (even to phantom risks- such as expanded WAH), anti-ALJ, and foolishly suspicious attitudes of the numpties who ran OHO during my tenure. (Maybe some are still there?)
My unsolicited advice to those who dream of the resurrection of the OPM process/expired register or aspire to the position by any hook or crook- consider a G-14 or GS-15 position with another agency that actually respects and values its workers. SSA OHO relies on the professionalism of its ALJs and better writers so it doesn’t have to actually manage/discipline/adequately train or mentor its other employees.
As my good friend who has seems to have retired from the fun of this Board (as I once promised to do) used to say- JMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 22, 2021 9:48:43 GMT -5
Paragraphs are a reader's best friend. Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jul 22, 2021 13:15:29 GMT -5
"Pimply-faced teenagers," droboy ? What do you say about claimants with disfigurements? The easiest job you ever had? Maybe DWs are overqualified and we should hire gas station attendants. Yes, OHO jurisdiction is narrow, and can be easily mastered by an experienced attorney, but that doesn't make it an easy job any more than being a family court judge is an easy job. The ability to be compassionate but objective, respectful but firm, and to appreciate the gravity of the decision is vital. I may not have seen a lot of other SSA ALJs' work, but I have seen some great and awful judges over the years. I hope that I have learned much from all of them. That's the litigation experience that counts. |
|
|
|
Post by ba on Jul 22, 2021 14:33:03 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. Plenty of litigation experience. Regularly complemented by writers on my instructions, including within months of starting from outside the agency. And I find the litigation experience is exceedingly helpful when it comes to the most important part of a hearing: identifying the watershed facts (and occasionally law), exposing it clearly, and drilling down into it by creating a clear record. But hey, that’s just me. |
|
|
|
Post by droboy on Jul 22, 2021 14:53:34 GMT -5
Thanks for pointing that unfortunate insensitivity out, Jagvet. I made that unthinking reference as a sort of term of endearment related to the long lost days of my youth. Otherwise, as a person with a disfigurement I think I have been historically sensitive to others similarly afflicted. But there’s always room for improvement, so I appreciate your comment.
I hope I didn’t imply that because I found the job ‘easy’, it requires no specific training/education or great skill (or charm, charisma, and intellectual gravitas for that matter). After all any such implication would be contrary to the self-assessment that made me long to be called “Judge” in the first place. I just didn’t find the subject matter or conducting hearings very difficult, despite attendant administrative and bureaucratic frustrations. Certainly better than engaging in criminal defense or prosecution, litigating toxic tort or med-mal claims, chasing money from recalcitrant clients, swinging a hammer on a framing crew, raking asphalt, digging ditches, etc. My evaluation was unique to my unique experiences.
Sorry for the confusion I may have caused. By and large I think we agree that possessing the humility to listen to and learn from others is an essential part to being a good judge. Or a decent person. It’s really not such a high bar. Almost all of the people I worked with at OHO easily surpassed it.
Now I will resolve again to cease and desist my participation in this forum. It’s no fun in my dotage to engage in recurring conflicts regarding matters I no longer have any real stake in. And I really don’t think I have much of value to add.
Good luck to all who aspire to being an ALJ, AJ, IJ, just plain old judge, or just plain old servant to your fellow human beings. I have learned much from you here over the years. If not for this Board, I am sure I never would have become an ALJ.
Adios.
|
|
|
|
Post by rightspeech on Jul 22, 2021 15:05:24 GMT -5
cheers droboy sounds like a man I could have a drink with. The bottom line is I hope extensive litigation experience is considered helpful but not required. If you foreclose the writer's opportunity its bad for the whole organization including the ALJ corps. This is a position that tops out 2 years in, senior attorney is gone, and management is a totally different animal. One can join this organization in their late 20s or early 30s and have no where to go. No one went to law school to do this but you end up here and almost no one leaves, such is life. Eventually you stop running so fast on the mouse wheel, performance appraisals matter less and less, you become disgruntled, and you start counting down the years to retirement. or maybe thats just how I foresee it. Props to anyone who can stay positive and highly motivated in the same position decade after decade. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jul 22, 2021 15:17:17 GMT -5
OMG, droboy . Here I am all fallutin talking about compassion and kindness and giving you a hard time. You are gracious to apologize, and I must apologize to you. Please don't leave the board. We all need some reality checks from time to time.
Still friends? |
|
|
|
Post by fowlfinder on Oct 20, 2021 10:30:56 GMT -5
Charley Hall posted the September 2021 Case Load analysis report this morning. I am forgetting, what is the difference between "ALJ Available" and "ALJ duty"?
|
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Oct 21, 2021 8:11:12 GMT -5
Charley Hall posted the September 2021 Case Load analysis report this morning. I am forgetting, what is the difference between "ALJ Available" and "ALJ duty"? generally that difference is attributable to the percentage of time that ALJs are given to do other tasks—such as a Hocalj managing their office. Thus an office where HOCALJ is only expected to do 50% of caseload will have 1/2 an ALJ fewer “ALJs duty” than “ALJs available.” |
|
