Board of Veterans Appeals (Attorney Advisor)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible part of the reason for BvA issues is the quality of lawyers they have is low? Let’s be honest. This sounds like the worst job in the world . It’s either doc review or this. Seems like your talent pool will be limited

Yes, the quality of attorneys at the Board of Veterans’ Appeal is very poor. However, the toxic work environment at the Board makes it very difficult to attract top notch attorneys. Unfortunately, the attorneys who join the Board are generally bottom of the barrel and join because the Board is the only place where they can call themselves an “attorney.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible part of the reason for BvA issues is the quality of lawyers they have is low? Let’s be honest. This sounds like the worst job in the world . It’s either doc review or this. Seems like your talent pool will be limited

Yes, the quality of attorneys at the Board of Veterans’ Appeal is very poor. However, the toxic work environment at the Board makes it very difficult to attract top notch attorneys. Unfortunately, the attorneys who join the Board are generally bottom of the barrel and join because the Board is the only place where they can call themselves an “attorney.”

It runs the gamut I think. There are certainly some who are awful but there are many who very smart people, but maybe they don't want to work in a firm or don't fit in a traditional law firm environment. Remember, before the pandemic, this was one of the few jobs where you could be almost 100 percent remote. It is not accurate to say that the attorneys are bottom of the barrel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible part of the reason for BvA issues is the quality of lawyers they have is low? Let’s be honest. This sounds like the worst job in the world . It’s either doc review or this. Seems like your talent pool will be limited

Yes, the quality of attorneys at the Board of Veterans’ Appeal is very poor. However, the toxic work environment at the Board makes it very difficult to attract top notch attorneys. Unfortunately, the attorneys who join the Board are generally bottom of the barrel and join because the Board is the only place where they can call themselves an “attorney.”

It runs the gamut I think. There are certainly some who are awful but there are many who very smart people, but maybe they don't want to work in a firm or don't fit in a traditional law firm environment. Remember, before the pandemic, this was one of the few jobs where you could be almost 100 percent remote. It is not accurate to say that the attorneys are bottom of the barrel.

What do you consider "bottom of the barrel" in the legal profession? Doc review? Many BVA attorneys are former doc reviewers. Just look at Linkedin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible part of the reason for BvA issues is the quality of lawyers they have is low? Let’s be honest. This sounds like the worst job in the world . It’s either doc review or this. Seems like your talent pool will be limited

Yes, the quality of attorneys at the Board of Veterans’ Appeal is very poor. However, the toxic work environment at the Board makes it very difficult to attract top notch attorneys. Unfortunately, the attorneys who join the Board are generally bottom of the barrel and join because the Board is the only place where they can call themselves an “attorney.”

It runs the gamut I think. There are certainly some who are awful but there are many who very smart people, but maybe they don't want to work in a firm or don't fit in a traditional law firm environment. Remember, before the pandemic, this was one of the few jobs where you could be almost 100 percent remote. It is not accurate to say that the attorneys are bottom of the barrel.

What do you consider "bottom of the barrel" in the legal profession? Doc review? Many BVA attorneys are former doc reviewers. Just look at Linkedin.

Sure. And some went to very highly ranked schools and are very smart. I think there are close to a thousand attorneys employed by the Board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible part of the reason for BvA issues is the quality of lawyers they have is low? Let’s be honest. This sounds like the worst job in the world . It’s either doc review or this. Seems like your talent pool will be limited

Yes, the quality of attorneys at the Board of Veterans’ Appeal is very poor. However, the toxic work environment at the Board makes it very difficult to attract top notch attorneys. Unfortunately, the attorneys who join the Board are generally bottom of the barrel and join because the Board is the only place where they can call themselves an “attorney.”

It runs the gamut I think. There are certainly some who are awful but there are many who very smart people, but maybe they don't want to work in a firm or don't fit in a traditional law firm environment. Remember, before the pandemic, this was one of the few jobs where you could be almost 100 percent remote. It is not accurate to say that the attorneys are bottom of the barrel.

What do you consider "bottom of the barrel" in the legal profession? Doc review? Many BVA attorneys are former doc reviewers. Just look at Linkedin.

Sure. And some went to very highly ranked schools and are very smart. I think there are close to a thousand attorneys employed by the Board.

I have no doubt that some Board attorneys graduated from very highly ranked schools. But, going to a highly ranked school doesn't guarantee good outcomes. Sure, not all Board attorneys are bottom of the barrel, just like not all Harvard law graduates are top notch attorneys. But, if you randomly point out to an attorney at the Board, there's a very high chance that he or she came from doc review and/or graduated from a third or fourth tier law school. You know this.

If the job attracts high caliber attorney candidates who aren't bottom of the barrel, why does the Board require all attorney applicants to take a basic writing/literacy test? That's not a hallmark of quality in my book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible part of the reason for BvA issues is the quality of lawyers they have is low? Let’s be honest. This sounds like the worst job in the world . It’s either doc review or this. Seems like your talent pool will be limited

Yes, the quality of attorneys at the Board of Veterans’ Appeal is very poor. However, the toxic work environment at the Board makes it very difficult to attract top notch attorneys. Unfortunately, the attorneys who join the Board are generally bottom of the barrel and join because the Board is the only place where they can call themselves an “attorney.”

It runs the gamut I think. There are certainly some who are awful but there are many who very smart people, but maybe they don't want to work in a firm or don't fit in a traditional law firm environment. Remember, before the pandemic, this was one of the few jobs where you could be almost 100 percent remote. It is not accurate to say that the attorneys are bottom of the barrel.

What do you consider "bottom of the barrel" in the legal profession? Doc review? Many BVA attorneys are former doc reviewers. Just look at Linkedin.

Sure. And some went to very highly ranked schools and are very smart. I think there are close to a thousand attorneys employed by the Board.

I have no doubt that some Board attorneys graduated from very highly ranked schools. But, going to a highly ranked school doesn't guarantee good outcomes. Sure, not all Board attorneys are bottom of the barrel, just like not all Harvard law graduates are top notch attorneys. But, if you randomly point out to an attorney at the Board, there's a very high chance that he or she came from doc review and/or graduated from a third or fourth tier law school. You know this.

If the job attracts high caliber attorney candidates who aren't bottom of the barrel, why does the Board require all attorney applicants to take a basic writing/literacy test? That's not a hallmark of quality in my book.

It doesn't really matter. The style/type of writing doesn't require a stellar attorney. Many join the board or other fed agencies for the benefits. The board can be flexible with taking leave and also has baby leave for parents. I left the board to take a different job close to where I lived (not legal related), but when I was there it was okay. I was full remote. As long as you get your work done, you are fine. Granted, I got along with my judge. Many attorneys that start there, it is their first job. They have no clue what its like to work for a maniac in private practice. Its not like you don't get shit on at a firm by a partner or face the same issues. The pay may be more at a firm, but your life also sucks. Outside of landing your dream legal gig, you are likely not going to like the day to day bullshit. Nothing different at the Board.


The test applicants take is designed to se if you can get a document finished in a limited amount of time. You would be surprised how many new decision writers cant finish an easy case in a day. In a higher cost of living city, you are making 100k in 2 years as GS-13 full remote with decent leave and sick time. Sure you can go work at a firm and make more. But you have to factor in traffic, clothes, court, etc. Many of my friends from law school make more and are miserable...and dont have leave and other benefits. The job isn't for everyone and it is clear after a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible part of the reason for BvA issues is the quality of lawyers they have is low? Let’s be honest. This sounds like the worst job in the world . It’s either doc review or this. Seems like your talent pool will be limited

Yes, the quality of attorneys at the Board of Veterans’ Appeal is very poor. However, the toxic work environment at the Board makes it very difficult to attract top notch attorneys. Unfortunately, the attorneys who join the Board are generally bottom of the barrel and join because the Board is the only place where they can call themselves an “attorney.”

It runs the gamut I think. There are certainly some who are awful but there are many who very smart people, but maybe they don't want to work in a firm or don't fit in a traditional law firm environment. Remember, before the pandemic, this was one of the few jobs where you could be almost 100 percent remote. It is not accurate to say that the attorneys are bottom of the barrel.

What do you consider "bottom of the barrel" in the legal profession? Doc review? Many BVA attorneys are former doc reviewers. Just look at Linkedin.

Sure. And some went to very highly ranked schools and are very smart. I think there are close to a thousand attorneys employed by the Board.

I have no doubt that some Board attorneys graduated from very highly ranked schools. But, going to a highly ranked school doesn't guarantee good outcomes. Sure, not all Board attorneys are bottom of the barrel, just like not all Harvard law graduates are top notch attorneys. But, if you randomly point out to an attorney at the Board, there's a very high chance that he or she came from doc review and/or graduated from a third or fourth tier law school. You know this.

If the job attracts high caliber attorney candidates who aren't bottom of the barrel, why does the Board require all attorney applicants to take a basic writing/literacy test? That's not a hallmark of quality in my book.

It doesn't really matter. The style/type of writing doesn't require a stellar attorney. Many join the board or other fed agencies for the benefits. The board can be flexible with taking leave and also has baby leave for parents. I left the board to take a different job close to where I lived (not legal related), but when I was there it was okay. I was full remote. As long as you get your work done, you are fine. Granted, I got along with my judge. Many attorneys that start there, it is their first job. They have no clue what its like to work for a maniac in private practice. Its not like you don't get shit on at a firm by a partner or face the same issues. The pay may be more at a firm, but your life also sucks. Outside of landing your dream legal gig, you are likely not going to like the day to day bullshit. Nothing different at the Board.


The test applicants take is designed to se if you can get a document finished in a limited amount of time. You would be surprised how many new decision writers cant finish an easy case in a day. In a higher cost of living city, you are making 100k in 2 years as GS-13 full remote with decent leave and sick time. Sure you can go work at a firm and make more. But you have to factor in traffic, clothes, court, etc. Many of my friends from law school make more and are miserable...and dont have leave and other benefits. The job isn't for everyone and it is clear after a year.

While Board attorneys don't need to be excellent writers, they do need to be able to write coherent paragraphs and understand subject/verb agreement. Management specifically implemented the writing test because a large percentage of new attorney hires were unable to write coherently. Remember, the purpose of the writing test isn't just to see whether "you can get a document finished in a limited amount of time." It is to see whether you can write coherently. I've never encountered a legal job that requires a basic writing/literacy test like the Board. At most firms, attorneys are presumed to be literate, whereas at the Board, attorneys must prove their ability to read and write. Terrible management isn't unique to the Board. But, I wonder whether the quality of new hires at the Board exacerbates tensions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry I don’t believe half the stories on here about bva. Someone here has an agenda

I'm not surprised. People who haven't worked at BVA don't know how truly terrible the place is. Don't take my word for it. Take a look at the survey below containing responses from nearly 400 BVA attorneys.

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A4dc55b1b-80ed-4b2c-9e0a-155be961d998#pageNum=111

The section on morale starts at p. 111/175.

I felt severe anxiety just reading that. Wow. Anything more recent ?

No. Trump issued a couple of executive orders that essentially destroyed the ability of federal unions to represent employees. As a result of Trump's EOs, the union at BVA was barely active. But, I do know that approximately 10 or so judges at BVA recently stepped down to become GS-14 attorneys due to BVA's plan to make judges the direct supervisors of attorneys. These judges did not want to supervise attorneys because they could not manage attorneys and review 25-30 cases a week without working extensive unpaid overtime. BVA recently posted an announcement a few weeks ago seeking to hire new judges to replace the ones who were reassigned.

sounds like the union provided no protections before trump

Before the pandemic, the Union (AFGE 17) filed separate grievances challenging the termination of five GS-14 attorneys and won all of them at arbitration. Unfortunately, there has been a lot of backlash from rank and file Union members concerning the number of arbitrations that the Union has been involved in. You see, AFGE 17 represents all employees at VA Central Office, not just attorneys at BVA. However, ALL of the Union's arbitration cases have involved BVA attorneys. The cafeteria workers and janitors at BVA hated seeing their Union dues go towards arbitrating BVA attorney grievances. Due to this backlash, the Union has been very hesitant to represent BVA attorneys at arbitration.

I’ve been following the BVA for over 10 years now and it’s always been a terrible environment the only difference is that the quota is larger. I even was given an offer back in 2006 even before I knew of the problems but I declined it because it was going to be a 50% pay cut than I was getting from being a staff attorney.

Sounds like BVA has been a terrible place to work for a long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible part of the reason for BvA issues is the quality of lawyers they have is low? Let’s be honest. This sounds like the worst job in the world . It’s either doc review or this. Seems like your talent pool will be limited

Yes, the quality of attorneys at the Board of Veterans’ Appeal is very poor. However, the toxic work environment at the Board makes it very difficult to attract top notch attorneys. Unfortunately, the attorneys who join the Board are generally bottom of the barrel and join because the Board is the only place where they can call themselves an “attorney.”

It runs the gamut I think. There are certainly some who are awful but there are many who very smart people, but maybe they don't want to work in a firm or don't fit in a traditional law firm environment. Remember, before the pandemic, this was one of the few jobs where you could be almost 100 percent remote. It is not accurate to say that the attorneys are bottom of the barrel.

What do you consider "bottom of the barrel" in the legal profession? Doc review? Many BVA attorneys are former doc reviewers. Just look at Linkedin.

Sure. And some went to very highly ranked schools and are very smart. I think there are close to a thousand attorneys employed by the Board.

I have no doubt that some Board attorneys graduated from very highly ranked schools. But, going to a highly ranked school doesn't guarantee good outcomes. Sure, not all Board attorneys are bottom of the barrel, just like not all Harvard law graduates are top notch attorneys. But, if you randomly point out to an attorney at the Board, there's a very high chance that he or she came from doc review and/or graduated from a third or fourth tier law school. You know this.

If the job attracts high caliber attorney candidates who aren't bottom of the barrel, why does the Board require all attorney applicants to take a basic writing/literacy test? That's not a hallmark of quality in my book.

It doesn't really matter. The style/type of writing doesn't require a stellar attorney. Many join the board or other fed agencies for the benefits. The board can be flexible with taking leave and also has baby leave for parents. I left the board to take a different job close to where I lived (not legal related), but when I was there it was okay. I was full remote. As long as you get your work done, you are fine. Granted, I got along with my judge. Many attorneys that start there, it is their first job. They have no clue what its like to work for a maniac in private practice. Its not like you don't get shit on at a firm by a partner or face the same issues. The pay may be more at a firm, but your life also sucks. Outside of landing your dream legal gig, you are likely not going to like the day to day bullshit. Nothing different at the Board.


The test applicants take is designed to se if you can get a document finished in a limited amount of time. You would be surprised how many new decision writers cant finish an easy case in a day. In a higher cost of living city, you are making 100k in 2 years as GS-13 full remote with decent leave and sick time. Sure you can go work at a firm and make more. But you have to factor in traffic, clothes, court, etc. Many of my friends from law school make more and are miserable...and dont have leave and other benefits. The job isn't for everyone and it is clear after a year.

While Board attorneys don't need to be excellent writers, they do need to be able to write coherent paragraphs and understand subject/verb agreement. Management specifically implemented the writing test because a large percentage of new attorney hires were unable to write coherently. Remember, the purpose of the writing test isn't just to see whether "you can get a document finished in a limited amount of time." It is to see whether you can write coherently. I've never encountered a legal job that requires a basic writing/literacy test like the Board. At most firms, attorneys are presumed to be literate, whereas at the Board, attorneys must prove their ability to read and write. Terrible management isn't unique to the Board. But, I wonder whether the quality of new hires at the Board exacerbates tensions.

Plenty of firms want a writing sample. Not really a huge difference. I applied to a firm ages ago that made everyone take the wonderlic. I heard the board has been hiring people with more legal experience.

[Anonymous]

I agree that many firms require a legal writing sample. But, do you not see a difference between having to provide a legal brief/work product as a writing sample and having to undergo a basic writing/literacy test?

In my view, all people who are able to complete a legal brief are able to complete a basic writing/literacy test, but not all people who can complete a basic writing/literacy test can complete a legal brief. I see a huge difference between the two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible part of the reason for BvA issues is the quality of lawyers they have is low? Let’s be honest. This sounds like the worst job in the world . It’s either doc review or this. Seems like your talent pool will be limited

Yes, the quality of attorneys at the Board of Veterans’ Appeal is very poor. However, the toxic work environment at the Board makes it very difficult to attract top notch attorneys. Unfortunately, the attorneys who join the Board are generally bottom of the barrel and join because the Board is the only place where they can call themselves an “attorney.”

It runs the gamut I think. There are certainly some who are awful but there are many who very smart people, but maybe they don't want to work in a firm or don't fit in a traditional law firm environment. Remember, before the pandemic, this was one of the few jobs where you could be almost 100 percent remote. It is not accurate to say that the attorneys are bottom of the barrel.

What do you consider "bottom of the barrel" in the legal profession? Doc review? Many BVA attorneys are former doc reviewers. Just look at Linkedin.

Sure. And some went to very highly ranked schools and are very smart. I think there are close to a thousand attorneys employed by the Board.

I have no doubt that some Board attorneys graduated from very highly ranked schools. But, going to a highly ranked school doesn't guarantee good outcomes. Sure, not all Board attorneys are bottom of the barrel, just like not all Harvard law graduates are top notch attorneys. But, if you randomly point out to an attorney at the Board, there's a very high chance that he or she came from doc review and/or graduated from a third or fourth tier law school. You know this.

If the job attracts high caliber attorney candidates who aren't bottom of the barrel, why does the Board require all attorney applicants to take a basic writing/literacy test? That's not a hallmark of quality in my book.

It doesn't really matter. The style/type of writing doesn't require a stellar attorney. Many join the board or other fed agencies for the benefits. The board can be flexible with taking leave and also has baby leave for parents. I left the board to take a different job close to where I lived (not legal related), but when I was there it was okay. I was full remote. As long as you get your work done, you are fine. Granted, I got along with my judge. Many attorneys that start there, it is their first job. They have no clue what its like to work for a maniac in private practice. Its not like you don't get shit on at a firm by a partner or face the same issues. The pay may be more at a firm, but your life also sucks. Outside of landing your dream legal gig, you are likely not going to like the day to day bullshit. Nothing different at the Board.


The test applicants take is designed to se if you can get a document finished in a limited amount of time. You would be surprised how many new decision writers cant finish an easy case in a day. In a higher cost of living city, you are making 100k in 2 years as GS-13 full remote with decent leave and sick time. Sure you can go work at a firm and make more. But you have to factor in traffic, clothes, court, etc. Many of my friends from law school make more and are miserable...and dont have leave and other benefits. The job isn't for everyone and it is clear after a year.

While Board attorneys don't need to be excellent writers, they do need to be able to write coherent paragraphs and understand subject/verb agreement. Management specifically implemented the writing test because a large percentage of new attorney hires were unable to write coherently. Remember, the purpose of the writing test isn't just to see whether "you can get a document finished in a limited amount of time." It is to see whether you can write coherently. I've never encountered a legal job that requires a basic writing/literacy test like the Board. At most firms, attorneys are presumed to be literate, whereas at the Board, attorneys must prove their ability to read and write. Terrible management isn't unique to the Board. But, I wonder whether the quality of new hires at the Board exacerbates tensions.

Plenty of firms want a writing sample. Not really a huge difference. I applied to a firm ages ago that made everyone take the wonderlic. I heard the board has been hiring people with more legal experience.

In fact, I'd bet that most legal jobs, firm or not firm, want a writing sample.

When I joined, they did not do the writing test, but I do remember providing a writing sample. Maybe they don't ask for a writing sample up front anymore, I have no idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible part of the reason for BvA issues is the quality of lawyers they have is low? Let’s be honest. This sounds like the worst job in the world . It’s either doc review or this. Seems like your talent pool will be limited

Yes, the quality of attorneys at the Board of Veterans’ Appeal is very poor. However, the toxic work environment at the Board makes it very difficult to attract top notch attorneys. Unfortunately, the attorneys who join the Board are generally bottom of the barrel and join because the Board is the only place where they can call themselves an “attorney.”

It runs the gamut I think. There are certainly some who are awful but there are many who very smart people, but maybe they don't want to work in a firm or don't fit in a traditional law firm environment. Remember, before the pandemic, this was one of the few jobs where you could be almost 100 percent remote. It is not accurate to say that the attorneys are bottom of the barrel.

What do you consider "bottom of the barrel" in the legal profession? Doc review? Many BVA attorneys are former doc reviewers. Just look at Linkedin.

Sure. And some went to very highly ranked schools and are very smart. I think there are close to a thousand attorneys employed by the Board.

I have no doubt that some Board attorneys graduated from very highly ranked schools. But, going to a highly ranked school doesn't guarantee good outcomes. Sure, not all Board attorneys are bottom of the barrel, just like not all Harvard law graduates are top notch attorneys. But, if you randomly point out to an attorney at the Board, there's a very high chance that he or she came from doc review and/or graduated from a third or fourth tier law school. You know this.

If the job attracts high caliber attorney candidates who aren't bottom of the barrel, why does the Board require all attorney applicants to take a basic writing/literacy test? That's not a hallmark of quality in my book.

It doesn't really matter. The style/type of writing doesn't require a stellar attorney. Many join the board or other fed agencies for the benefits. The board can be flexible with taking leave and also has baby leave for parents. I left the board to take a different job close to where I lived (not legal related), but when I was there it was okay. I was full remote. As long as you get your work done, you are fine. Granted, I got along with my judge. Many attorneys that start there, it is their first job. They have no clue what its like to work for a maniac in private practice. Its not like you don't get shit on at a firm by a partner or face the same issues. The pay may be more at a firm, but your life also sucks. Outside of landing your dream legal gig, you are likely not going to like the day to day bullshit. Nothing different at the Board.


The test applicants take is designed to se if you can get a document finished in a limited amount of time. You would be surprised how many new decision writers cant finish an easy case in a day. In a higher cost of living city, you are making 100k in 2 years as GS-13 full remote with decent leave and sick time. Sure you can go work at a firm and make more. But you have to factor in traffic, clothes, court, etc. Many of my friends from law school make more and are miserable...and dont have leave and other benefits. The job isn't for everyone and it is clear after a year.

While Board attorneys don't need to be excellent writers, they do need to be able to write coherent paragraphs and understand subject/verb agreement. Management specifically implemented the writing test because a large percentage of new attorney hires were unable to write coherently. Remember, the purpose of the writing test isn't just to see whether "you can get a document finished in a limited amount of time." It is to see whether you can write coherently. I've never encountered a legal job that requires a basic writing/literacy test like the Board. At most firms, attorneys are presumed to be literate, whereas at the Board, attorneys must prove their ability to read and write. Terrible management isn't unique to the Board. But, I wonder whether the quality of new hires at the Board exacerbates tensions.

Plenty of firms want a writing sample. Not really a huge difference. I applied to a firm ages ago that made everyone take the wonderlic. I heard the board has been hiring people with more legal experience.

In fact, I'd bet that most legal jobs, firm or not firm, want a writing sample.

When I joined, they did not do the writing test, but I do remember providing a writing sample. Maybe they don't ask for a writing sample up front anymore, I have no idea.

Prior to 2018, the Board did not require a writing/reading test for attorney applicants. But, since then, all attorney applicants must pass the writing/reading test in order to continue with the hiring process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry I don’t believe half the stories on here about bva. Someone here has an agenda

I'm not surprised. People who haven't worked at BVA don't know how truly terrible the place is. Don't take my word for it. Take a look at the survey below containing responses from nearly 400 BVA attorneys.

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A4dc55b1b-80ed-4b2c-9e0a-155be961d998#pageNum=111

The section on morale starts at p. 111/175.

I felt severe anxiety just reading that. Wow. Anything more recent ?

No. Trump issued a couple of executive orders that essentially destroyed the ability of federal unions to represent employees. As a result of Trump's EOs, the union at BVA was barely active. But, I do know that approximately 10 or so judges at BVA recently stepped down to become GS-14 attorneys due to BVA's plan to make judges the direct supervisors of attorneys. These judges did not want to supervise attorneys because they could not manage attorneys and review 25-30 cases a week without working extensive unpaid overtime. BVA recently posted an announcement a few weeks ago seeking to hire new judges to replace the ones who were reassigned.

sounds like the union provided no protections before trump

Before the pandemic, the Union (AFGE 17) filed separate grievances challenging the termination of five GS-14 attorneys and won all of them at arbitration. Unfortunately, there has been a lot of backlash from rank and file Union members concerning the number of arbitrations that the Union has been involved in. You see, AFGE 17 represents all employees at VA Central Office, not just attorneys at BVA. However, ALL of the Union's arbitration cases have involved BVA attorneys. The cafeteria workers and janitors at BVA hated seeing their Union dues go towards arbitrating BVA attorney grievances. Due to this backlash, the Union has been very hesitant to represent BVA attorneys at arbitration.

I’ve been following the BVA for over 10 years now and it’s always been a terrible environment the only difference is that the quota is larger. I even was given an offer back in 2006 even before I knew of the problems but I declined it because it was going to be a 50% pay cut than I was getting from being a staff attorney.

Why have you been "following the BVA for 10 years now" - you say you were given an offer 15 years ago and declined. Why are you still invested in a place that gave you an offer 15 years ago? Do you have friends/family who work for BVA? I couldn't even remember some of the places I interviewed with 15 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry I don’t believe half the stories on here about bva. Someone here has an agenda

I'm not surprised. People who haven't worked at BVA don't know how truly terrible the place is. Don't take my word for it. Take a look at the survey below containing responses from nearly 400 BVA attorneys.

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A4dc55b1b-80ed-4b2c-9e0a-155be961d998#pageNum=111

The section on morale starts at p. 111/175.

I felt severe anxiety just reading that. Wow. Anything more recent ?

No. Trump issued a couple of executive orders that essentially destroyed the ability of federal unions to represent employees. As a result of Trump's EOs, the union at BVA was barely active. But, I do know that approximately 10 or so judges at BVA recently stepped down to become GS-14 attorneys due to BVA's plan to make judges the direct supervisors of attorneys. These judges did not want to supervise attorneys because they could not manage attorneys and review 25-30 cases a week without working extensive unpaid overtime. BVA recently posted an announcement a few weeks ago seeking to hire new judges to replace the ones who were reassigned.

sounds like the union provided no protections before trump

Before the pandemic, the Union (AFGE 17) filed separate grievances challenging the termination of five GS-14 attorneys and won all of them at arbitration. Unfortunately, there has been a lot of backlash from rank and file Union members concerning the number of arbitrations that the Union has been involved in. You see, AFGE 17 represents all employees at VA Central Office, not just attorneys at BVA. However, ALL of the Union's arbitration cases have involved BVA attorneys. The cafeteria workers and janitors at BVA hated seeing their Union dues go towards arbitrating BVA attorney grievances. Due to this backlash, the Union has been very hesitant to represent BVA attorneys at arbitration.

I’ve been following the BVA for over 10 years now and it’s always been a terrible environment the only difference is that the quota is larger. I even was given an offer back in 2006 even before I knew of the problems but I declined it because it was going to be a 50% pay cut than I was getting from being a staff attorney.

Sounds like BVA has been a terrible place to work for a long time.

Yes, the place is rotten to the core. It is set up to be a hostile work environment. If you end up getting a good judge / supervisor, they can blunt some of the bad parts. If you get a bad one, they just make everything more hostile and unpleasant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they keep firing people and raising the quota how do they expect to get and keep people who make quota ?

The burnout rate at the Board is high. But, management has no incentive to change working conditions because Congress gives VA and the Board huge amounts of money to constantly hire new attorneys. Because of the huge turnover and burnout rate at the Board, management recently allowed new attorneys to join the Board remotely. This way, the Board has a nationwide applicant pool to churn and burn through. With the quota increasing to 3.5 decisions a week this upcoming fiscal year, I expect the turnover rate to increase dramatically.

Hopefully some of those nationwide attorneys do their research and find this thread.