Disclosure of Adverse Evidence in a Social Security Disability Hearing
Adopted: January 15, 1999
Opinion rules that a lawyer representing a client in a social security disability hearing is not required to inform the administrative law judge of material adverse facts known to the lawyer.
Inquiry:
Attorney represents Client, a claimant for social security disability benefits. Attorney files a request for an administrative hearing before a Social Security administrative law judge (ALJ). Social Security hearings before an ALJ are considered non-adversarial because no one represents the Social Security Administration at the hearing. However, prior to the hearing, the Social Security Administration develops a written record which is before the ALJ at the time of the hearing. In addition, the ALJ has the authority to perform an independent investigation of the client's claim.
Prior to the hearing, Attorney writes to the claimant's treating physician and asks for a letter stating the physician's opinion about the claimant's disability. In a responsive letter, the physician indicates that she believes that the claimant is not disabled. Does Attorney have to submit the adverse letter from the physician to the ALJ at the hearing?
Opinion:
No. Although it is a hallmark of good lawyering for an advocate to disclose adverse evidence and explain to the court why it should not be given weight, generally an advocate is not required to present facts adverse to his or her client.
Rule 3.3(d) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct provides, "[i]n an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer which will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse." As one scholar notes, the disclosure "is required to correct the deficiencies of the adversary system." Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics §12.7, at 678-679 (1986). Comment [14] to Revised Rule 3.3 also elucidates that full disclosure requirement in an ex parte proceeding is to assist the judge in making an impartial decision:
Ordinarily, an advocate has the limited responsibility of presenting one side of the matter that a tribunal should consider in reaching a decision; the conflicting position is expected to be presented by the opposing party. However, in an ex parte proceeding, such as an application for a temporary restraining order, there is no balance of presentation by opposing advocates. The object of an ex parte proceeding is nevertheless to yield a substantially just result. The judge has an affirmative responsibility to accord the absent party just consideration. The lawyer for the represented party has the correlative duty to make disclosures of material facts known to the lawyer and that the lawyer reasonably believes are necessary to an informed decision.
Nevertheless, a Social Security disability hearing should be distinguished from an ex parte proceeding such as an application for a temporary restraining order in which the judge must rely entirely upon the advocate for one party to present the facts. In a disability hearing, there is a "balance of presentation" because the Social Security Administration has an opportunity to develop the written record that is before the ALJ at the time of hearing. Moreover, the ALJ has the authority to make his or her own investigation of the facts. When there are no "deficiencies of the adversary system," the burden of presenting the case against a finding of disability should not be put on the lawyer for the claimant. See RPC 230.