Reply to Board of Veterans Appeals (Attorney Advisor)

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "Board of Veterans Appeals (Attorney Advisor)"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Is it possible part of the reason for BvA issues is the quality of lawyers they have is low? Let’s be honest. This sounds like the worst job in the world . It’s either doc review or this. Seems like your talent pool will be limited [/quote]

Yes, the quality of attorneys at the Board of Veterans’ Appeal is very poor. However, the toxic work environment at the Board makes it very difficult to attract top notch attorneys. Unfortunately, the attorneys who join the Board are generally bottom of the barrel and join because the Board is the only place where they can call themselves an “attorney.”[/quote]

It runs the gamut I think.  There are certainly some who are awful but there are many who very smart people, but maybe they don't want to work in a firm or don't fit in a traditional law firm environment. Remember, before the pandemic, this was one of the few jobs where you could be almost 100 percent remote.  It is not accurate to say that the attorneys are bottom of the barrel.  [/quote]

What do you consider "bottom of the barrel" in the legal profession? Doc review? Many BVA attorneys are former doc reviewers. Just look at Linkedin.[/quote]

Sure.  And some went to very highly ranked schools and are very smart.  I think there are close to a thousand attorneys employed by the Board.  [/quote]

I have no doubt that some Board attorneys graduated from very highly ranked schools. But, going to a highly ranked school doesn't guarantee good outcomes. Sure, not all Board attorneys are bottom of the barrel, just like not all Harvard law graduates are top notch attorneys. But, if you randomly point out to an attorney at the Board, there's a very high chance that he or she came from doc review and/or graduated from a third or fourth tier law school. You know this.

If the job attracts high caliber attorney candidates who aren't bottom of the barrel, why does the Board require all attorney applicants to take a basic writing/literacy test? That's not a hallmark of quality in my book.[/quote]

It doesn't really matter. The style/type of writing doesn't require a stellar attorney. Many join the board or other fed agencies for the benefits. The board can be flexible with taking leave and also has baby leave for parents. I left the board to take a different job close to where I lived (not legal related), but when I was there it was okay. I was full remote. As long as you get your work done, you are fine. Granted, I got along with my judge. Many attorneys that start there, it is their first job. They have no clue what its like to work for a maniac in private practice. Its not like you don't get shit on at a firm by a partner or face the same issues. The pay may be more at a firm, but your life also sucks. Outside of landing your dream legal gig, you are likely not going to like the day to day bullshit. Nothing different at the Board.

The test applicants take is designed to se if you can get a document finished in a limited amount of time. You would be surprised how many new decision writers cant finish an easy case in a day. In a higher cost of living city, you are making 100k in 2 years as GS-13 full remote with decent leave and sick time. Sure you can go work at a firm and make more. But you have to factor in traffic, clothes, court, etc. Many of my friends from law school make more and are miserable...and dont have leave and other benefits. The job isn't for everyone and it is clear after a year.

[/quote]

While Board attorneys don't need to be excellent writers, they do need to be able to write coherent paragraphs and understand subject/verb agreement. Management specifically implemented the writing test because a large percentage of new attorney hires were unable to write coherently. Remember, the purpose of the writing test isn't just to see whether "you can get a document finished in a limited amount of time." It is to see whether you can write coherently. I've never encountered a legal job that requires a basic writing/literacy test like the Board. At most firms, attorneys are presumed to be literate, whereas at the Board, attorneys must prove their ability to read and write. Terrible management isn't unique to the Board. But, I wonder whether the quality of new hires at the Board exacerbates tensions. [/quote]

Plenty of firms want a writing sample. Not really a huge difference. I applied to a firm ages ago that made everyone take the wonderlic. I heard the board has been hiring people with more legal experience.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics