It would be impractical for me to summarize everything said at the Wednesday general session of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives conference in Chicago. I will stick to that which regular readers of this blog might find newsworthy.
Catherine Olson, the staff director of the House Social Security Subcommittee spoke. Congressional staffers are not supposed to make news and Ms. Olson did as she was supposed to do in giving those present an update on Social Security and Congress. She expressed concern about Social Security's Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel (OIDAP). She thought, or perhaps hoped, that Social Security was reaching out to the Department of Labor (DOL). I hope she is correct. My guess is that any outreach to DOL will disappear if Republicans take control of the House of Representatives. As I have stated before, OIDAP's work is, by far, the most important policy issue that the Social Security Administration has dealt with in more than 30 years.
Judge David Hamilton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit also spoke. Federal judges are also supposed to avoid making newsworthy speeches. Judge Hamilton managed to give an interesting, engaging speech without making news. He did give an answer to a question that lawyers who do Social Security work in the federal courts -- but no one else -- will find interesting. He was asked whether it is a good idea in drafting a brief to keep the statement of the facts and the legal arguments completely separate or whether an attorney should have a somewhat brief statement of the facts and then supplement those facts in the argument section of the brief. Judge Hamilton prefers the latter course, of mixing in detailed facts with the legal argument. This must sound extremely unimportant to most people reading this blog but I assure readers that it is a crucial question for anyone drafting a Social Security appellate brief. It is an excellent example of the sort of decisions that attorneys have to make every day. This one is a particularly tough call for an attorney. As boring as it sounds, it can be the difference between winning and losing a client's case. One problem with what Judge Hamilton rlecommended is that he expressed his preference but that is not necessarily the preference of every other appellate judge. Another problem, as Judge Hamilton mentioned, is that what he suggests does not precisely comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Attorneys have to worry how far they can bend these rules before they offend an appellate judge. Aren't you glad that you're not a practicing attorney?
Judge David Hamilton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit also spoke. Federal judges are also supposed to avoid making newsworthy speeches. Judge Hamilton managed to give an interesting, engaging speech without making news. He did give an answer to a question that lawyers who do Social Security work in the federal courts -- but no one else -- will find interesting. He was asked whether it is a good idea in drafting a brief to keep the statement of the facts and the legal arguments completely separate or whether an attorney should have a somewhat brief statement of the facts and then supplement those facts in the argument section of the brief. Judge Hamilton prefers the latter course, of mixing in detailed facts with the legal argument. This must sound extremely unimportant to most people reading this blog but I assure readers that it is a crucial question for anyone drafting a Social Security appellate brief. It is an excellent example of the sort of decisions that attorneys have to make every day. This one is a particularly tough call for an attorney. As boring as it sounds, it can be the difference between winning and losing a client's case. One problem with what Judge Hamilton rlecommended is that he expressed his preference but that is not necessarily the preference of every other appellate judge. Another problem, as Judge Hamilton mentioned, is that what he suggests does not precisely comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Attorneys have to worry how far they can bend these rules before they offend an appellate judge. Aren't you glad that you're not a practicing attorney?
