Board of Veterans Appeals (Attorney Advisor)

[Anonymous]

Has anyone heard much about new Judges being hired? I can't make sense of what is going on. Some people are mad that's all I've really heard. Is there any more information?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone heard much about new Judges being hired? I can't make sense of what is going on. Some people are mad that's all I've really heard. Is there any more information?

BVA attorney here. They hired many new judges from outside of the agency so it was a real morale killer for BVA people who want to be judges. I don’t write for any of the new judges and I don’t know anyone who does so I haven’t heard whether they are ok to work for. My guess is management wanted new blood and it’s a slap in the face to many senior attorneys who would make great judges.

Also the person who said the quota is going up to 3.5 cases a week is a liar. The quota hasn’t changed. The board is not the best place to work and management sucks. But some of the people on this thread are just making things up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone heard much about new Judges being hired? I can't make sense of what is going on. Some people are mad that's all I've really heard. Is there any more information?

BVA attorney here. They hired many new judges from outside of the agency so it was a real morale killer for BVA people who want to be judges. I don’t write for any of the new judges and I don’t know anyone who does so I haven’t heard whether they are ok to work for. My guess is management wanted new blood and it’s a slap in the face to many senior attorneys who would make great judges.

Also the person who said the quota is going up to 3.5 cases a week is a liar. The quota hasn’t changed. The board is not the best place to work and management sucks. But some of the people on this thread are just making things up.

The discussion that you referenced regarding the quota occurred back in August 2021, shortly after Board management announced that the Board-wide quota would increase from 91,500 cases to 111,500 cases a year. People on this forum speculated as to whether the quota would increase to 3.5 cases to meet the increased Board-wide quota. Though management did not ultimately increase the quota, the discussion on DCUM about the quota was certainly valid given that the union at the Board (AFGE) had expressed the same concerns about quota for FY2022. Please don't infer bad faith when there is no evidence of such (i.e., calling people liars).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

It’s not a basic literacy test - it’s a legal writing test based on the work done there. Are you just trolling to find out what it is? It’s pretty easy to guess if you look at decisions online.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It’s not a basic literacy test - it’s a legal writing test based on the work done there. Are you just trolling to find out what it is? It’s pretty easy to guess if you look at decisions online.

Um... the writing test is not and has never been "based on the work done there." As the overwhelming majority of new Board attorneys have no prior veterans benefits experience, it would be virtually impossible for the Board to implement a substantive legal writing test. I stand by my assertion that the writing test at the Board is pretty basic and not substantive in nature - they're just testing whether you can read and write fast enough to churn out at least three decisions a week, and not whether you know the subject matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone heard much about new Judges being hired? I can't make sense of what is going on. Some people are mad that's all I've really heard. Is there any more information?

BVA attorney here. They hired many new judges from outside of the agency so it was a real morale killer for BVA people who want to be judges. I don’t write for any of the new judges and I don’t know anyone who does so I haven’t heard whether they are ok to work for. My guess is management wanted new blood and it’s a slap in the face to many senior attorneys who would make great judges.

Last I heard, all the "outsider" judges are still in training and they haven't been given teams yet. When they're "ready" (again, with NO EXPERIENCE in this area of law), more reassignments will likely occur, so it's possible you may still be reassigned. Imagine how fun that'll be - drafting decisions for a judge who's never done this kind of work? And they're supposed to be able to rate draft decisions? What a slap in the face to BVA attorneys with actual experience signing BVA decisions! Of course, nothing new at the BVA . . . We say we care, but we act like we don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone heard much about new Judges being hired? I can't make sense of what is going on. Some people are mad that's all I've really heard. Is there any more information?

BVA attorney here. They hired many new judges from outside of the agency so it was a real morale killer for BVA people who want to be judges. I don’t write for any of the new judges and I don’t know anyone who does so I haven’t heard whether they are ok to work for. My guess is management wanted new blood and it’s a slap in the face to many senior attorneys who would make great judges.

Last I heard, all the "outsider" judges are still in training and they haven't been given teams yet. When they're "ready" (again, with NO EXPERIENCE in this area of law), more reassignments will likely occur, so it's possible you may still be reassigned. Imagine how fun that'll be - drafting decisions for a judge who's never done this kind of work? And they're supposed to be able to rate draft decisions? What a slap in the face to BVA attorneys with actual experience signing BVA decisions! Of course, nothing new at the BVA . . . We say we care, but we act like we don't.

More likely than not, the new judges without prior experience will simply sign the decisions that are given to them. On the plus side, the attorneys under them will have more influence over decisions and won't be second-guessed by their judges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It’s not a basic literacy test - it’s a legal writing test based on the work done there. Are you just trolling to find out what it is? It’s pretty easy to guess if you look at decisions online.

Um... the writing test is not and has never been "based on the work done there." As the overwhelming majority of new Board attorneys have no prior veterans benefits experience, it would be virtually impossible for the Board to implement a substantive legal writing test. I stand by my assertion that the writing test at the Board is pretty basic and not substantive in nature - they're just testing whether you can read and write fast enough to churn out at least three decisions a week, and not whether you know the subject matter.

I stand by my assertion that you haven’t seen the writing test. If you’ve been to law school and learned legal writing, it is reasonable that the test would be based on the decisions they write.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It’s not a basic literacy test - it’s a legal writing test based on the work done there. Are you just trolling to find out what it is? It’s pretty easy to guess if you look at decisions online.

Um... the writing test is not and has never been "based on the work done there." As the overwhelming majority of new Board attorneys have no prior veterans benefits experience, it would be virtually impossible for the Board to implement a substantive legal writing test. I stand by my assertion that the writing test at the Board is pretty basic and not substantive in nature - they're just testing whether you can read and write fast enough to churn out at least three decisions a week, and not whether you know the subject matter.

I stand by my assertion that you haven’t seen the writing test. If you’ve been to law school and learned legal writing, it is reasonable that the test would be based on the decisions they write.

The work that the Board does is more akin to claims examining rather than true legal writing. As you are aware, non-attorney regional office employees initially review disability claims, and their adverse decisions can be appealed to the Board of Veterans' Appeals. So, you have non-attorneys and attorneys performing the same work. This process isn't unique to the Board. I mean, we see similar adjudication models for workers' compensation claims. But, I think you would be hard pressed to claim that BVA decision writing is legal writing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone heard much about new Judges being hired? I can't make sense of what is going on. Some people are mad that's all I've really heard. Is there any more information?

BVA attorney here. They hired many new judges from outside of the agency so it was a real morale killer for BVA people who want to be judges. I don’t write for any of the new judges and I don’t know anyone who does so I haven’t heard whether they are ok to work for. My guess is management wanted new blood and it’s a slap in the face to many senior attorneys who would make great judges.

Last I heard, all the "outsider" judges are still in training and they haven't been given teams yet. When they're "ready" (again, with NO EXPERIENCE in this area of law), more reassignments will likely occur, so it's possible you may still be reassigned. Imagine how fun that'll be - drafting decisions for a judge who's never done this kind of work? And they're supposed to be able to rate draft decisions? What a slap in the face to BVA attorneys with actual experience signing BVA decisions! Of course, nothing new at the BVA . . . We say we care, but we act like we don't.

More likely than not, the new judges without prior experience will simply sign the decisions that are given to them. On the plus side, the attorneys under them will have more influence over decisions and won't be second-guessed by their judges.

That's what would make sense, but I've heard at least one VLJ, with no prior experience, from the last hiring cycle is quite difficult to work for. Who knows how it'll go with this new crop?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Last I heard, all the "outsider" judges are still in training and they haven't been given teams yet. When they're "ready" (again, with NO EXPERIENCE in this area of law), more reassignments will likely occur, so it's possible you may still be reassigned. Imagine how fun that'll be - drafting decisions for a judge who's never done this kind of work? And they're supposed to be able to rate draft decisions? What a slap in the face to BVA attorneys with actual experience signing BVA decisions! Of course, nothing new at the BVA . . . We say we care, but we act like we don't.

This is what should be scary for the attorneys. I see it could go a few ways. They sign everything without a lot of scrutiny because they don’t know the law. In which case the attorney’s job gets easier. Or, they give stuff back for silly reasons or get the law wrong but are mean about it. Or, they are really slow to sign their cases because they are being really careful and are trying to learn, which means attorneys will struggle to meet the quota but at least the new judge is making an effort. Maybe they will have to use AVLJs and senior counsel to pick up the surplus cases for the new judges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Last I heard, all the "outsider" judges are still in training and they haven't been given teams yet. When they're "ready" (again, with NO EXPERIENCE in this area of law), more reassignments will likely occur, so it's possible you may still be reassigned. Imagine how fun that'll be - drafting decisions for a judge who's never done this kind of work? And they're supposed to be able to rate draft decisions? What a slap in the face to BVA attorneys with actual experience signing BVA decisions! Of course, nothing new at the BVA . . . We say we care, but we act like we don't.

This is what should be scary for the attorneys. I see it could go a few ways. They sign everything without a lot of scrutiny because they don’t know the law. In which case the attorney’s job gets easier. Or, they give stuff back for silly reasons or get the law wrong but are mean about it. Or, they are really slow to sign their cases because they are being really careful and are trying to learn, which means attorneys will struggle to meet the quota but at least the new judge is making an effort. Maybe they will have to use AVLJs and senior counsel to pick up the surplus cases for the new judges.

The whole AVLJ thing is another Board scam. They no longer prorate attorney quotas for time spent as AVLJs, so you're basically doing the work of two people now, but still just receiving attorney pay. They tell you it'll help you in your VLJ application to have experience as an AVLJ, and then they ignore all the experienced attorneys they already have (some with 10+ years of experience working as AVLJs) and hire outsiders with NO veterans law experience, let alone AVLJ experience. The only good part is that AVLJ work isn't required for attorneys, so you can refuse the Board's generous "offer" to do extra work for no extra pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Last I heard, all the "outsider" judges are still in training and they haven't been given teams yet. When they're "ready" (again, with NO EXPERIENCE in this area of law), more reassignments will likely occur, so it's possible you may still be reassigned. Imagine how fun that'll be - drafting decisions for a judge who's never done this kind of work? And they're supposed to be able to rate draft decisions? What a slap in the face to BVA attorneys with actual experience signing BVA decisions! Of course, nothing new at the BVA . . . We say we care, but we act like we don't.

This is what should be scary for the attorneys. I see it could go a few ways. They sign everything without a lot of scrutiny because they don’t know the law. In which case the attorney’s job gets easier. Or, they give stuff back for silly reasons or get the law wrong but are mean about it. Or, they are really slow to sign their cases because they are being really careful and are trying to learn, which means attorneys will struggle to meet the quota but at least the new judge is making an effort. Maybe they will have to use AVLJs and senior counsel to pick up the surplus cases for the new judges.

The whole AVLJ thing is another Board scam. They no longer prorate attorney quotas for time spent as AVLJs, so you're basically doing the work of two people now, but still just receiving attorney pay. They tell you it'll help you in your VLJ application to have experience as an AVLJ, and then they ignore all the experienced attorneys they already have (some with 10+ years of experience working as AVLJs) and hire outsiders with NO veterans law experience, let alone AVLJ experience. The only good part is that AVLJ work isn't required for attorneys, so you can refuse the Board's generous "offer" to do extra work for no extra pay.

Lol. what a joke. As you correctly point out, AVLJ work is not desirable since they don't prorate and they just hire whoever they want for VLJ positions anyway. However, the Board will gladly include the decisions you reviewed, revised, and signed as an AVLJ in their total production numbers, without giving you any sort of credit.

[Anonymous]

Management is all about more work & less pay/benefits. Using AVLJs is but one example (more hearings, more responsibilities on the judges, etc.). There also use to be paid overtime, which was allowed if you were on track. It made for a nice bump in your paycheck for putting up with the quota-based monotonous work. However, they now know they can get that same work + done without paying out overtime. It’s bs. Morale is low because management only cares about the numbers, not making the attorneys happy. There’s no balance between the two. You’d think since they overshot the yearly goal that some sort of adjustment to benefit the attorneys would’ve been made. No, instead, the discussion was to actually increase the quota; though, that was abandoned in the end, probably because they didn’t want to deal with the union. Change won’t come until there is new leadership that isn’t entirely motivated by numbers. These people don’t care about attorneys’ welfare. They could do better, but management is more concerned with trying to squeeze blood from turnips.

[Anonymous]

I think management includes all the “extra work” (AVLJ work, briefing cases for hearings, etc) as consideration for the customer service element for evaluation purposes. Historically, it was quite easy to get exceptional for that element. But now, attys need to actually do things outside their regular decision writing to get exceptional for that category.