On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Representing the Pro Bono Client: Advocacy Skills for Administrative Hearings 2018 (Free)

Released on: Sep. 24, 2018
Running Time: 03:08:30
The need for pro bono assistance with administrative hearings has never been higher.  Clients who have been denied or are at risk of losing vital benefits, housing subsidies, or are facing school discipline have a right to an administrative hearing, but are often unrepresented in what can be a confusing and adversarial process.  Significant changes to key public benefits programs, including Social Security, CalWORKs, CalFresh, Medi-Cal and In-Home Support Services have occurred in recent years imposing new complex rules.  On the unemployment insurance front, while the number of applications has overall declined, we have yet to see a reverse of the recession-based trend of employers challenging many unemployment insurance benefit applications.  Housing Authorities frequently seek to deny and revoke housing subsidies often due to tenuous allegations of criminal activity.  Meanwhile, low-wage workers are experiencing wage theft at unprecedented rates and relying on the Labor Commissioner more than ever before to recover their unpaid wages.  

Legal aid services have also suffered funding problems and staffing cuts with reduced ability to meet the demand to represent clients in these cases.  Unfortunately, there are many individuals, who have been unlawfully deprived of critical benefits, are at risk of losing a housing subsidy, have not been paid according to basic wage and hour laws, and who are discontinuances from public benefits.  This vulnerable population cannot navigate the administrative hearing process on their own.  As a result, low-income families face hunger, homelessness, and economic instability.

This training is designed to help mitigate the crisis faced by low-income families everywhere by providing attorneys with a basic understanding of common issues and strategies in providing pro bono assistance with administrative hearings.  The program will focus on California law, but will also cover many topics such as due process and other rights that apply nationwide; therefore, advocates from other forums would benefit from the information and attending the program.

Lecture Topics [Total time 03:08:30]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks* [00:01:27]
    Lauren Hansen
  • Overview of Administrative Hearing; Requesting and Preparing for Hearing [01:52:18]
    Lauren Hansen, Adam Poe, Deep K. Jodhka, Jodie Berger, Katherine Fiester
  • Administrative Hearing and Post-Hearing Issues [01:14:45]
    Lauren Hansen, Deep K. Jodhka, Adam Poe, Jodie Berger, Katherine Fiester

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Social Security Administrative Hearings—Outline
    Deep Kaur Jodhka
  • Ensuring Program Uniformity at the Hearing and Appeals Council Levels of the Administrative Review Process, Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 242 (2016)
    Deep Kaur Jodhka
  • Social Security Ruling, SSR 11-1p: Titles II and XVI: Procedures for Handling Requests to File Subsequent Applications for Disability Benefits, Social Security Administration (2011)
    Deep Kaur Jodhka
  • Social Security Ruling, SSR 13-1p: Titles II and XVI: Agency Processes for Addressing Allegations of Unfairness, Prejudice, Partiality, Bias, Misconduct, or Discrimination by Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), Social Security Administration (2013)
    Deep Kaur Jodhka
  • Social Security Ruling, SSR 13-2p: Titles II and XVI: Evaluating Cases Involving Drug Addiction and Alcoholism (DAA), Social Security Administration (2013)
    Deep Kaur Jodhka
  • Objection to Hearing by Video Teleconferencing Letter, Social Security Administration, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
    Deep Kaur Jodhka
  • Sample SSA Appeals Letter for Overpayment (F.W., Limited English Proficiency)
    Steven Weiss, Deep Kaur Jodhka
  • Sample SSA Special Needs Trust Brief
    Steven Weiss, Deep Kaur Jodhka
  • Sample SSA Hearing Brief for Mental Impairments
    Deep Kaur Jodhka
  • Sample SSA Hearing Brief for PTSD
    Joanna Parnes, Deep Kaur Jodhka
  • Sample Appeals Council Letter
    Deep Kaur Jodhka
  • California Department of Social Services Administrative Hearings Outline
    Lauren Hansen
  • California State Hearing Rights
    Jodie Berger
  • California State Hearings—Before Your Hearing
    Jodie Berger
  • California State Hearings—At Your Hearing
    Jodie Berger
  • California State Hearings—After Your Hearing
    Jodie Berger
  • Unemployment Insurance Appeals Outline
    Carole Vigne
  • California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, Sample Unemployment Insurance Documents
    Carole Vigne
  • Wage Claims Outline
    Carole Vigne
  • Sample Wage Documents, California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement
    Carole Vigne
  • Your Right to a Public Housing Tenant Grievance Hearing
    Adam Poe
  • Summary of Guidelines for Housing Authority Hearings
    Adam Poe
  • Representing the Pro Bono Client: Advocacy Skills for Administrative Hearings (PowerPoint slides)
    Carole Vigne, Lauren Hansen, Adam Poe, Deep Kaur Jodhka, Jodie Berger

Presentation Material

  • Representing the Pro Bono Client: Advocacy Skills for Administrative Hearings (PowerPoint slides)
    Jodie Berger, Katherine Fiester, Lauren Hansen, Deep K. Jodhka, Adam Poe
Chairperson(s)
Lauren Hansen ~ Staff Attorney, Public Interest Law Project
Speaker(s)
Jodie Berger ~ Administrative Law Judge, Training, Quality Development, Rehearings, and Special Projects Bureau, California Department of Social Services, State Hearings Division
Katherine Fiester ~ Staff Attorney, Legal Aid at Work
Deep K. Jodhka ~ Staff Attorney, Bay Area Legal Aid
Adam Poe ~ Staff Attorney and Reentry Project Coordinator, Bay Area Legal Aid
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Representing the Pro Bono Client: Advocacy Skills for Administrative Hearings 2018 Lauren Hansen, Public Interest Law Project
Carole Vigne, Legal Aid at Work
 
Representing the Pro Bono Client: Advocacy Skills for Administrative Hearings 2017 Lauren Hansen, Public Interest Law Project
Carole Vigne, Legal Aid at Work
 
Share
Email
“A very good, informative presentation. The speakers are extremely knowledgeable in their respective areas. They are clearly dedicated to their clients.”
- Laura N. Sakas, Managing Attorney 
  Office of State Guardian

“Fabulous presentation!”
- Kristen Paulson Gibbons
  The Gibbons Law Firm

“I really appreciate the varied perspectives and insight into how the different administrative systems operate.”
- James Sibley
  Tollner Law Offices


  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.