This is a slightly edited version of an e-mail I recently from another attorney who represents Social Security claimants. He was asking for advice on what to do:
I was original attorney, another attorney in my office covered hearing for me. We filed new fee agreement and forms 1695 and 1696. My staff didn’t withdraw my name and waive fee. In any event, the Administrative Law Judge approved the fee agreement. Social Security issued 2 fee checks -- one for me and one for the other attorney in my office (split down the middle). This was back in January. I get a letter today from the Regional Chief Judge, stating that the processing center protested the fee agreement because one or more reps from the same office did not sign a single fee agreement. They cited Hallex I-1-2-12. Then goes on to say we have 60 days to submit fee petition.
Does this make sense to anyone? Yes, it is in accordance with obscure, pointless Social Security policies but does it make sense?
When I have raised issues concerning the absurdities of attorney fee regulation as applied to law firms on this blog, the responses I have gotten from Social Security employees have ranged from "Who cares?" to "It's our policy and you'd jolly well better follow every jot and tittle of it or else!" to "Good! You attorneys make more money than I do."
This is bureaucracy at its worst: obscure, pointless policies that have nothing to do with implementing any statute or protecting the public interest being implemented haphazardly by an agency that refuses to deal with the issue.
We need regulations that address the reality that there are such things as law firms and that often the representation of a single client may involve more than one attorney at a law firm.
7 comments:
can't attorneys do better by showing minimal competence? If you want to not actually represent your client and send someone else to do your job for you, then at least manage to have your associate co-sign a single fee agreement. attorneys who don't, deserve the hassle of having to file a fee petition.
Nice post. Thanks
Anon 4:27,
You belie your ignorance.
A law firm is a legal entity. In almost every other arena it is recognized that a partner will sign the case (ie the retainer agreement) and an associate will do the work. Or maybe another partner. The more prestigious the firm, the less likely it is that the actual partner is going to show up in court.
The client does not have to sign an agreement with each partner/associate in order for that the rep to be recognized because the whole firm is bound by the original agreement signed by the partner. It is a very established concept in the law. Except in the Land of Alice.
That is the problem with SSA. It has bureaucrats dictating legal issues. The disdain for lawyers is palpable.
So why don't you help SSA out and show minimal competence by researching the issue. Then you could make an "employee suggestion" that would save SSA big bucks and make all the lawyers in the Land of Alice, very happy.
The End.
Maybe all the attorneys in the land of Alice could really represent their clients instead of sending them to the interviews and gather medical evidence themselves, and do all the footwork while the attorneys in the land of Alice get the big $$$ signs.
Mr. Hall has a legitimate complaint. And yes, maybe some insider might want to offer some kind of simplifying suggestion.
There are nonetheless two ironies that can be discovered in the comments above. The larger of these two ironies has to do with how a group whose professional expertise has to do with understanding obscure SSA policies trips over obscure SSA policies.
The smaller irony has to do with language and writing skills. Attorneys need to be good at this. Or so I think. The irony is that the sentence “[y]ou belie your ignorance” says exactly the opposite of what the commenter probably meant.
I take the probable intended meaning as “you show your ignorance.” But the actual meaning, for what “belie” really says is “you misrepresent your ignorance.” Ore more colorfully, “you give the lie to your ignorance.”
Are these ironies on point? Not particularly. But amusing nonetheless.
Anon 10:25,
With tongue in cheek, I'll take the bite.
Pick, pick, pick! Do I see a bit of JD envy or is it just that palpable disdain for lawyers again? I must have hit a nerve!
Nonetheless, you are right.
It should have been "Your comments belie your ignorance". Mea culpa!
As for being tripped up, SSA rules are for the most part counter intuitive to the normal practice of law and sometimes in direct opposition to them. The bureaucrats are taught these nonsensical rules and accept them without question. When the bells ring, the "no" stamps come out!
Attorneys on the other hand are taught in the real world. Needless to say, a group that is trained in rigorous logic and critical thinking can be quite frustrated by a group that not only makes up rules as they go, but plays hide the ball as well. Yet we soldier on and win considerable skirmishes.
I don't know if the dichotomy can every be resolved.
However, I do breathlessly await your schoolmarm critique of this post.
Simple solution - have any reps in the firm that might represent the claimant sign the fee agreement. Heck, have them all sign it.
Then, as his/her signature is already on the fee agreement, all the replacement rep has to do is submit his own SSA-1696. Problem solved with minimal effort.
The best of all possible worlds would be for attorney reps to lobby your congressional representatives to remove SSA from the fee process altogether. Let the attorney and client set the fee, and let the client pay the fee directly to the lawyer just like they do in all other areas of law.
Post a Comment