By the way, they have lists of Top 100 Firms & Reps by Fee and Top 300 Fee Payments These lists are inaccurate. I know because my name and my firm's name are on the lists. I know the figures given for me and my firm are way off. I have no idea how they could be so far off. I also caution that those who have never tried to practice Social Security law have no clue about the expenses involved or the sort of investment required. The profit margin, when there is one, is a much smaller percentage than you would think. If you think that practicing Social Security law is a fast track to riches, I invite you to give it a try but know that there will be months, especially in the first few years or if there's a pandemic, when you have to sweat covering your overhead. There are reasons almost no one is leaving the employment of the Social Security Administration to hang out a shingle and represent claimants.
22 comments:
I looked at the lists too.
I think a lot of the errors are due to how the SSA fails to recognize law firms on one end and then is only compiling figures for individuals based on who is primary on the 1696. For firms that are only one rep, the numbers may be accurate. But if there is more than one rep in a firm, the numbers get broken up is ways that often don't match at all.
Also, you can see the mistakes when you get 1099's at the end of the year where about 10-15% of cases are assigned to individuals rather than the firm for tax purposes.
Simply, the SSA statistics in this area are a mess.
@ 7:11
I'm impressed yours is only off 10-15%. My firm it's closer to about 60%. The 1099s are just a mess when we get them.
The amount of money on this list that is leaving the hands of the most sick, vulnerable and disabled just to go into the pockets of lawyers who are claiming to “help” these individuals is disgusting. I had no idea until I looked at this list. It’s a real shame.
@ 9:27
You say lawyers are "claiming to help." We have objective evidence, at least with my firm, that we add value. The stats for every ALJ in my region has an approval rate between 30-50% Our firm's approval rating with those same judges is closer to 75-88%.
@9:27
1, the numbers are egregiously off.
2, our award rate is double that of the state average supporting the inference that we provide significant value to our clients.
3, attorney fees are taken out of past-due benefits, one-time, whereas the client-recipient will be receiving benefits until they die, retire, or in the rare instance recover from disability. Proportionally, our fees are not unreasonable.
Gross income for a firm is meaningless unless you know the costs of running one (advertising/marketing/getting clients, paying attorneys, paying the staff necessary to competently get medical records, handle correspondence with the agency, etc; health and FICA contributions for staff, paying the cost of medical records for judgment proof clients, etc). I'm sure I left stuff out, but anything I mentioned is not cheap or easy. I assure you.
@9:27 - does it sicken you when claimants end up homeless, can't get medications or other needed medical treatment, can't buy food and other necessities for 2 or 3 years while a DDS doctor who didn't look at this medical records but determined he has only mild to moderate limitations while getting paid fat contract checks and then an ALJ poo-poos the treating physician's opinion and blindly relies on the DDS doc who didn't look at the records also gets his fat paycheck and nice federal benefits. Its the representative who is fighting an irrational and dysfunctional bureaucracy to try to get someone to give that claimant's case the attention it deserves while dealing with phone calls from the claimant asking how they can survive with no income. All the while the rep is putting in long hours trying to juggle enough cases to try to pay his overhead and staff and make a decent living while the agency throws ridiculous, nonsense roadblocks in the way that seem almost designed to discourage claimants from pursuing their case. 9:27, you need to leave the government teet for a while and work in the real world. Then you'll learn what kind of things should really sicken you.
The fee is very unreasonable. Most reps don't see their clients until a few minutes before the hearings. SSA is dumb enough to reimburse reps the travel expenses, too.
I love when reps try to defend themselves. If it wasnt easy and it wasnt lucrative you wouldnt do it. You guys are the first ones to say it is all about the client but then provide ZERO assistance to the client while they are waiting. Here is a simple test. Rep, do you know what a CIL or ADRC is and can you direct your claimant to the nearest? If you have to google it you are not worried about anything but the win and the check.
Take away travel reimbursements and good luck getting attorneys representing claimants on contingency fee bases for a max fee of $6,000 to travel to remote locations in Alaska, Maine, remote parts of the American west, etc. Also, getting a max fee of $6,000 is rare. Cases often involve 100+ of hours of work when the work of staff, attorneys, etc. from the initial application to the hearing. The fee is not unreasonable at all.
@9:27 - Not going to argue the merits of the amount of pay. I believe you could argue over the amount of any fee is too much. Everybody can be overpaid in a situation.
But based on fair market value, the attorney cap of $6000 is very low. At our firm, we spend on average over 60 hours of worker hours per case usually.
Most attorney representation enhances a claimant's ability to gain disability. Not all cases but most. You have to factor in their winning percentage without an attorney.
Sounds like you have a fundamental problem with representation. Fair enough. I wonder if you believe your wage is too much?
@3:49 you are exactly right. It’s why nobody represents claimants during overpayment issues, CDRs or to help try and push reinstatements through. Its clearly about money and nothing else. Which is fine as long as everyone admits it. But this approach and facade of doing it to help people is absurd.
The grass is always greener....The reason we have lawyers is the system is not fair, efficient, or comprehensible to the average person. The agency doesn't care about the lawyers charging too much. They care about numbers. No one will criticize agency people for denying clients.. but tell them that you wanted quality and that is why your numbers are down or you are approving too many cases... Guess what? My solution -- empower people to make the right decision the first time. We wouldn't have lawyers then... and fewer ALJs. But we would find too many people disabled and that would cost a bundle.
If you're going to be rich in this business you have to be a numbers guy, too. I'm not. My gross last year was about $200,000 with 125,000 in staff I took out 15k salary and 25K in dividend. I left gov after 15 years up to GS12 would be 13 now... 26 annual leave, 13 sick, and would be 85-95k salary in low-wage area. I do not see logic for SSA as money maker. Basic S&P Industry summary said 29% profit... mine closer to 22% Most attys went here b/c vets,w/c. PI bus not so good... attys can get stuck like bureaucrats... but I love what I do.
LOL at averaging 60-100 man-hours per case. I don't think I've seen but one or two fee petitions that have ever exceeded 60 hours and none that approached 100 hours (and I've seen plenty of double remand fee petitions), and essentially every fee petition included puff charges of quarter hours to leave voicemails, review hearing notices, faxing in one exhibit, etc.
Anyone claiming to spend 60-100 man-hours per case either has no sense of time or is incredibly inefficient. If that were true, there is no way you could stay in business without employing slave or child labor.
I don't doubt the favorable rates discussed above, but the high rate is almost certainly as attributable to selection of cases as it is to the quality of representation. Unless you're taking every single client that contacts your firm, you're almost certainly picking only the strongest cases to go forward with, which makes complete sense from a business standpoint.
But a decent portion of the claimants you turn down will likely proceed on their own or jump on with a big box firm that believes in volume. Their lower chances are far more attributable to the quality of their case than the lack of your representation.
I live in a state where the republican party has wrecked the worker's compensation system. Part of doing that is running lawyers who represent claimants out of the system. Now it's open season on claimants. I do this business because I enjoy it and like helping people. I am certainly not getting rich. I have stuck with clients for years because I like them and believe in them and want them to have a more secure life. Soon, the only people making a living in this country will be slimy ass politicians and Wall Street hedge fund assholes and all the rest of us will be poor. This is obviously the start of another campaign to inflict austerity on the system with the ultimate goal of privatizing it.
This looks very sensationalistic and obviously is in preparation for a final assault on the system as the odds look slimmer the Heritage Foundation and Koch brother will still be in power after this year. My question is what percentage do these fees represent as a percentage of new claim money payed out on a yearly basis. Also, how does this compare as a percentage of total money payed out annually in this massive system. I primarily see a bunch of small to mid size shops and solo practicioners making a living after they pay overhead for office space, utilities, supplies, and salaries for their support staff. Just like any other small to mid size American business or any typical widget factory in the great old USA. Why don't some of you right wingers and haters go after some hedge fund insider trading scum for a change who make hundreds of millions of dollars a year and pay a flat fifteen percent tax rate. I'm a contingency fee lawyer that takes a financial risk every year my doors stay open. Getting payed for work and risk is capitalism and the American way at it's finest. I make no apologies for not being a republican Wall Street scumbag even though it would pay more. You can kiss me where the sun doesn't shine as far as I'm concerned. The reason people hire lawyers is because it's almost impossible to win in this system without one!
I have 11 years of experience handling SSA Disability claims. People often wonder why I don't go out on my own instead of working for myself. The reasons are fairly simple. 1) I can't wait 2 years to get paid and can't hedge on winning enough cases on initial/recon to keep my lights on; 2) covering all my own health insurance, office expenses, etc.; 3) starting as a solo shop guy and handling client calls about everything, OHO calls about everything, the handling of all financial aspects of running a firm in accordance with ethics rules, etc. 4) Having to put in lots of time on cases you aren't going to win no matter how solid they are.
Starting an SSA firm, especially in this unfavorable environment, is not for the faint of heart and having a successful SSA firm that has weathered the post Huntington landscape is not easy. Not by any stretch.
Anyone willing to share what percent of your gross goes to expenses, is it about 40%?
@11:14 That's a huge understatement. The most efficient, leanest operations out there are operating on about a 25% profit margin. Around 75% of all gross goes to overhead.
@10:47 Preach on, brother!
@3:49 You would find more satisfaction in life if you stopped assuming the other side is evil. To you and the other negative Karen's from SSA that are taking shots at the reps, you need to realize there's a lot you don't understand. We greatly appreciate the work you do, but it's extremely frustrating to deal with those of you who think we do nothing of significance and actively try to sabotage our work. Clearly you're wrong and hopefully you'll someday realize that when you cooperate with us, you'll offer better customer service to the claimants and you'll also find new meaning and happiness in your life.
@ 12:34 You would do better than to assume anyone that disagrees with you is from SSA. I am actually a social worker. I am the one that deals with your claimant to get them prescriptions, keep the electricity on, find them healthcare. I am the one that walks them through Medicare enrollment, files the Medicaid application. In 20 years I have had ZERO referrals from any disability firm even though we have done in services with them to help the people that are filing.
Clearly you have an over inflated sense of your worth. I suggest a glass belly button so you can see out.
Totally agree with @1:30. From doing homeless, mental health, and veteran outreach and advocacy, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen cases where the client has never once met the attorney or spoken to the actual rep other than initial on boarding. And when these people get approved at the initial or recon with back pay, the rep has done almost nothing. I’ve gone into hundreds of FO interviews over the years with clients where the rep asks if I’m with the law firm because the rep is waiting on paperwork or forms or the client missed the CE or hasn’t filled out work reports etc and calls to the rep office by SSA were unsuccessful.
Just don’t assume that everyone who has a problem with some your sub par colleagues who are happy to take candy from the literal disabled babies, work for SSA.
1:30 PM - You are suggesting that attorneys do your job. Stay in your lane.
Also, your bias is showing - you are butthurt because we don't give you referrals.
Post a Comment