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?