Board of Veterans Appeals (Attorney Advisor)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does OPM allow these jobs to be classified as attorney positions to begin with? It’s claims reviewing. This work used to be done by paralegals. Did the work change, or did the agencies just decide they could hire faster using excepted attorney positions?

The work did not change. Even today, non-attorneys reviewers still review VA claims and make the initial decision as to whether to pay the claim. If a claimant is dissatisfied with the initial decision, he or she can appeal to BVA, where an attorney and judge will review it. The attorney reviewers at BVA perform the same work as the non-attorneys reviewers.

and, essentially, the "judges" do the same thing as well, except they conduct hearings and of course they are the ones signing decisions. but its still file review.

You don’t seem to understand how many different agencies have a very similar set-up for administrative rulings with initial rulings made by specialists and appeals going to attorneys. Much of the law is file review, especially in administrative jobs in the federal government. The file is where the evidence is.

BVA files are extensive and the medical records are repetitive and depressing and the quota is a challenge for some. But the basics of admin law run across the fed gvt executive branch agencies.

Given the very high attrition rate and the general unhappiness of those who manage to remain employed there, I think the quota is challenging for most people, not just some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does OPM allow these jobs to be classified as attorney positions to begin with? It’s claims reviewing. This work used to be done by paralegals. Did the work change, or did the agencies just decide they could hire faster using excepted attorney positions?

The work did not change. Even today, non-attorneys reviewers still review VA claims and make the initial decision as to whether to pay the claim. If a claimant is dissatisfied with the initial decision, he or she can appeal to BVA, where an attorney and judge will review it. The attorney reviewers at BVA perform the same work as the non-attorneys reviewers.

and, essentially, the "judges" do the same thing as well, except they conduct hearings and of course they are the ones signing decisions. but its still file review.

You don’t seem to understand how many different agencies have a very similar set-up for administrative rulings with initial rulings made by specialists and appeals going to attorneys. Much of the law is file review, especially in administrative jobs in the federal government. The file is where the evidence is.

BVA files are extensive and the medical records are repetitive and depressing and the quota is a challenge for some. But the basics of admin law run across the fed gvt executive branch agencies.

Given the very high attrition rate and the general unhappiness of those who manage to remain employed there, I think the quota is challenging for most people, not just some.

I think the attrition rate is more a reflection on the character of people seeking out and obtaining a job at BVA. Only the most downtrodden attorney ever hears about these jobs, let alone applies. Typically someone leaves doc review (or $30k craplaw) for the BVA then emails the latest BVA opening to their former mouse clicker friends. You can't expect these sorts of vagabonds and riff raff to produce consistently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does OPM allow these jobs to be classified as attorney positions to begin with? It’s claims reviewing. This work used to be done by paralegals. Did the work change, or did the agencies just decide they could hire faster using excepted attorney positions?

The work did not change. Even today, non-attorneys reviewers still review VA claims and make the initial decision as to whether to pay the claim. If a claimant is dissatisfied with the initial decision, he or she can appeal to BVA, where an attorney and judge will review it. The attorney reviewers at BVA perform the same work as the non-attorneys reviewers.

and, essentially, the "judges" do the same thing as well, except they conduct hearings and of course they are the ones signing decisions. but its still file review.

You don’t seem to understand how many different agencies have a very similar set-up for administrative rulings with initial rulings made by specialists and appeals going to attorneys. Much of the law is file review, especially in administrative jobs in the federal government. The file is where the evidence is.

BVA files are extensive and the medical records are repetitive and depressing and the quota is a challenge for some. But the basics of admin law run across the fed gvt executive branch agencies.

Given the very high attrition rate and the general unhappiness of those who manage to remain employed there, I think the quota is challenging for most people, not just some.

I think the attrition rate is more a reflection on the character of people seeking out and obtaining a job at BVA. Only the most downtrodden attorney ever hears about these jobs, let alone applies. Typically someone leaves doc review (or $30k craplaw) for the BVA then emails the latest BVA opening to their former mouse clicker friends. You can't expect these sorts of vagabonds and riff raff to produce consistently.

Yes, some BVA attorneys can be characterized as the "vagabonds and riff raff" of the legal community; however, many of them are decent attorneys who are simply down on their luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does OPM allow these jobs to be classified as attorney positions to begin with? It’s claims reviewing. This work used to be done by paralegals. Did the work change, or did the agencies just decide they could hire faster using excepted attorney positions?

The work did not change. Even today, non-attorneys reviewers still review VA claims and make the initial decision as to whether to pay the claim. If a claimant is dissatisfied with the initial decision, he or she can appeal to BVA, where an attorney and judge will review it. The attorney reviewers at BVA perform the same work as the non-attorneys reviewers.

and, essentially, the "judges" do the same thing as well, except they conduct hearings and of course they are the ones signing decisions. but its still file review.

You don’t seem to understand how many different agencies have a very similar set-up for administrative rulings with initial rulings made by specialists and appeals going to attorneys. Much of the law is file review, especially in administrative jobs in the federal government. The file is where the evidence is.

BVA files are extensive and the medical records are repetitive and depressing and the quota is a challenge for some. But the basics of admin law run across the fed gvt executive branch agencies.

Given the very high attrition rate and the general unhappiness of those who manage to remain employed there, I think the quota is challenging for most people, not just some.

I think the attrition rate is more a reflection on the character of people seeking out and obtaining a job at BVA. Only the most downtrodden attorney ever hears about these jobs, let alone applies. Typically someone leaves doc review (or $30k craplaw) for the BVA then emails the latest BVA opening to their former mouse clicker friends. You can't expect these sorts of vagabonds and riff raff to produce consistently.

go away troll

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does OPM allow these jobs to be classified as attorney positions to begin with? It’s claims reviewing. This work used to be done by paralegals. Did the work change, or did the agencies just decide they could hire faster using excepted attorney positions?

The work did not change. Even today, non-attorneys reviewers still review VA claims and make the initial decision as to whether to pay the claim. If a claimant is dissatisfied with the initial decision, he or she can appeal to BVA, where an attorney and judge will review it. The attorney reviewers at BVA perform the same work as the non-attorneys reviewers.

and, essentially, the "judges" do the same thing as well, except they conduct hearings and of course they are the ones signing decisions. but its still file review.

You don’t seem to understand how many different agencies have a very similar set-up for administrative rulings with initial rulings made by specialists and appeals going to attorneys. Much of the law is file review, especially in administrative jobs in the federal government. The file is where the evidence is.

BVA files are extensive and the medical records are repetitive and depressing and the quota is a challenge for some. But the basics of admin law run across the fed gvt executive branch agencies.

Given the very high attrition rate and the general unhappiness of those who manage to remain employed there, I think the quota is challenging for most people, not just some.

I think the attrition rate is more a reflection on the character of people seeking out and obtaining a job at BVA. Only the most downtrodden attorney ever hears about these jobs, let alone applies. Typically someone leaves doc review (or $30k craplaw) for the BVA then emails the latest BVA opening to their former mouse clicker friends. You can't expect these sorts of vagabonds and riff raff to produce consistently.

Vagabonds and riff raff? Umm... VA considers BVA attorneys to be essential workers - during the last shutdown, BVA attorneys worked the entire period.

[Anonymous]

What is the quota - how many decisions per day/month?
Job posting says not a virtual position - what are the chances of working from home?
Is the quota doable for an experienced atty (former big law)?
How many hours do most realistically have to work to meet quota?
I’m considering applying, currently with another agency on temp appt., had quotas the entire time.
My NTE will be ending soon. I’m sure I can get a “better” job, but I do not enjoy practicing law.
I’m simply looking for another Fed position (must allow telework) with a steady paycheck and health insurance.
How quickly do they start terminating ppl - one, three, six months?
If I know I’m not meeting my quota, I would just quit before being terminated.
And, are they always hiring the entire time the posting is listed, or do they hire a large number of ppl only after terminating current e/ees?
Trying to determine whether to apply after I exhaust my UI when my NTE ends?
Is it really THAT bad as some of the previous posts suggest?? Thanks in advance for your replies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the quota - how many decisions per day/month?
Job posting says not a virtual position - what are the chances of working from home?
Is the quota doable for an experienced atty (former big law)?
How many hours do most realistically have to work to meet quota?
I’m considering applying, currently with another agency on temp appt., had quotas the entire time.
My NTE will be ending soon. I’m sure I can get a “better” job, but I do not enjoy practicing law.
I’m simply looking for another Fed position (must allow telework) with a steady paycheck and health insurance.
How quickly do they start terminating ppl - one, three, six months?
If I know I’m not meeting my quota, I would just quit before being terminated.
And, are they always hiring the entire time the posting is listed, or do they hire a large number of ppl only after terminating current e/ees?
Trying to determine whether to apply after I exhaust my UI when my NTE ends?
Is it really THAT bad as some of the previous posts suggest?? Thanks in advance for your replies.

Read through the thread. you will find that the specifics of how much you will need to work will depend on you as an individual, your experience, and most importantly, your judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the quota - how many decisions per day/month?
Job posting says not a virtual position - what are the chances of working from home?
Is the quota doable for an experienced atty (former big law)?
How many hours do most realistically have to work to meet quota?
I’m considering applying, currently with another agency on temp appt., had quotas the entire time.
My NTE will be ending soon. I’m sure I can get a “better” job, but I do not enjoy practicing law.
I’m simply looking for another Fed position (must allow telework) with a steady paycheck and health insurance.
How quickly do they start terminating ppl - one, three, six months?
If I know I’m not meeting my quota, I would just quit before being terminated.
And, are they always hiring the entire time the posting is listed, or do they hire a large number of ppl only after terminating current e/ees?
Trying to determine whether to apply after I exhaust my UI when my NTE ends?
Is it really THAT bad as some of the previous posts suggest?? Thanks in advance for your replies.

Read through the thread. you will find that the specifics of how much you will need to work will depend on you as an individual, your experience, and most importantly, your judge.

+1

The attorney job at BVA is challenging for most attorneys due to the onerous quota. But, attorney experiences vary greatly depending on their judge. If you get assigned to a good natured judge who grants 95+ of claims (grants are very easy to write), you will have a decent time at BVA - the top producing attorneys at BVA are assigned to judges with very high grant rates. On the other hand, if you are assigned to a judge who has a bad temper and/or denies most claims, your experience at BVA will be rough - writing a denial takes much longer to write, but count the same as grants with regard to the quota. You will have no input as to who you are assigned to. Even if you like your judge, there is no guarantee you will remain with the same judge forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the quota - how many decisions per day/month?
Job posting says not a virtual position - what are the chances of working from home?
Is the quota doable for an experienced atty (former big law)?
How many hours do most realistically have to work to meet quota?
I’m considering applying, currently with another agency on temp appt., had quotas the entire time.
My NTE will be ending soon. I’m sure I can get a “better” job, but I do not enjoy practicing law.
I’m simply looking for another Fed position (must allow telework) with a steady paycheck and health insurance.
How quickly do they start terminating ppl - one, three, six months?
If I know I’m not meeting my quota, I would just quit before being terminated.
And, are they always hiring the entire time the posting is listed, or do they hire a large number of ppl only after terminating current e/ees?
Trying to determine whether to apply after I exhaust my UI when my NTE ends?
Is it really THAT bad as some of the previous posts suggest?? Thanks in advance for your replies.

3 a week
After your first 18 months or so.
no
40
at 6 months, if you aren't on track, you will know.

I worked at the Board and had no issues. I also had a cool judge. FEHB benefits and TSP matching are pretty good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the quota - how many decisions per day/month?
Job posting says not a virtual position - what are the chances of working from home?
Is the quota doable for an experienced atty (former big law)?
How many hours do most realistically have to work to meet quota?
I’m considering applying, currently with another agency on temp appt., had quotas the entire time.
My NTE will be ending soon. I’m sure I can get a “better” job, but I do not enjoy practicing law.
I’m simply looking for another Fed position (must allow telework) with a steady paycheck and health insurance.
How quickly do they start terminating ppl - one, three, six months?
If I know I’m not meeting my quota, I would just quit before being terminated.
And, are they always hiring the entire time the posting is listed, or do they hire a large number of ppl only after terminating current e/ees?
Trying to determine whether to apply after I exhaust my UI when my NTE ends?
Is it really THAT bad as some of the previous posts suggest?? Thanks in advance for your replies.

Read through the thread. you will find that the specifics of how much you will need to work will depend on you as an individual, your experience, and most importantly, your judge.

+2
How you interact with your judge will determine whether it's a terrible or wonderful experience. Some judges demand law-review quality work on every case, and there's no way you'll meet the quota with such a judge without investing 10-30 extra hours/week, unpaid of course.
On the other hand, some judges just want short and sweet decisions (denials as well as grants), and meeting quota in a 40-hour week is easy. It's really just luck of the draw. The problem is, management knows some judges are monsters, but they do absolutely nothing about them. A supervisor will NEVER back up an attorney over a judge, and supervisors really don't care if a judge is abusive. They'll just tell you to quit and make room for the next trainee. Judges are almost never fired and rarely, if ever, disciplined. Attorneys are completely at their mercy.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone have any expeirence as an attorney advisor at BVA appellate review - CAVC? How is it working there? Are the skill transferable/easier to leave?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the quota - how many decisions per day/month?
Job posting says not a virtual position - what are the chances of working from home?
Is the quota doable for an experienced atty (former big law)?
How many hours do most realistically have to work to meet quota?
I’m considering applying, currently with another agency on temp appt., had quotas the entire time.
My NTE will be ending soon. I’m sure I can get a “better” job, but I do not enjoy practicing law.
I’m simply looking for another Fed position (must allow telework) with a steady paycheck and health insurance.
How quickly do they start terminating ppl - one, three, six months?
If I know I’m not meeting my quota, I would just quit before being terminated.
And, are they always hiring the entire time the posting is listed, or do they hire a large number of ppl only after terminating current e/ees?
Trying to determine whether to apply after I exhaust my UI when my NTE ends?
Is it really THAT bad as some of the previous posts suggest?? Thanks in advance for your replies.

Read through the thread. you will find that the specifics of how much you will need to work will depend on you as an individual, your experience, and most importantly, your judge.

+1

The attorney job at BVA is challenging for most attorneys due to the onerous quota. But, attorney experiences vary greatly depending on their judge. If you get assigned to a good natured judge who grants 95+ of claims (grants are very easy to write), you will have a decent time at BVA - the top producing attorneys at BVA are assigned to judges with very high grant rates. On the other hand, if you are assigned to a judge who has a bad temper and/or denies most claims, your experience at BVA will be rough - writing a denial takes much longer to write, but count the same as grants with regard to the quota. You will have no input as to who you are assigned to. Even if you like your judge, there is no guarantee you will remain with the same judge forever.

True. it is my understanding that the Judges have very little say in who gets reassigned as well. They might be able to request that a particular attorney is not reassigned, but by no means is management required to follow that request. Judges are treated almost as poorly as the attorneys, except Judges can't be fired.

[Anonymous]

I just read the Stanford BVA study that one of you posted earlier. I was shocked to see the following on page 245:

"Of staff attorneys hired in 2001, 67% remained past 2005, 38% remained past 2010, and 29% remained past 2015."

Are other federal workplaces like this?

https://dho.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/Ho_HandanNader_Ames_Marcus.pdf

[Anonymous]

It IS shocking that such an untimely article still has the power to shock

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just read the Stanford BVA study that one of you posted earlier. I was shocked to see the following on page 245:

"Of staff attorneys hired in 2001, 67% remained past 2005, 38% remained past 2010, and 29% remained past 2015."

Are other federal workplaces like this?

https://dho.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/Ho_HandanNader_Ames_Marcus.pdf

Yes, the USCIS asylum division has 65% turnover year by year. Hundreds of officers being trained up only to leave within a year