Board of Veterans Appeals (Attorney Advisor)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do people think will happen with RTO for attorneys who aren’t within 50 miles of DC or for those of us working remotely more than 50 miles of DC? Is remote work dead? If they’re going to increase the quota without union protections & with more rigorous check ins (the union has told us of these plans over the past few years so it’s not really speculation as they now have the opportunity) with the loss of remote work or having the get ready & commute back & forth everyday, potentially long distances — I don’t see how this will be sustainable for attorneys or judges, even for the quickest or the best. We’ll be commuting & working all day. If we can’t work from home, we’ll have to work unpaid overtime at the office. Completely unsustainable.

The realistic and dispassionate prediction is that there will be waves of resignations as employees reach the limit of their tolerance for deteriorating working conditions. That's what the highest level of leadership wants (they've been explicit about that). I really don't think it's what local leadership wants. We'll see who wins out in the next couple of months.

Be realistic. Where would BVA attorneys go after they resign? VA disability law isn’t exactly transferable to in demand legal specialties.

LOL, I told one acquaintance I may be looking for a change and have had a few texts from local firms. Many of us had other careers before the Board (including, *gasp*, litigation!). Get real, troll.

Congrats on getting texts from SSA disability and VA disability law firms. I’m sure litigation before SSA ALJs and VA VLJs excites you.

What's with the negativity? These guys make a good living if you pay attention to the attorney fee statements. The millionaires at Chisholm and Bergmann have the same currency in their bank accounts as an attorney who practices antitrust at DOJ. Only a loser wants to tell them their living is not good enough because it doesn't meet some lofty idea of what legal practice is.

Chisholm is currently hiring an attorney if you want to join them. The salary starts at $80,000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do people think will happen with RTO for attorneys who aren’t within 50 miles of DC or for those of us working remotely more than 50 miles of DC? Is remote work dead? If they’re going to increase the quota without union protections & with more rigorous check ins (the union has told us of these plans over the past few years so it’s not really speculation as they now have the opportunity) with the loss of remote work or having the get ready & commute back & forth everyday, potentially long distances — I don’t see how this will be sustainable for attorneys or judges, even for the quickest or the best. We’ll be commuting & working all day. If we can’t work from home, we’ll have to work unpaid overtime at the office. Completely unsustainable.

The realistic and dispassionate prediction is that there will be waves of resignations as employees reach the limit of their tolerance for deteriorating working conditions. That's what the highest level of leadership wants (they've been explicit about that). I really don't think it's what local leadership wants. We'll see who wins out in the next couple of months.

Be realistic. Where would BVA attorneys go after they resign? VA disability law isn’t exactly transferable to in demand legal specialties.

LOL, I told one acquaintance I may be looking for a change and have had a few texts from local firms. Many of us had other careers before the Board (including, *gasp*, litigation!). Get real, troll.

Congrats on getting texts from SSA disability and VA disability law firms. I’m sure litigation before SSA ALJs and VA VLJs excites you.

What’s the pay for being a troll who got fired from BVA a decade ago and has never gotten over it? Looks like not enough for some much-needed therapy. I feel bad you spend every waking moment here. But whatever excites you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do people think will happen with RTO for attorneys who aren’t within 50 miles of DC or for those of us working remotely more than 50 miles of DC? Is remote work dead? If they’re going to increase the quota without union protections & with more rigorous check ins (the union has told us of these plans over the past few years so it’s not really speculation as they now have the opportunity) with the loss of remote work or having the get ready & commute back & forth everyday, potentially long distances — I don’t see how this will be sustainable for attorneys or judges, even for the quickest or the best. We’ll be commuting & working all day. If we can’t work from home, we’ll have to work unpaid overtime at the office. Completely unsustainable.

The realistic and dispassionate prediction is that there will be waves of resignations as employees reach the limit of their tolerance for deteriorating working conditions. That's what the highest level of leadership wants (they've been explicit about that). I really don't think it's what local leadership wants. We'll see who wins out in the next couple of months.

Be realistic. Where would BVA attorneys go after they resign? VA disability law isn’t exactly transferable to in demand legal specialties.

LOL, I told one acquaintance I may be looking for a change and have had a few texts from local firms. Many of us had other careers before the Board (including, *gasp*, litigation!). Get real, troll.

Congrats on getting texts from SSA disability and VA disability law firms. I’m sure litigation before SSA ALJs and VA VLJs excites you.

What’s the pay for being a troll who got fired from BVA a decade ago and has never gotten over it? Looks like not enough for some much-needed therapy. I feel bad you spend every waking moment here. But whatever excites you.

+10000

This guy never stops

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do people think will happen with RTO for attorneys who aren’t within 50 miles of DC or for those of us working remotely more than 50 miles of DC? Is remote work dead? If they’re going to increase the quota without union protections & with more rigorous check ins (the union has told us of these plans over the past few years so it’s not really speculation as they now have the opportunity) with the loss of remote work or having the get ready & commute back & forth everyday, potentially long distances — I don’t see how this will be sustainable for attorneys or judges, even for the quickest or the best. We’ll be commuting & working all day. If we can’t work from home, we’ll have to work unpaid overtime at the office. Completely unsustainable.

The realistic and dispassionate prediction is that there will be waves of resignations as employees reach the limit of their tolerance for deteriorating working conditions. That's what the highest level of leadership wants (they've been explicit about that). I really don't think it's what local leadership wants. We'll see who wins out in the next couple of months.

Be realistic. Where would BVA attorneys go after they resign? VA disability law isn’t exactly transferable to in demand legal specialties.

LOL, I told one acquaintance I may be looking for a change and have had a few texts from local firms. Many of us had other careers before the Board (including, *gasp*, litigation!). Get real, troll.

Congrats on getting texts from SSA disability and VA disability law firms. I’m sure litigation before SSA ALJs and VA VLJs excites you.

What's with the negativity? These guys make a good living if you pay attention to the attorney fee statements. The millionaires at Chisholm and Bergmann have the same currency in their bank accounts as an attorney who practices antitrust at DOJ. Only a loser wants to tell them their living is not good enough because it doesn't meet some lofty idea of what legal practice is.

Chisholm is currently hiring an attorney if you want to join them. The salary starts at $80,000.

Yes and after a few years there, many of them are promoted to supervising attorney or make partner. You can read the Chisholm website and see the names of the associates who became a partner. Those people are making way more than $80k a year.

[Anonymous]

CCK starts at 110k if you have experience and allows remote work. If I get a RIF notice, I’d apply for sure. Would be a good way to get cavc /fed circuit experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CCK starts at 110k if you have experience and allows remote work. If I get a RIF notice, I’d apply for sure. Would be a good way to get cavc /fed circuit experience.

I thought experienced attorneys at BVA earn at least $140k? Most people go into private practice for the salary. The exit options at BVA don’t seem that great if even reputable disability benefits firms like Chisholm only pay $110k for experienced attorneys.

[Anonymous]

The truth is that for most people, when you rise to the top of an organization, you are not going to exit and get a higher-paying job. Most people who exit biglaw or business jobs like consulting will take a pay cut. The hope is that you gain other things like a better work life balance, autonomy, and the ability to work your way to the top of the next job and boost your pay again in a better environment. The idea that’s it’s reasonable to get a professionally degree and pull 200-400k or better for life is just not reality for like 95+ percent of people. Even many medical doctors don’t make 300-400k. If you do make 300k+, you are essentially working permanent overtime 60-80 hour weeks in most jobs that pay that kind of money. Whether that is worth it to you is a personal decision. I know a lot of people who did pull that kinda of money working those hours, and 9/10 of them had some mental breakdowns and eventually left for lower salary jobs and better hours.

[Anonymous]

Given the quality of briefs I see from the private bar, $110k seems generous.

[Anonymous]

Why write quality briefs when shitty ones get you a remand from the court 90% of the time? VA can’t do what the law requires it to do in every case without increasing its staff by 1000%, and the defensibility of the benefit denials reflect that. Right now VA wants to cut its staff by at least 15% despite the fact that veterans are dying while waiting years for their decisions.

Congress doesn’t want to pay for the level of service it promised veterans in the law. It just wants to pay for the bare minimum it needs to be able to convince veterans to keep voting for their members. Even then, a lot of veterans would still vote for members of congress that cut their benefits rather than vote for a different candidate that might increase their benefits but make other decisions on social issues that they don’t agree with. If the votes depended entirely on whether benefits and access to benefits were increased or cut, they would not be slashing staff right now.

[Anonymous]

Speaking of Chisholm, as an attorney on the issue track I'm seeing more and more cases from them that have 20+ issues and appeal 4+ different decisions, each with their own procedural history. They end up supporting only one or two of the issues with arguments. These are cynical attempts at creating never-ending cases with constant Board and CAVC remands because they are so complex and neither the RO nor the Board will ever get everything completely right.

The issue track will be eliminated at the end of FY25 and all attorneys will start seeing these cases

[Anonymous]

I get the impression that a few firms in particular sandbag cases they have at the Board and intentionally sit on arguments so they can make them the first time at CAVC.

For the Veteran it means another 1-2 year delay but that easy 10k EAJA fee is just too tempting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get the impression that a few firms in particular sandbag cases they have at the Board and intentionally sit on arguments so they can make them the first time at CAVC.

For the Veteran it means another 1-2 year delay but that easy 10k EAJA fee is just too tempting.

There are so many utter shit lawyers like John Berry who do virtually nothing for the money they charge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get the impression that a few firms in particular sandbag cases they have at the Board and intentionally sit on arguments so they can make them the first time at CAVC.

For the Veteran it means another 1-2 year delay but that easy 10k EAJA fee is just too tempting.

1000000%

We need a rule that says all issues must be raised before the board before being raised at the court.

Any issue not raised at the board cannot be raised at the court. Just like in regular appellate practice. For example, claiming a new theory of service connection that was never raised at the board, should never be properly raised at the court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1000000%

We need a rule that says all issues must be raised before the board before being raised at the court.

Any issue not raised at the board cannot be raised at the court. Just like in regular appellate practice. For example, claiming a new theory of service connection that was never raised at the board, should never be properly raised at the court.

Issue exhaustion is alive and well at the Court for cases where the same firm is representing before the Board and then at the Court. The Court generally will not go there if it was a VSO representing before the Board, but they do hold firms to a higher standard when they're representing in both places. Shepardize Maggit and you'll find plenty of MemDecs where the Court smacked a private firm for trying something at the Court that they didn't raise before the Board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1000000%

We need a rule that says all issues must be raised before the board before being raised at the court.

Any issue not raised at the board cannot be raised at the court. Just like in regular appellate practice. For example, claiming a new theory of service connection that was never raised at the board, should never be properly raised at the court.

Yes, correct. But I’m saying we need an actual rule that applies across the board. It would cut down on a lot of remands.

Issue exhaustion is alive and well at the Court for cases where the same firm is representing before the Board and then at the Court. The Court generally will not go there if it was a VSO representing before the Board, but they do hold firms to a higher standard when they're representing in both places. Shepardize Maggit and you'll find plenty of MemDecs where the Court smacked a private firm for trying something at the Court that they didn't raise before the Board.