The GAO Report Seems So Inadequate

The report of the Government Accountability Office on withholding of fees for non-attorneys who represent Social Security claimants and in SSI cases was issued last week. The report was more than three years in the making. One would think that after this length of time that the report would be exhaustive. However, the report is only 55 pages long and does not report information on the following topics that I would have expected to be covered:

• Success rates of attorneys versus non-attorney representatives. The report says that Social Security cannot give meaningful data on this. I do not understand since Social Security has reported such data in the past. It is not that I was expecting dramatic differences. Older data showed only minor differences, but this is an important point and should have been covered if at all possible.
  
• Disciplinary actions against attorney versus non-attorney representatives. It should have been possible to contrast the gross number of such actions against attorneys as opposed to non-attorneys. I think there should have been a discussion of the problems that Social Security has in regulating the conduct of both attorneys and non-attorneys. The effect of this shortcoming is lessened for attorneys because of the regulation provided by state bar licensing agencies. There is no comparable agency for non-attorney representatives. If non-attorney representatives are to become a major part of Social Security representation, some better mechanism for regulating the conduct of non-attorney representatives is needed. There are significant issues regarding conflicts of interest since some non-attorney representatives have simultaneously worked as contractors for the Social Security Administration. At least one non-attorney group has offered "finder fees" to those referring clients to them, including physicians, a practice forbidden to attorneys. A large set of rules govern attorney conduct. These rules exist to serve to protect the public. The public may need similar protection when non-attorneys take on functions historically reserved for the legal profession.
  
• The sufficiency of the non-attorney examination. The report discusses the adequacy of the experience requirement for non-attorney withholding, but does not discuss the adequacy of the examination itself. Somehow, an exam consisting of 50 multiple choice questions does not seem like quite enough to me. My understanding is that a fair number of those who have taken the exam thought the same thing.