Board of Veterans Appeals (Attorney Advisor)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have an interview with the BVA for this position. After reading this, I don't know if I even want to interview for the position. It all makes me nervous. I have pretty extensive litigation experience, and I love being in court. I left my previous job due to intolerable work conditions. I can't work in another hostile, toxic work environment. Yeesh.

former litigator here. If you said you hated litigation I would say BVA might be good for you. If you loved litigation, but not your particular office, then you need to find another office somewhere and keep litigating. You will be bored at BVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have an interview with the BVA for this position. After reading this, I don't know if I even want to interview for the position. It all makes me nervous. I have pretty extensive litigation experience, and I love being in court. I left my previous job due to intolerable work conditions. I can't work in another hostile, toxic work environment. Yeesh.

Then no matter what the work environment, a BVA position is not for you. Keep looking.

If you like litigation, maybe OGC at the VA is more suitable for you. You’ll never be in court at BVA.

VA OGC might be more suitable, but it’s not a bed of roses either. The rot goes all the way to the top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an interview with the BVA for this position. After reading this, I don't know if I even want to interview for the position. It all makes me nervous. I have pretty extensive litigation experience, and I love being in court. I left my previous job due to intolerable work conditions. I can't work in another hostile, toxic work environment. Yeesh.

former litigator here. If you said you hated litigation I would say BVA might be good for you. If you loved litigation, but not your particular office, then you need to find another office somewhere and keep litigating. You will be bored at BVA.

There are many non-litigation attorney positions in the federal government. BVA is only one option; however, it’s not a good place to keep your attorney skills sharp because as the other poster stated, much of the work at BVA is copying and pasting text into decisions. Moreover, BVA recently downgraded the max promotion level for BVA attorneys from GS-14 to GS-13 to reflect the boilerplate nature of the work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have an interview with the BVA for this position. After reading this, I don't know if I even want to interview for the position. It all makes me nervous. I have pretty extensive litigation experience, and I love being in court. I left my previous job due to intolerable work conditions. I can't work in another hostile, toxic work environment. Yeesh.

Then no matter what the work environment, a BVA position is not for you. Keep looking.

If you like litigation, maybe OGC at the VA is more suitable for you. You’ll never be in court at BVA.

VA OGC might be more suitable, but it’s not a bed of roses either. The rot goes all the way to the top.

Keep looking. VA OGC isn't the place if you really liked litigation. Your skills will deteriorate and you will learn some very esoteric things about Veterans law, which is great, but its not applicable anywhere outside of Veterans law. Unless you truly hate litigation, you're much better off finding another opportunity and building your skills, becoming a more well rounded attorney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an interview with the BVA for this position. After reading this, I don't know if I even want to interview for the position. It all makes me nervous. I have pretty extensive litigation experience, and I love being in court. I left my previous job due to intolerable work conditions. I can't work in another hostile, toxic work environment. Yeesh.

former litigator here. If you said you hated litigation I would say BVA might be good for you. If you loved litigation, but not your particular office, then you need to find another office somewhere and keep litigating. You will be bored at BVA.

There are many non-litigation attorney positions in the federal government. BVA is only one option; however, it’s not a good place to keep your attorney skills sharp because as the other poster stated, much of the work at BVA is copying and pasting text into decisions. Moreover, BVA recently downgraded the max promotion level for BVA attorneys from GS-14 to GS-13 to reflect the boilerplate nature of the work.

I wish you would stop with this "reflecting the boilerplate nature of work" nonsnese. You're either clueless or arrogant, or both, but you're not telling the truth. The downgrading reflects management's hostility toward the attorneys, and their desire to hire more people with less money to churn out more decisions. It doesn't mean the work got any easier. There are still very complex and ridiculously impossible cases, management just wants you to do more with less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an interview with the BVA for this position. After reading this, I don't know if I even want to interview for the position. It all makes me nervous. I have pretty extensive litigation experience, and I love being in court. I left my previous job due to intolerable work conditions. I can't work in another hostile, toxic work environment. Yeesh.

former litigator here. If you said you hated litigation I would say BVA might be good for you. If you loved litigation, but not your particular office, then you need to find another office somewhere and keep litigating. You will be bored at BVA.

There are many non-litigation attorney positions in the federal government. BVA is only one option; however, it’s not a good place to keep your attorney skills sharp because as the other poster stated, much of the work at BVA is copying and pasting text into decisions. Moreover, BVA recently downgraded the max promotion level for BVA attorneys from GS-14 to GS-13 to reflect the boilerplate nature of the work.

I wish you would stop with this "reflecting the boilerplate nature of work" nonsnese. You're either clueless or arrogant, or both, but you're not telling the truth. The downgrading reflects management's hostility toward the attorneys, and their desire to hire more people with less money to churn out more decisions. It doesn't mean the work got any easier. There are still very complex and ridiculously impossible cases, management just wants you to do more with less.

Weren't you the one who, on April 14 of this month, wrote, "It was a dumb test - I can’t imagine it provided useful information. Timed test and you couldn’t cut and paste - most of the job is cut and paste, so it was pretty unrealistic. Probably unwieldy, too?" How come you're allowed to characterized the BVA attorney position as boilerplate/cut and paste, but no one else is allowed to say the same thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an interview with the BVA for this position. After reading this, I don't know if I even want to interview for the position. It all makes me nervous. I have pretty extensive litigation experience, and I love being in court. I left my previous job due to intolerable work conditions. I can't work in another hostile, toxic work environment. Yeesh.

former litigator here. If you said you hated litigation I would say BVA might be good for you. If you loved litigation, but not your particular office, then you need to find another office somewhere and keep litigating. You will be bored at BVA.

There are many non-litigation attorney positions in the federal government. BVA is only one option; however, it’s not a good place to keep your attorney skills sharp because as the other poster stated, much of the work at BVA is copying and pasting text into decisions. Moreover, BVA recently downgraded the max promotion level for BVA attorneys from GS-14 to GS-13 to reflect the boilerplate nature of the work.

I wish you would stop with this "reflecting the boilerplate nature of work" nonsnese. You're either clueless or arrogant, or both, but you're not telling the truth. The downgrading reflects management's hostility toward the attorneys, and their desire to hire more people with less money to churn out more decisions. It doesn't mean the work got any easier. There are still very complex and ridiculously impossible cases, management just wants you to do more with less.

Weren't you the one who, on April 14 of this month, wrote, "It was a dumb test - I can’t imagine it provided useful information. Timed test and you couldn’t cut and paste - most of the job is cut and paste, so it was pretty unrealistic. Probably unwieldy, too?" How come you're allowed to characterized the BVA attorney position as boilerplate/cut and paste, but no one else is allowed to say the same thing?

no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an interview with the BVA for this position. After reading this, I don't know if I even want to interview for the position. It all makes me nervous. I have pretty extensive litigation experience, and I love being in court. I left my previous job due to intolerable work conditions. I can't work in another hostile, toxic work environment. Yeesh.

former litigator here. If you said you hated litigation I would say BVA might be good for you. If you loved litigation, but not your particular office, then you need to find another office somewhere and keep litigating. You will be bored at BVA.

There are many non-litigation attorney positions in the federal government. BVA is only one option; however, it’s not a good place to keep your attorney skills sharp because as the other poster stated, much of the work at BVA is copying and pasting text into decisions. Moreover, BVA recently downgraded the max promotion level for BVA attorneys from GS-14 to GS-13 to reflect the boilerplate nature of the work.

I wish you would stop with this "reflecting the boilerplate nature of work" nonsnese. You're either clueless or arrogant, or both, but you're not telling the truth. The downgrading reflects management's hostility toward the attorneys, and their desire to hire more people with less money to churn out more decisions. It doesn't mean the work got any easier. There are still very complex and ridiculously impossible cases, management just wants you to do more with less.

Weren't you the one who, on April 14 of this month, wrote, "It was a dumb test - I can’t imagine it provided useful information. Timed test and you couldn’t cut and paste - most of the job is cut and paste, so it was pretty unrealistic. Probably unwieldy, too?" How come you're allowed to characterized the BVA attorney position as boilerplate/cut and paste, but no one else is allowed to say the same thing?

Cut and paste boilerplate is not exclusive to BVA nor to administrative decision writers. It is a way to ensure uniformity and is present through much of the law.

Just because there is a lot of boilerplate in ANY job does not mean there is not a lot of additional writing to be done and complex legal analysis.

Are ya’ll 1Ls for something? You seem to have no clue. And the troll bashes no matter what anyone says, but people, use your brains and stop trying to dramatically construe everything as meaning that BVA is the worst place to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an interview with the BVA for this position. After reading this, I don't know if I even want to interview for the position. It all makes me nervous. I have pretty extensive litigation experience, and I love being in court. I left my previous job due to intolerable work conditions. I can't work in another hostile, toxic work environment. Yeesh.

Why would you leave a litigation position to go to the BVA? I mean, you have experience that many BVA attorneys could only dream of, i.e., litigation experience. I suggest getting a job that will put your litigation skills to good use. Luckily, the federal government has many litigation positions.

Oh, troll, you and your litigation thirst. NO, not everyone wants to litigate.

Though not sure why PP litigator would go to BVA - it is obviously not a litigation job. But PP is probably a troll, too. I’m a litigator but I’m SCARED of a BVA interview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an interview with the BVA for this position. After reading this, I don't know if I even want to interview for the position. It all makes me nervous. I have pretty extensive litigation experience, and I love being in court. I left my previous job due to intolerable work conditions. I can't work in another hostile, toxic work environment. Yeesh.

former litigator here. If you said you hated litigation I would say BVA might be good for you. If you loved litigation, but not your particular office, then you need to find another office somewhere and keep litigating. You will be bored at BVA.

There are many non-litigation attorney positions in the federal government. BVA is only one option; however, it’s not a good place to keep your attorney skills sharp because as the other poster stated, much of the work at BVA is copying and pasting text into decisions. Moreover, BVA recently downgraded the max promotion level for BVA attorneys from GS-14 to GS-13 to reflect the boilerplate nature of the work.

LOL. You know there are cut and paste decision writers at GS-15 positions in other agencies, don’t you???? Opps, you obvi don’t

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an interview with the BVA for this position. After reading this, I don't know if I even want to interview for the position. It all makes me nervous. I have pretty extensive litigation experience, and I love being in court. I left my previous job due to intolerable work conditions. I can't work in another hostile, toxic work environment. Yeesh.

former litigator here. If you said you hated litigation I would say BVA might be good for you. If you loved litigation, but not your particular office, then you need to find another office somewhere and keep litigating. You will be bored at BVA.

There are many non-litigation attorney positions in the federal government. BVA is only one option; however, it’s not a good place to keep your attorney skills sharp because as the other poster stated, much of the work at BVA is copying and pasting text into decisions. Moreover, BVA recently downgraded the max promotion level for BVA attorneys from GS-14 to GS-13 to reflect the boilerplate nature of the work.

I wish you would stop with this "reflecting the boilerplate nature of work" nonsnese. You're either clueless or arrogant, or both, but you're not telling the truth. The downgrading reflects management's hostility toward the attorneys, and their desire to hire more people with less money to churn out more decisions. It doesn't mean the work got any easier. There are still very complex and ridiculously impossible cases, management just wants you to do more with less.

So much drama - there is much more involved in grading positions and lot of OPM rules that apply

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an interview with the BVA for this position. After reading this, I don't know if I even want to interview for the position. It all makes me nervous. I have pretty extensive litigation experience, and I love being in court. I left my previous job due to intolerable work conditions. I can't work in another hostile, toxic work environment. Yeesh.

former litigator here. If you said you hated litigation I would say BVA might be good for you. If you loved litigation, but not your particular office, then you need to find another office somewhere and keep litigating. You will be bored at BVA.

There are many non-litigation attorney positions in the federal government. BVA is only one option; however, it’s not a good place to keep your attorney skills sharp because as the other poster stated, much of the work at BVA is copying and pasting text into decisions. Moreover, BVA recently downgraded the max promotion level for BVA attorneys from GS-14 to GS-13 to reflect the boilerplate nature of the work.

I wish you would stop with this "reflecting the boilerplate nature of work" nonsnese. You're either clueless or arrogant, or both, but you're not telling the truth. The downgrading reflects management's hostility toward the attorneys, and their desire to hire more people with less money to churn out more decisions. It doesn't mean the work got any easier. There are still very complex and ridiculously impossible cases, management just wants you to do more with less.

So much drama - there is much more involved in grading positions and lot of OPM rules that apply

Maybe so. But if you knew what happened at the Board you would know why they downgraded the position. It had nothing to do with OPM rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an interview with the BVA for this position. After reading this, I don't know if I even want to interview for the position. It all makes me nervous. I have pretty extensive litigation experience, and I love being in court. I left my previous job due to intolerable work conditions. I can't work in another hostile, toxic work environment. Yeesh.

former litigator here. If you said you hated litigation I would say BVA might be good for you. If you loved litigation, but not your particular office, then you need to find another office somewhere and keep litigating. You will be bored at BVA.

There are many non-litigation attorney positions in the federal government. BVA is only one option; however, it’s not a good place to keep your attorney skills sharp because as the other poster stated, much of the work at BVA is copying and pasting text into decisions. Moreover, BVA recently downgraded the max promotion level for BVA attorneys from GS-14 to GS-13 to reflect the boilerplate nature of the work.

LOL. You know there are cut and paste decision writers at GS-15 positions in other agencies, don’t you???? Opps, you obvi don’t

Where are the GS 15 decision writing positions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an interview with the BVA for this position. After reading this, I don't know if I even want to interview for the position. It all makes me nervous. I have pretty extensive litigation experience, and I love being in court. I left my previous job due to intolerable work conditions. I can't work in another hostile, toxic work environment. Yeesh.

former litigator here. If you said you hated litigation I would say BVA might be good for you. If you loved litigation, but not your particular office, then you need to find another office somewhere and keep litigating. You will be bored at BVA.

There are many non-litigation attorney positions in the federal government. BVA is only one option; however, it’s not a good place to keep your attorney skills sharp because as the other poster stated, much of the work at BVA is copying and pasting text into decisions. Moreover, BVA recently downgraded the max promotion level for BVA attorneys from GS-14 to GS-13 to reflect the boilerplate nature of the work.

I wish you would stop with this "reflecting the boilerplate nature of work" nonsnese. You're either clueless or arrogant, or both, but you're not telling the truth. The downgrading reflects management's hostility toward the attorneys, and their desire to hire more people with less money to churn out more decisions. It doesn't mean the work got any easier. There are still very complex and ridiculously impossible cases, management just wants you to do more with less.

Weren't you the one who, on April 14 of this month, wrote, "It was a dumb test - I can’t imagine it provided useful information. Timed test and you couldn’t cut and paste - most of the job is cut and paste, so it was pretty unrealistic. Probably unwieldy, too?" How come you're allowed to characterized the BVA attorney position as boilerplate/cut and paste, but no one else is allowed to say the same thing?

Cut and paste boilerplate is not exclusive to BVA nor to administrative decision writers. It is a way to ensure uniformity and is present through much of the law.

Just because there is a lot of boilerplate in ANY job does not mean there is not a lot of additional writing to be done and complex legal analysis.

Are ya’ll 1Ls for something? You seem to have no clue. And the troll bashes no matter what anyone says, but people, use your brains and stop trying to dramatically construe everything as meaning that BVA is the worst place to work.

You're referring to boilerplate statements of the law. While BVA and other agencies use boilerplate statements of the law, BVA decisions routinely use boilerplate analyses in most decisions. Please don't compare BVA decisions to SEC or FLRA decisions There's simply no comparison in terms of the quality of analysis. That difference is reflected in management's decision to downgrade the BVA attorney position from GS-14 to GS-13.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an interview with the BVA for this position. After reading this, I don't know if I even want to interview for the position. It all makes me nervous. I have pretty extensive litigation experience, and I love being in court. I left my previous job due to intolerable work conditions. I can't work in another hostile, toxic work environment. Yeesh.

former litigator here. If you said you hated litigation I would say BVA might be good for you. If you loved litigation, but not your particular office, then you need to find another office somewhere and keep litigating. You will be bored at BVA.

There are many non-litigation attorney positions in the federal government. BVA is only one option; however, it’s not a good place to keep your attorney skills sharp because as the other poster stated, much of the work at BVA is copying and pasting text into decisions. Moreover, BVA recently downgraded the max promotion level for BVA attorneys from GS-14 to GS-13 to reflect the boilerplate nature of the work.

I wish you would stop with this "reflecting the boilerplate nature of work" nonsnese. You're either clueless or arrogant, or both, but you're not telling the truth. The downgrading reflects management's hostility toward the attorneys, and their desire to hire more people with less money to churn out more decisions. It doesn't mean the work got any easier. There are still very complex and ridiculously impossible cases, management just wants you to do more with less.

Weren't you the one who, on April 14 of this month, wrote, "It was a dumb test - I can’t imagine it provided useful information. Timed test and you couldn’t cut and paste - most of the job is cut and paste, so it was pretty unrealistic. Probably unwieldy, too?" How come you're allowed to characterized the BVA attorney position as boilerplate/cut and paste, but no one else is allowed to say the same thing?

Cut and paste boilerplate is not exclusive to BVA nor to administrative decision writers. It is a way to ensure uniformity and is present through much of the law.

Just because there is a lot of boilerplate in ANY job does not mean there is not a lot of additional writing to be done and complex legal analysis.

Are ya’ll 1Ls for something? You seem to have no clue. And the troll bashes no matter what anyone says, but people, use your brains and stop trying to dramatically construe everything as meaning that BVA is the worst place to work.

You're referring to boilerplate statements of the law. While BVA and other agencies use boilerplate statements of the law, BVA decisions routinely use boilerplate analyses in most decisions. Please don't compare BVA decisions to SEC or FLRA decisions There's simply no comparison in terms of the quality of analysis. That difference is reflected in management's decision to downgrade the BVA attorney position from GS-14 to GS-13.

were you in the room when the decision was made to downgrade the position?