Why I'll never get anywhere
Mar. 23rd, 2013 06:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vicarzIn response to an email, from someone who knows 2/3 lit staff just accepted positions elsewhere - talking about all the admin help they intend to give us and how they want to send management analysts to training so they can learn to be litigators like us - to entice people to stay
I greatly appreciate the projected support, but at the same time I have to voice concern that without filling the litigation positions with experienced staff, the bad situation is about to result in significant numbers of losses to the Agency. Any one loss can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and result in assignment of personnel, for years, against the wishes of the Agency.
Currently, or at last count, HAB had 135 cases or 45 each for only 3 litigators. A normal caseload is 6-12 per litigator, and we’ve been overworked at 10-15. The reason each litigator has over 45 is in many cases due to requests for extensions, not returning messages, dragging out responses, allowing any judge or opposing counsel to take as long as they like so long as the ball languishes in their court, and possibly even settling cases which under better conditions could be litigated. This has been the only way the caseload could be managed month after month - being pushed back like snow but with the result being the mountain of snow grows and is harder to push any further before it topples over. I need to emphasize that a normal caseload is 15 or less, and each of 3 HAB staff have 45 (actually now more). That’s 3 times a realistic litigation workload even under bad conditions.
The support functions and training of new staff are really exciting, but they are exciting only when in combination with new hires of experienced staff. I am the newest remaining member of HAB, having a long background in EEO and ER, plus a legal education ending in 2007. It’s essentially taken me until the past year or 2 to come up to what I consider a level of “fluency” in litigation. While I’m sure we have excellent staff who are willing to take training and learn new skills, it takes years of training to be able to litigate - even with a JD.
I am fairly proud of the strides I’ve made while working for FSIS, but I’m not going to pretend I’m capable of litigation a caseload of 45 cases. My quality of work has suffered along with my physical health due to prolonged stress. I’ve sacrificed for the long term good since May of 2012 (or April if you count the first departure), but cannot continue to maintain HAB’s historical win rate, or even meet filing deadlines, with a caseload of 45 cases.
I am concerned that perhaps this hasn’t been communicated well to people in the position of authority to approve hiring actions. I find this confusing as I have held meetings multiple times in (way-up person in charge)'s office; and the results of those meetings have been authorization to settle cases for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars, yet there appears to be the possibility of not hiring experienced litigation staff for HAB. I cannot emphasize enough how much I believe that might harm the Agency. Thank you,
I greatly appreciate the projected support, but at the same time I have to voice concern that without filling the litigation positions with experienced staff, the bad situation is about to result in significant numbers of losses to the Agency. Any one loss can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and result in assignment of personnel, for years, against the wishes of the Agency.
Currently, or at last count, HAB had 135 cases or 45 each for only 3 litigators. A normal caseload is 6-12 per litigator, and we’ve been overworked at 10-15. The reason each litigator has over 45 is in many cases due to requests for extensions, not returning messages, dragging out responses, allowing any judge or opposing counsel to take as long as they like so long as the ball languishes in their court, and possibly even settling cases which under better conditions could be litigated. This has been the only way the caseload could be managed month after month - being pushed back like snow but with the result being the mountain of snow grows and is harder to push any further before it topples over. I need to emphasize that a normal caseload is 15 or less, and each of 3 HAB staff have 45 (actually now more). That’s 3 times a realistic litigation workload even under bad conditions.
The support functions and training of new staff are really exciting, but they are exciting only when in combination with new hires of experienced staff. I am the newest remaining member of HAB, having a long background in EEO and ER, plus a legal education ending in 2007. It’s essentially taken me until the past year or 2 to come up to what I consider a level of “fluency” in litigation. While I’m sure we have excellent staff who are willing to take training and learn new skills, it takes years of training to be able to litigate - even with a JD.
I am fairly proud of the strides I’ve made while working for FSIS, but I’m not going to pretend I’m capable of litigation a caseload of 45 cases. My quality of work has suffered along with my physical health due to prolonged stress. I’ve sacrificed for the long term good since May of 2012 (or April if you count the first departure), but cannot continue to maintain HAB’s historical win rate, or even meet filing deadlines, with a caseload of 45 cases.
I am concerned that perhaps this hasn’t been communicated well to people in the position of authority to approve hiring actions. I find this confusing as I have held meetings multiple times in (way-up person in charge)'s office; and the results of those meetings have been authorization to settle cases for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars, yet there appears to be the possibility of not hiring experienced litigation staff for HAB. I cannot emphasize enough how much I believe that might harm the Agency. Thank you,
