ALJs And CLE

Here is the text of a letter posted on the ALJ Improvement Board concerning the problem that many of Social Security's Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) have with meeting a recent requirement of the Office of Personnel Management that they maintain active bar membership. Many of the ALJs have not been taking enough Continuing Legal Education (CLE) courses to meet the requirements necessary to keep their bar membership current:

ASSOCIATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES, INC.
Henry Reuss Federal Plaza, Suite 880
310 W. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, Wl 53203

April 23, 2007

The Honorable Frank Cristaudo
Chief Judge
Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
Social Security Administration
One Skyline Tower, Suite 1500
5107 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041-3255

Re: OPM Final Rule Regarding Bar Status of Administrative Law Judges

Dear Chief Judge Cristaudo:

Effective April 19, 2007, Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") issued a Final Rule that requires active state bar membership as a qualification for service by incumbent Administrative Law Judges. Although we have had discussions with OPM regarding our objections to the Final Rule, and we have instituted a legal challenge to the Final Rule, there are several practical questions regarding the implementation of the Final Rule.

As you may be aware, there are a significant number of SSA Administrative Law Judges who are not currently compliant with the active state bar membership requirement. OPM has taken the position that these Administrative Law Judges are not qualified to serve as Administrative Law Judges because they fail to meet a continuing requirement of their position. As to those affected Administrative Law Judges, we would like guidance regarding:

• whether they are obligated to advise the claimants in their pending cases that they do not meet a continuing requirement for their position under the Final Rule;

• whether they must cease scheduling cases until they can come into compliance with the Final Rules' requirements;

• whether they are required to cease the adjudicatory process on cases pending before them, i.e. decision making processes; and

• whether they have to take any action to notify claimants in cases where a decision has been rendered, whether on appeal or not, that they did not meet a continuing requirement for their position under the Final Rule when they issued their decision?

We raised these issues with OPM in our informal discussions, but OPM directed us to raise these concerns with the individual agencies. As you know, there is a substantial backlog of cases at the Social Security Administration. We hope that your response to this inquiry will help alleviate any possible disruptions to the adjudication process caused by the issuance of the Final Rule

In view of the importance of the issue, I trust that you will give this matter your attention and respond to this inquiry as soon as possible.

Sincerely,


Ronald G. Bernoski
President