Board of Veterans Appeals (Attorney Advisor)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these posts makes it seem like BVA is the hardest federal position for an atty. Anyone know if there any federal positions out there that are comparable or even harder than BVA?

Hard to say if its the hardest job. Its more like factory work than being a traditional lawyer. But factory work at a grueling pace with standards that are very hard to meet.

The grueling pace of the work year round coupled with constant hostility from management make the job extremely challenging. That's why the attorney attrition rate at BVA is so high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these posts makes it seem like BVA is the hardest federal position for an atty. Anyone know if there any federal positions out there that are comparable or even harder than BVA?

Hard to say if its the hardest job. Its more like factory work than being a traditional lawyer. But factory work at a grueling pace with standards that are very hard to meet.

Yes, BVA attorneys perform factory work, but so do a lot a attorneys. I’m sure that a huge percentage of legal work consists of boilerplate language and templates that the monkey, I mean attorney, can plug in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these posts makes it seem like BVA is the hardest federal position for an atty. Anyone know if there any federal positions out there that are comparable or even harder than BVA?

Hard to say if its the hardest job. Its more like factory work than being a traditional lawyer. But factory work at a grueling pace with standards that are very hard to meet.

Yes, BVA attorneys perform factory work, but so do a lot a attorneys. I’m sure that a huge percentage of legal work consists of boilerplate language and templates that the monkey, I mean attorney, can plug in.

Most attorney jobs have parts that are difficult. That is true. But that doesn’t take away from the point of this thread which is to point out the particular difficulties of this job for those who are interested in knowing the details.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these posts makes it seem like BVA is the hardest federal position for an atty. Anyone know if there any federal positions out there that are comparable or even harder than BVA?

Hard to say if its the hardest job. Its more like factory work than being a traditional lawyer. But factory work at a grueling pace with standards that are very hard to meet.

Yes, BVA attorneys perform factory work, but so do a lot a attorneys. I’m sure that a huge percentage of legal work consists of boilerplate language and templates that the monkey, I mean attorney, can plug in.

Most attorney jobs have parts that are difficult. That is true. But that doesn’t take away from the point of this thread which is to point out the particular difficulties of this job for those who are interested in knowing the details.

I agree; I just wanted to clarify that BVA attorneys aren’t the only attorneys doing factory work. While some attorneys do indeed engage in high level appellate work or complex litigation, most legal work is factory work (i.e., boilerplate language and templates).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reading these posts makes it seem like BVA is the hardest federal position for an atty. Anyone know if there any federal positions out there that are comparable or even harder than BVA?

Maybe not the hardest job, but certainly one of the worst, if not the worst, attorney job in the federal government. I would say a harder job would be a high level federal prosecutor dealing with national security cases. There are probably many other jobs in the federal government that are "harder," but one where almost everyone who works there hates it like at BVA? probably not too many places like that.

[Anonymous]

I have been reading this topic for a long time. I have debated about giving my two cents, and I think I should. I am relatively new at the Board. I have extensive litigation experience and chose to joint the Board to get away from courtroom drama. BEST DECISION OF MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER. Some of the things that have been said are true, but most are idiosyncratically false.

TRUE:
(1) We have a quota requirement; just like billable hours, meet it or say goodbye. Nothing new about this.
(2) Yes, the judge you work for will determine your happiness, but I can say that I have not met anyone who is "mean" or "evil" or anything of the like. The judges want to succeed, so they need attorneys who want to succeed. Everyone is busy, so you might not get the "attention" you need, but do you think a law firm will baby you, nope. Learning on your own, and having the desire to do so, is crucial.
(3) Management is NOT bad. I think, personally, management has informed us of what they think we need to know (as all information has boundaries). But, I do not think they are hiding the ball. In the past, I have heard things were bad. I think that has drastically changed.

FALSE (much of the forum comments I think are specific to people's own experiences):
(1) "This is always routine, mundane, or simple work." Yes, a lot similar issues reappear, but that just makes you able to more quickly spot the issue and resolve the case. The more you do, the better you get. And with a quota, that is a good thing. Again, each judge is different. Some want minimal, get-to-the-point decisions, others want more info. I do not think any judge wants crap. I find this area of the law changes more often than civil and criminal law due to legislative involvement. We just had regulation changes last month.
(2) "You will be miserable." ONLY if you hate to write. Do NOT take a writing position if you did not do well in writing courses or want to be "active" in court. Having extensive litigation experience, and realizing I loved to write and hated to argue with people over stupid things, this is an ideal position for me. I have met my numbers way ahead of schedule. I think that if you come straight out of law school with no perspective of real-world law experience, you will struggle, which is why people do get fired.
(3) They are always hiring, which is true, but not because people get fired that often. People do get fired, but a lot move on to higher level positions in the VA. Many become supervisors, judges, or take higher paying VA positions in different areas. So, it is a mix, not just one thing.
(4) "This is the worst federal job." Not for those of us who like this type of work, it is perfect! For me, the worst federal job would be anything where I would constantly be required to appear in court to argue over ridiculous discovery demands, attorney fees, and deal with incompetent elected or appointed judges. I can make just as much writing from home all day as I would being forced to defend/prosecute stupid claims all for the sake of the all mighty dollar. Yuck! And, in the private sector, don't get me started on satisfying clients and upper-level attorneys just to bring in business.


So, I could say a lot more, but take all of this as you will. It is only my personal opinion. But, I wanted to give an alternative and current perspective of the Board. And as for the space reduction, if you are someone who "needs" an office to go to and people to interact with, the federal government will likely be reducing many space overt the next decade. So, take that into consideration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been reading this topic for a long time. I have debated about giving my two cents, and I think I should. I am relatively new at the Board. I have extensive litigation experience and chose to joint the Board to get away from courtroom drama. BEST DECISION OF MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER. Some of the things that have been said are true, but most are idiosyncratically false.

TRUE:
(1) We have a quota requirement; just like billable hours, meet it or say goodbye. Nothing new about this.
(2) Yes, the judge you work for will determine your happiness, but I can say that I have not met anyone who is "mean" or "evil" or anything of the like. The judges want to succeed, so they need attorneys who want to succeed. Everyone is busy, so you might not get the "attention" you need, but do you think a law firm will baby you, nope. Learning on your own, and having the desire to do so, is crucial.
(3) Management is NOT bad. I think, personally, management has informed us of what they think we need to know (as all information has boundaries). But, I do not think they are hiding the ball. In the past, I have heard things were bad. I think that has drastically changed.

FALSE (much of the forum comments I think are specific to people's own experiences):
(1) "This is always routine, mundane, or simple work." Yes, a lot similar issues reappear, but that just makes you able to more quickly spot the issue and resolve the case. The more you do, the better you get. And with a quota, that is a good thing. Again, each judge is different. Some want minimal, get-to-the-point decisions, others want more info. I do not think any judge wants crap. I find this area of the law changes more often than civil and criminal law due to legislative involvement. We just had regulation changes last month.
(2) "You will be miserable." ONLY if you hate to write. Do NOT take a writing position if you did not do well in writing courses or want to be "active" in court. Having extensive litigation experience, and realizing I loved to write and hated to argue with people over stupid things, this is an ideal position for me. I have met my numbers way ahead of schedule. I think that if you come straight out of law school with no perspective of real-world law experience, you will struggle, which is why people do get fired.
(3) They are always hiring, which is true, but not because people get fired that often. People do get fired, but a lot move on to higher level positions in the VA. Many become supervisors, judges, or take higher paying VA positions in different areas. So, it is a mix, not just one thing.
(4) "This is the worst federal job." Not for those of us who like this type of work, it is perfect! For me, the worst federal job would be anything where I would constantly be required to appear in court to argue over ridiculous discovery demands, attorney fees, and deal with incompetent elected or appointed judges. I can make just as much writing from home all day as I would being forced to defend/prosecute stupid claims all for the sake of the all mighty dollar. Yuck! And, in the private sector, don't get me started on satisfying clients and upper-level attorneys just to bring in business.


So, I could say a lot more, but take all of this as you will. It is only my personal opinion. But, I wanted to give an alternative and current perspective of the Board. And as for the space reduction, if you are someone who "needs" an office to go to and people to interact with, the federal government will likely be reducing many space overt the next decade. So, take that into consideration.

So, your extensive litigation experience got you an entry level GS-11 position? Also, as many people have mentioned, your experiences at the Board depend a lot on who your judge is. As you noted, the judges varying a lot. Some judges want very detailed decisions. Other judges want short one page decisions that are conclusory and contain very analysis. Attorneys who are assigned to the latter kind of judge, can crank out decisions much faster than other attorneys, by virtue of their judge’s personal preference. Unfortunately, all attorneys have the same quota, which adversely affects attorneys who write for very detailed judges.

Given your short time at the Board, you probably haven’t had the misfortune of working for the judges who are well known for bullying and harassing their attorneys. If you read the attorney survey, you’ll see that management not only fails to respond to complaints of discrimination, but actively retaliates against those who complain. That’s the main issue at the Board, not the quota.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been reading this topic for a long time. I have debated about giving my two cents, and I think I should. I am relatively new at the Board. I have extensive litigation experience and chose to joint the Board to get away from courtroom drama. BEST DECISION OF MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER. Some of the things that have been said are true, but most are idiosyncratically false.

TRUE:
(1) We have a quota requirement; just like billable hours, meet it or say goodbye. Nothing new about this.
(2) Yes, the judge you work for will determine your happiness, but I can say that I have not met anyone who is "mean" or "evil" or anything of the like. The judges want to succeed, so they need attorneys who want to succeed. Everyone is busy, so you might not get the "attention" you need, but do you think a law firm will baby you, nope. Learning on your own, and having the desire to do so, is crucial.
(3) Management is NOT bad. I think, personally, management has informed us of what they think we need to know (as all information has boundaries). But, I do not think they are hiding the ball. In the past, I have heard things were bad. I think that has drastically changed.

FALSE (much of the forum comments I think are specific to people's own experiences):
(1) "This is always routine, mundane, or simple work." Yes, a lot similar issues reappear, but that just makes you able to more quickly spot the issue and resolve the case. The more you do, the better you get. And with a quota, that is a good thing. Again, each judge is different. Some want minimal, get-to-the-point decisions, others want more info. I do not think any judge wants crap. I find this area of the law changes more often than civil and criminal law due to legislative involvement. We just had regulation changes last month.
(2) "You will be miserable." ONLY if you hate to write. Do NOT take a writing position if you did not do well in writing courses or want to be "active" in court. Having extensive litigation experience, and realizing I loved to write and hated to argue with people over stupid things, this is an ideal position for me. I have met my numbers way ahead of schedule. I think that if you come straight out of law school with no perspective of real-world law experience, you will struggle, which is why people do get fired.
(3) They are always hiring, which is true, but not because people get fired that often. People do get fired, but a lot move on to higher level positions in the VA. Many become supervisors, judges, or take higher paying VA positions in different areas. So, it is a mix, not just one thing.
(4) "This is the worst federal job." Not for those of us who like this type of work, it is perfect! For me, the worst federal job would be anything where I would constantly be required to appear in court to argue over ridiculous discovery demands, attorney fees, and deal with incompetent elected or appointed judges. I can make just as much writing from home all day as I would being forced to defend/prosecute stupid claims all for the sake of the all mighty dollar. Yuck! And, in the private sector, don't get me started on satisfying clients and upper-level attorneys just to bring in business.


So, I could say a lot more, but take all of this as you will. It is only my personal opinion. But, I wanted to give an alternative and current perspective of the Board. And as for the space reduction, if you are someone who "needs" an office to go to and people to interact with, the federal government will likely be reducing many space overt the next decade. So, take that into consideration.

So, your extensive litigation experience got you an entry level GS-11 position? Also, as many people have mentioned, your experiences at the Board depend a lot on who your judge is. As you noted, the judges varying a lot. Some judges want very detailed decisions. Other judges want short one page decisions that are conclusory and contain very analysis. Attorneys who are assigned to the latter kind of judge, can crank out decisions much faster than other attorneys, by virtue of their judge’s personal preference. Unfortunately, all attorneys have the same quota, which adversely affects attorneys who write for very detailed judges.

Given your short time at the Board, you probably haven’t had the misfortune of working for the judges who are well known for bullying and harassing their attorneys. If you read the attorney survey, you’ll see that management not only fails to respond to complaints of discrimination, but actively retaliates against those who complain. That’s the main issue at the Board, not the quota.

you bring up another great point. When I applied, they promised they would take your real world experience into account when deciding your starting salary/grade.

That's another lie they tell you. Everyone starts at GS 11-1 whether you have one year of litigation experience or 20 years of litigation experience. I have heard of a few exceptions for people who worked at SSA. they may start at GS-11 but at a higher grade level. If you do not have that specific prior experience you will start at GS 11-1, despite what they promise during the recruitment process.

[Anonymous]

you bring up another great point. When I applied, they promised they would take your real world experience into account when deciding your starting salary/grade.

That's another lie they tell you. Everyone starts at GS 11-1 whether you have one year of litigation experience or 20 years of litigation experience. I have heard of a few exceptions for people who worked at SSA. they may start at GS-11 but at a higher grade level. If you do not have that specific prior experience you will start at GS 11-1, despite what they promise during the recruitment process.

The position they hire is GS-11, but steps are negotiable [i googled it when I was job searching]. At BVA, I had to ask after I got the tentative offer and was told the process. I asked for a higher step than I got, but I did get several steps. The final offer included the additional steps. I did not work at SSA but did have experience writing rulings in another agency.

That said, my experience is the majority of the job is file review and notation with much less time writing. Judges want their opinions to be very similar, it makes it easier to process them quickly. The judges are also writers themselves, so they mostly need someone to fill in the blanks about procedural history and evidence in the file and boilerplate and they can tweak it. The snippets are there for a reason.

The job wasn’t horrible but I found the files deadly dull and/or depressing and I did not need to stay long to know I did not like the work. it’s great for the highly independent who want to work from home or live someplace else and make a good salary while having a lot of freedom to structure their time once they know how to quickly and efficiently work the file and plug and chug. It can be done, you just might not want to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

you bring up another great point. When I applied, they promised they would take your real world experience into account when deciding your starting salary/grade.

That's another lie they tell you. Everyone starts at GS 11-1 whether you have one year of litigation experience or 20 years of litigation experience. I have heard of a few exceptions for people who worked at SSA. they may start at GS-11 but at a higher grade level. If you do not have that specific prior experience you will start at GS 11-1, despite what they promise during the recruitment process.

The position they hire is GS-11, but steps are negotiable [i googled it when I was job searching]. At BVA, I had to ask after I got the tentative offer and was told the process. I asked for a higher step than I got, but I did get several steps. The final offer included the additional steps. I did not work at SSA but did have experience writing rulings in another agency.

That said, my experience is the majority of the job is file review and notation with much less time writing. Judges want their opinions to be very similar, it makes it easier to process them quickly. The judges are also writers themselves, so they mostly need someone to fill in the blanks about procedural history and evidence in the file and boilerplate and they can tweak it. The snippets are there for a reason.

The job wasn’t horrible but I found the files deadly dull and/or depressing and I did not need to stay long to know I did not like the work. it’s great for the highly independent who want to work from home or live someplace else and make a good salary while having a lot of freedom to structure their time once they know how to quickly and efficiently work the file and plug and chug. It can be done, you just might not want to do it.

From my experience, BVA will always match the salary of an attorney coming from SSA by giving the attorney a higher GS-11 step (e.g., GS-11, step 8). However, none of my colleagues who came from the private sector or local/state government had their salaries matched, and they joined as GS-11, step 1 attorneys. I've never personally encountered anyone who came from another federal agency. Virtually all of the new hires in my class of 80+ attorneys came from the private sector, local/state government, or SSA. I'm glad to see that BVA will try to match, or at least increase the step level, for attorneys coming from other federal agencies.

Additionally, while I agree that the work at BVA involves file review and tabbing/notating the evidence files for the judge's review, I should note that the job involves a lot more than just file review and tabbing. Management requires attorneys to review the file, tab/notate the file, AND draft a decision within 8-10 hours. Given that an attorney only receives credit after a judge signs his or her draft, it's not advisable to spend a lot of time on file review or tabbing, as those tasks will cut into the attorney's decision writing time. Drafting decisions can be especially difficult for attorneys who work for picky judges, as these attorneys have to revise the returned draft AND draft 3-4 new decisions a week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

you bring up another great point. When I applied, they promised they would take your real world experience into account when deciding your starting salary/grade.

That's another lie they tell you. Everyone starts at GS 11-1 whether you have one year of litigation experience or 20 years of litigation experience. I have heard of a few exceptions for people who worked at SSA. they may start at GS-11 but at a higher grade level. If you do not have that specific prior experience you will start at GS 11-1, despite what they promise during the recruitment process.

The position they hire is GS-11, but steps are negotiable [i googled it when I was job searching]. At BVA, I had to ask after I got the tentative offer and was told the process. I asked for a higher step than I got, but I did get several steps. The final offer included the additional steps. I did not work at SSA but did have experience writing rulings in another agency.

That said, my experience is the majority of the job is file review and notation with much less time writing. Judges want their opinions to be very similar, it makes it easier to process them quickly. The judges are also writers themselves, so they mostly need someone to fill in the blanks about procedural history and evidence in the file and boilerplate and they can tweak it. The snippets are there for a reason.

The job wasn’t horrible but I found the files deadly dull and/or depressing and I did not need to stay long to know I did not like the work. it’s great for the highly independent who want to work from home or live someplace else and make a good salary while having a lot of freedom to structure their time once they know how to quickly and efficiently work the file and plug and chug. It can be done, you just might not want to do it.

From my experience, BVA will always match the salary of an attorney coming from SSA by giving the attorney a higher GS-11 step (e.g., GS-11, step 8). However, none of my colleagues who came from the private sector or local/state government had their salaries matched, and they joined as GS-11, step 1 attorneys. I've never personally encountered anyone who came from another federal agency. Virtually all of the new hires in my class of 80+ attorneys came from the private sector, local/state government, or SSA. I'm glad to see that BVA will try to match, or at least increase the step level, for attorneys coming from other federal agencies.

Additionally, while I agree that the work at BVA involves file review and tabbing/notating the evidence files for the judge's review, I should note that the job involves a lot more than just file review and tabbing. Management requires attorneys to review the file, tab/notate the file, AND draft a decision within 8-10 hours. Given that an attorney only receives credit after a judge signs his or her draft, it's not advisable to spend a lot of time on file review or tabbing, as those tasks will cut into the attorney's decision writing time. Drafting decisions can be especially difficult for attorneys who work for picky judges, as these attorneys have to revise the returned draft AND draft 3-4 new decisions a week.

Yes for people from the private sector they will not salary match or even attempt to give you anything beyond 11-1. They laugh at you when you ask. They also claimed at one point that they would give you credit for leave purposes for time spent in the private sector. Turns out that also wasn't true.

As has been said many times before, whether or not you succeed at the Board all depends on your judge. Some are easy to work with and want to see you do well, some are terrible people who don't care if you make the quota or not, and don't care how many hours of unpaid overtime it takes you to get there. But its not so easy as to "fill in the blanks" for most judges, especially as you advance and the cases get more complicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been reading this topic for a long time. I have debated about giving my two cents, and I think I should. I am relatively new at the Board. I have extensive litigation experience and chose to joint the Board to get away from courtroom drama. BEST DECISION OF MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER. Some of the things that have been said are true, but most are idiosyncratically false.

TRUE:
(1) We have a quota requirement; just like billable hours, meet it or say goodbye. Nothing new about this.
(2) Yes, the judge you work for will determine your happiness, but I can say that I have not met anyone who is "mean" or "evil" or anything of the like. The judges want to succeed, so they need attorneys who want to succeed. Everyone is busy, so you might not get the "attention" you need, but do you think a law firm will baby you, nope. Learning on your own, and having the desire to do so, is crucial.
(3) Management is NOT bad. I think, personally, management has informed us of what they think we need to know (as all information has boundaries). But, I do not think they are hiding the ball. In the past, I have heard things were bad. I think that has drastically changed.

FALSE (much of the forum comments I think are specific to people's own experiences):
(1) "This is always routine, mundane, or simple work." Yes, a lot similar issues reappear, but that just makes you able to more quickly spot the issue and resolve the case. The more you do, the better you get. And with a quota, that is a good thing. Again, each judge is different. Some want minimal, get-to-the-point decisions, others want more info. I do not think any judge wants crap. I find this area of the law changes more often than civil and criminal law due to legislative involvement. We just had regulation changes last month.
(2) "You will be miserable." ONLY if you hate to write. Do NOT take a writing position if you did not do well in writing courses or want to be "active" in court. Having extensive litigation experience, and realizing I loved to write and hated to argue with people over stupid things, this is an ideal position for me. I have met my numbers way ahead of schedule. I think that if you come straight out of law school with no perspective of real-world law experience, you will struggle, which is why people do get fired.
(3) They are always hiring, which is true, but not because people get fired that often. People do get fired, but a lot move on to higher level positions in the VA. Many become supervisors, judges, or take higher paying VA positions in different areas. So, it is a mix, not just one thing.
(4) "This is the worst federal job." Not for those of us who like this type of work, it is perfect! For me, the worst federal job would be anything where I would constantly be required to appear in court to argue over ridiculous discovery demands, attorney fees, and deal with incompetent elected or appointed judges. I can make just as much writing from home all day as I would being forced to defend/prosecute stupid claims all for the sake of the all mighty dollar. Yuck! And, in the private sector, don't get me started on satisfying clients and upper-level attorneys just to bring in business.


So, I could say a lot more, but take all of this as you will. It is only my personal opinion. But, I wanted to give an alternative and current perspective of the Board. And as for the space reduction, if you are someone who "needs" an office to go to and people to interact with, the federal government will likely be reducing many space overt the next decade. So, take that into consideration.

lol. well, this is definitely the minority viewpoint. some people like it sure, but most people hate the job due to one or more of the aforementioned issues.

I have to take issue with this statement: "People do get fired, but a lot move on to higher level positions in the VA. Many become supervisors, judges, or take higher paying VA positions in different areas. So, it is a mix, not just one thing." True. some people do take details in other offices, but those details end and you're back on the line when its over. Very very few become supervisors or judges. Most people either leave (voluntarily or otherwise) and some find a way to survive and stick around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

you bring up another great point. When I applied, they promised they would take your real world experience into account when deciding your starting salary/grade.

That's another lie they tell you. Everyone starts at GS 11-1 whether you have one year of litigation experience or 20 years of litigation experience. I have heard of a few exceptions for people who worked at SSA. they may start at GS-11 but at a higher grade level. If you do not have that specific prior experience you will start at GS 11-1, despite what they promise during the recruitment process.

The position they hire is GS-11, but steps are negotiable [i googled it when I was job searching]. At BVA, I had to ask after I got the tentative offer and was told the process. I asked for a higher step than I got, but I did get several steps. The final offer included the additional steps. I did not work at SSA but did have experience writing rulings in another agency.

That said, my experience is the majority of the job is file review and notation with much less time writing. Judges want their opinions to be very similar, it makes it easier to process them quickly. The judges are also writers themselves, so they mostly need someone to fill in the blanks about procedural history and evidence in the file and boilerplate and they can tweak it. The snippets are there for a reason.

The job wasn’t horrible but I found the files deadly dull and/or depressing and I did not need to stay long to know I did not like the work. it’s great for the highly independent who want to work from home or live someplace else and make a good salary while having a lot of freedom to structure their time once they know how to quickly and efficiently work the file and plug and chug. It can be done, you just might not want to do it.

From my experience, BVA will always match the salary of an attorney coming from SSA by giving the attorney a higher GS-11 step (e.g., GS-11, step 8). However, none of my colleagues who came from the private sector or local/state government had their salaries matched, and they joined as GS-11, step 1 attorneys. I've never personally encountered anyone who came from another federal agency. Virtually all of the new hires in my class of 80+ attorneys came from the private sector, local/state government, or SSA. I'm glad to see that BVA will try to match, or at least increase the step level, for attorneys coming from other federal agencies.

Additionally, while I agree that the work at BVA involves file review and tabbing/notating the evidence files for the judge's review, I should note that the job involves a lot more than just file review and tabbing. Management requires attorneys to review the file, tab/notate the file, AND draft a decision within 8-10 hours. Given that an attorney only receives credit after a judge signs his or her draft, it's not advisable to spend a lot of time on file review or tabbing, as those tasks will cut into the attorney's decision writing time. Drafting decisions can be especially difficult for attorneys who work for picky judges, as these attorneys have to revise the returned draft AND draft 3-4 new decisions a week.

Yes for people from the private sector they will not salary match or even attempt to give you anything beyond 11-1. They laugh at you when you ask. They also claimed at one point that they would give you credit for leave purposes for time spent in the private sector. Turns out that also wasn't true.

As has been said many times before, whether or not you succeed at the Board all depends on your judge. Some are easy to work with and want to see you do well, some are terrible people who don't care if you make the quota or not, and don't care how many hours of unpaid overtime it takes you to get there. But its not so easy as to "fill in the blanks" for most judges, especially as you advance and the cases get more complicated.

FWIW, while there are regulations governing how pay is set for an existing federal govt employee who transfers, there is no obligation to match pay for those coming from the private sector or state or local govt. (Ask me how I know.) Many agencies, if they want you, will match or do something in order to secure you. Others will not. When I applied at my agency, they were very clear that if I did not accept the offer, they would move to the next person on the list.

Note that I'm not making any statement on whether that is right, ethical, moral, etc. It's simply the state of things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

you bring up another great point. When I applied, they promised they would take your real world experience into account when deciding your starting salary/grade.

That's another lie they tell you. Everyone starts at GS 11-1 whether you have one year of litigation experience or 20 years of litigation experience. I have heard of a few exceptions for people who worked at SSA. they may start at GS-11 but at a higher grade level. If you do not have that specific prior experience you will start at GS 11-1, despite what they promise during the recruitment process.

The position they hire is GS-11, but steps are negotiable [i googled it when I was job searching]. At BVA, I had to ask after I got the tentative offer and was told the process. I asked for a higher step than I got, but I did get several steps. The final offer included the additional steps. I did not work at SSA but did have experience writing rulings in another agency.

That said, my experience is the majority of the job is file review and notation with much less time writing. Judges want their opinions to be very similar, it makes it easier to process them quickly. The judges are also writers themselves, so they mostly need someone to fill in the blanks about procedural history and evidence in the file and boilerplate and they can tweak it. The snippets are there for a reason.

The job wasn’t horrible but I found the files deadly dull and/or depressing and I did not need to stay long to know I did not like the work. it’s great for the highly independent who want to work from home or live someplace else and make a good salary while having a lot of freedom to structure their time once they know how to quickly and efficiently work the file and plug and chug. It can be done, you just might not want to do it.

From my experience, BVA will always match the salary of an attorney coming from SSA by giving the attorney a higher GS-11 step (e.g., GS-11, step 8). However, none of my colleagues who came from the private sector or local/state government had their salaries matched, and they joined as GS-11, step 1 attorneys. I've never personally encountered anyone who came from another federal agency. Virtually all of the new hires in my class of 80+ attorneys came from the private sector, local/state government, or SSA. I'm glad to see that BVA will try to match, or at least increase the step level, for attorneys coming from other federal agencies.

Additionally, while I agree that the work at BVA involves file review and tabbing/notating the evidence files for the judge's review, I should note that the job involves a lot more than just file review and tabbing. Management requires attorneys to review the file, tab/notate the file, AND draft a decision within 8-10 hours. Given that an attorney only receives credit after a judge signs his or her draft, it's not advisable to spend a lot of time on file review or tabbing, as those tasks will cut into the attorney's decision writing time. Drafting decisions can be especially difficult for attorneys who work for picky judges, as these attorneys have to revise the returned draft AND draft 3-4 new decisions a week.

Yes for people from the private sector they will not salary match or even attempt to give you anything beyond 11-1. They laugh at you when you ask. They also claimed at one point that they would give you credit for leave purposes for time spent in the private sector. Turns out that also wasn't true.

As has been said many times before, whether or not you succeed at the Board all depends on your judge. Some are easy to work with and want to see you do well, some are terrible people who don't care if you make the quota or not, and don't care how many hours of unpaid overtime it takes you to get there. But its not so easy as to "fill in the blanks" for most judges, especially as you advance and the cases get more complicated.

FWIW, while there are regulations governing how pay is set for an existing federal govt employee who transfers, there is no obligation to match pay for those coming from the private sector or state or local govt. (Ask me how I know.) Many agencies, if they want you, will match or do something in order to secure you. Others will not. When I applied at my agency, they were very clear that if I did not accept the offer, they would move to the next person on the list.

Note that I'm not making any statement on whether that is right, ethical, moral, etc. It's simply the state of things.

That could explain why they don't even attempt to salary match, as apparently they're not required to do so. It would fit with BVA's overall attitude of doing the absolute minimum in terms of being employee friendly.

[Anonymous]

What was the production quota before the 3.25 cases a week?