Board of Veterans Appeals (Attorney Advisor)

[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

Go take a look at BVA decisions. Here's the link. Pick a random decision and read it. Would most agencies pay GS-14 money for that quality of work? I wouldn't, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. Heck, even BVA managers now realize that BVA attorneys don't perform GS-14 level work. Hence, the decision to downgrade the position to GS-13.

https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=bvadecisions&sort_by=&query=service

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm a former colleague and close friend of a BVA manager. I know BVA well from first hand experience.

[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.

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

Go take a look at BVA decisions. Here's the link. Pick a random decision and read it. Would most agencies pay GS-14 money for that quality of work? I wouldn't, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. Heck, even BVA managers now realize that BVA attorneys don't perform GS-14 level work. Hence, the decision to downgrade the position to GS-13.

https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=bvadecisions&sort_by=&query=service

This actually seems pretty good.

[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.

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

Go take a look at BVA decisions. Here's the link. Pick a random decision and read it. Would most agencies pay GS-14 money for that quality of work? I wouldn't, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. Heck, even BVA managers now realize that BVA attorneys don't perform GS-14 level work. Hence, the decision to downgrade the position to GS-13.

https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=bvadecisions&sort_by=&query=service

This actually seems pretty good.

Given that most BVA attorneys are former SSA attorneys, I'm inclined to think that you're comparing BVA decisions to SSA decisions. I agree that BVA decisions involve more legal analysis than SSA decisions. But, compared to other agencies, BVA decisions are much, much simpler to write.

Here's a well written BVA decision that contains significantly more analysis than the average BVA decision: https://www.va.gov/vetapp22/Files2/22008428.txt

Compare that to FLRA: https://www.flra.gov/node/79266

or

MSPB decisions: https://www.mspb.gov/decisions/nonprecedential/GRIGIONI_DEBRA_LYNN_PH_315H_16_0315_I_1_FINAL_ORDER_1916693.pdf

You'll see the difference. I certainly do, and I think BVA management made the right call to downgrade the BVA attorney position to GS-13. I hear some in BVA management want to downgrade the position even further to GS-12, but I don't support that move since BVA decision writers perform more complex work than SSA decision writers.

[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.

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

Go take a look at BVA decisions. Here's the link. Pick a random decision and read it. Would most agencies pay GS-14 money for that quality of work? I wouldn't, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. Heck, even BVA managers now realize that BVA attorneys don't perform GS-14 level work. Hence, the decision to downgrade the position to GS-13.

https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=bvadecisions&sort_by=&query=service

This actually seems pretty good.

Given that most BVA attorneys are former SSA attorneys, I'm inclined to think that you're comparing BVA decisions to SSA decisions. I agree that BVA decisions involve more legal analysis than SSA decisions. But, compared to other agencies, BVA decisions are much, much simpler to write.

Here's a well written BVA decision that contains significantly more analysis than the average BVA decision: https://www.va.gov/vetapp22/Files2/22008428.txt

Compare that to FLRA: https://www.flra.gov/node/79266

or

MSPB decisions: https://www.mspb.gov/decisions/nonprecedential/GRIGIONI_DEBRA_LYNN_PH_315H_16_0315_I_1_FINAL_ORDER_1916693.pdf

You'll see the difference. I certainly do, and I think BVA management made the right call to downgrade the BVA attorney position to GS-13. I hear some in BVA management want to downgrade the position even further to GS-12, but I don't support that move since BVA decision writers perform more complex work than SSA decision writers.

Also, I'm not criticizing BVA decision writers for writing decisions containing significant boilerplate language. I mean, it would be very difficult for most BVA decision writers to write three FLRA or MSPB level quality decisions a week. Like BVA management, I also don't see the need for detailed legal analysis given that the BVA decisions have absolutely no nonprecedential value and the process is non-adversarial in nature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm a former colleague and close friend of a BVA manager. I know BVA well from first hand experience.

Okay. So, if what you are saying is correct, then for years and years, this position was career ladder to 14 and then last year they suddenly decided to downgrade the position because they determined that BVA decisions weren't high quality? What changed? That makes absolutely no sense. What is more likely is that they figured out the supply/demand market for attorneys was in their favor and they could hire more attorneys and pay them less with the same pool of money, and that more attorneys = more decisions.

[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.

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

Go take a look at BVA decisions. Here's the link. Pick a random decision and read it. Would most agencies pay GS-14 money for that quality of work? I wouldn't, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. Heck, even BVA managers now realize that BVA attorneys don't perform GS-14 level work. Hence, the decision to downgrade the position to GS-13.

https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=bvadecisions&sort_by=&query=service

This actually seems pretty good.

Given that most BVA attorneys are former SSA attorneys, I'm inclined to think that you're comparing BVA decisions to SSA decisions. I agree that BVA decisions involve more legal analysis than SSA decisions. But, compared to other agencies, BVA decisions are much, much simpler to write.

Here's a well written BVA decision that contains significantly more analysis than the average BVA decision: https://www.va.gov/vetapp22/Files2/22008428.txt

Compare that to FLRA: https://www.flra.gov/node/79266

or

MSPB decisions: https://www.mspb.gov/decisions/nonprecedential/GRIGIONI_DEBRA_LYNN_PH_315H_16_0315_I_1_FINAL_ORDER_1916693.pdf

You'll see the difference. I certainly do, and I think BVA management made the right call to downgrade the BVA attorney position to GS-13. I hear some in BVA management want to downgrade the position even further to GS-12, but I don't support that move since BVA decision writers perform more complex work than SSA decision writers.

I do not think it’s true that most BVA attorneys are former SSA attorneys. Some are. But I doubt most are. How is that relevant?

Also, how many decisions per week do these supposedly higher quality writers have to pump out. Are they also supposed
To do de novo review of thousands of documents in each case?

[Anonymous]

Also, how many decisions per week do these supposedly higher quality writers have to pump out. Are they also supposed
To do de novo review of thousands of documents in each case?

I used to work at the MSPB as a decision writer. If I recall correctly, to get a good rating that would allow 3 days per week of telework, you need to do about one decision a week. Some take far less than that, some take far more. For the most part, it was not de novo review. However, we were supposed to look through the entire paper record, including any transcripts. If there was a hearing CD, we were not expected to listen to the entire thing, just relevant parts.

It wasn't an especially easy job to meet the production quota - some of the cases involved complicated issues and multiple affirmative defenses. Some of the issues (whistleblowing claims, affirmative defenses of discrimination) could get tricky.

No idea how BVA decisions compare. To be honest, I realized that any job that was 100 percent decision writing was not right for me, and moved on to do something that involved more interaction with clients and outside parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Also, how many decisions per week do these supposedly higher quality writers have to pump out. Are they also supposed
To do de novo review of thousands of documents in each case?

I used to work at the MSPB as a decision writer. If I recall correctly, to get a good rating that would allow 3 days per week of telework, you need to do about one decision a week. Some take far less than that, some take far more. For the most part, it was not de novo review. However, we were supposed to look through the entire paper record, including any transcripts. If there was a hearing CD, we were not expected to listen to the entire thing, just relevant parts.

It wasn't an especially easy job to meet the production quota - some of the cases involved complicated issues and multiple affirmative defenses. Some of the issues (whistleblowing claims, affirmative defenses of discrimination) could get tricky.

No idea how BVA decisions compare. To be honest, I realized that any job that was 100 percent decision writing was not right for me, and moved on to do something that involved more interaction with clients and outside parties.

Okay, so the management sympathizer above was comparing apples and oranges. not surprising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm a former colleague and close friend of a BVA manager. I know BVA well from first hand experience.

Okay. So, if what you are saying is correct, then for years and years, this position was career ladder to 14 and then last year they suddenly decided to downgrade the position because they determined that BVA decisions weren't high quality? What changed? That makes absolutely no sense. What is more likely is that they figured out the supply/demand market for attorneys was in their favor and they could hire more attorneys and pay them less with the same pool of money, and that more attorneys = more decisions.

In the last year or so, BVA added several upper level managers who came from other agencies and had no prior BVA or VA experience. From what I hear, these new managers pushed to downgrade the BVA position to GS-13 to reflect the boilerplate nature of BVA decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also, how many decisions per week do these supposedly higher quality writers have to pump out. Are they also supposed
To do de novo review of thousands of documents in each case?

I used to work at the MSPB as a decision writer. If I recall correctly, to get a good rating that would allow 3 days per week of telework, you need to do about one decision a week. Some take far less than that, some take far more. For the most part, it was not de novo review. However, we were supposed to look through the entire paper record, including any transcripts. If there was a hearing CD, we were not expected to listen to the entire thing, just relevant parts.

It wasn't an especially easy job to meet the production quota - some of the cases involved complicated issues and multiple affirmative defenses. Some of the issues (whistleblowing claims, affirmative defenses of discrimination) could get tricky.

No idea how BVA decisions compare. To be honest, I realized that any job that was 100 percent decision writing was not right for me, and moved on to do something that involved more interaction with clients and outside parties.

Okay, so the management sympathizer above was comparing apples and oranges. not surprising.

Well, to be honest, comparing BVA decisions to MSPB decisions is like comparing apples and oranges. Just take a look at BVA and MSPB decisions and you’ll see the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Go take a look at BVA decisions. Here's the link. Pick a random decision and read it. Would most agencies pay GS-14 money for that quality of work? I wouldn't, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. Heck, even BVA managers now realize that BVA attorneys don't perform GS-14 level work. Hence, the decision to downgrade the position to GS-13.

https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=bvadecisions&sort_by=&query=service

This actually seems pretty good.

Given that most BVA attorneys are former SSA attorneys, I'm inclined to think that you're comparing BVA decisions to SSA decisions. I agree that BVA decisions involve more legal analysis than SSA decisions. But, compared to other agencies, BVA decisions are much, much simpler to write.

Here's a well written BVA decision that contains significantly more analysis than the average BVA decision: https://www.va.gov/vetapp22/Files2/22008428.txt

Compare that to FLRA: https://www.flra.gov/node/79266

or

MSPB decisions: https://www.mspb.gov/decisions/nonprecedential/GRIGIONI_DEBRA_LYNN_PH_315H_16_0315_I_1_FINAL_ORDER_1916693.pdf

You'll see the difference. I certainly do, and I think BVA management made the right call to downgrade the BVA attorney position to GS-13. I hear some in BVA management want to downgrade the position even further to GS-12, but I don't support that move since BVA decision writers perform more complex work than SSA decision writers.

I do not think it’s true that most BVA attorneys are former SSA attorneys. Some are. But I doubt most are. How is that relevant?

Also, how many decisions per week do these supposedly higher quality writers have to pump out. Are they also supposed
To do de novo review of thousands of documents in each case?

Agencies that want high quality decisions don't require their decision writers to review thousands of documents and write a decision every 8 to 10 hours. Cheryl (BVA Chairwoman) has repeatedly told Congress that her attorneys can do just that. See Cheryl's Testimony to Congress describing "Day in the life of a BVA attorney." No wonder the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims finds significant legal and factual errors in nearly 80 percent of BVA decisions. See Stanford Study at 241. That's a huge remand rate.

Cheryl's Testimony to Congress: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=AACgoVzBKKg&feature=emb_logo (starts at 1:43:17)

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Go take a look at BVA decisions. Here's the link. Pick a random decision and read it. Would most agencies pay GS-14 money for that quality of work? I wouldn't, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. Heck, even BVA managers now realize that BVA attorneys don't perform GS-14 level work. Hence, the decision to downgrade the position to GS-13.

https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=bvadecisions&sort_by=&query=service

This actually seems pretty good.

Given that most BVA attorneys are former SSA attorneys, I'm inclined to think that you're comparing BVA decisions to SSA decisions. I agree that BVA decisions involve more legal analysis than SSA decisions. But, compared to other agencies, BVA decisions are much, much simpler to write.

Here's a well written BVA decision that contains significantly more analysis than the average BVA decision: https://www.va.gov/vetapp22/Files2/22008428.txt

Compare that to FLRA: https://www.flra.gov/node/79266

or

MSPB decisions: https://www.mspb.gov/decisions/nonprecedential/GRIGIONI_DEBRA_LYNN_PH_315H_16_0315_I_1_FINAL_ORDER_1916693.pdf

You'll see the difference. I certainly do, and I think BVA management made the right call to downgrade the BVA attorney position to GS-13. I hear some in BVA management want to downgrade the position even further to GS-12, but I don't support that move since BVA decision writers perform more complex work than SSA decision writers.

I do not think it’s true that most BVA attorneys are former SSA attorneys. Some are. But I doubt most are. How is that relevant?

Also, how many decisions per week do these supposedly higher quality writers have to pump out. Are they also supposed
To do de novo review of thousands of documents in each case?

Agencies that want high quality decisions don't require their decision writers to review thousands of documents and write a decision every 8 to 10 hours. Cheryl (BVA Chairwoman) has repeatedly told Congress that her attorneys can do just that. See Cheryl's Testimony to Congress describing "Day in the life of a BVA attorney." No wonder the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims finds significant legal and factual errors in nearly 80 percent of BVA decisions. See Stanford Study at 241. That's a huge remand rate.

Cheryl's Testimony to Congress: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=AACgoVzBKKg&feature=emb_logo (starts at 1:43:17)

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

How much do private attorneys make in a successful appeal at CAVC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How much do private attorneys make in a successful appeal at CAVC?

You can go on the CAVC website and look at the Application for EAJA Fees in cases that are closed (or almost closed) and get a good sense.

In most cases, the VA agrees to remand at the Rule 33 conference. As a very rough rule, in my experience, those are worth around 5k. Cases that are fully briefed around 10k, but can be quite a bit more in particularly complicated cases or cases that involve ridiculously long RBAs.

If you can get a steady flow of good cases, this is easy money. As with any business you start, getting business is the hardest part for most people.

[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.

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?

See… this is why this whole thread is useless - you just don’t know very much. Do your homework. Network. Figure it out yourself