Joseph C. Campbell

I retained Brock & Stout, LLC to represent me in a Social Security disability claim. For approximately twenty-two months, my communications were handled through case managers. Mr. Joseph Charles Campbell was the first attorney from the firm to speak directly with me. That attorney contact occurred on...ly after the firm received notice that I had filed a Better Business Bureau complaint. Until that point, I had not received a direct attorney consultation explaining the complete posture, location, procedural options, and risks associated with my claim. During the call, Mr. Campbell did provide useful information concerning reconsideration, Disability Determination Services, the Stone Mountain office, possible outcomes, administrative exhaustion, and the potential Tallahassee hearing process. I acknowledge that the information was valuable. However, its value also demonstrated how consequential direct attorney communication had been and how much information I had lacked during the preceding twenty-two months. Mr. Campbell stated that I previously could have spoken with an attorney if I had asked for an appointment. I had not been informed that the firm’s operating procedure placed the burden on the disabled claimant to know that direct attorney contact was available only upon request. When I questioned this, I understood him to confirm that attorneys traditionally became directly involved only at later stages. The most serious issue arose when Mr. Campbell said that he could not represent someone with a bar or BBB complaint “ringing over his head” and asked me to take the complaint down. I understood that statement as linking continued representation to removal of my truthful consumer complaint. I refused. I did not demand that every word of my complaint remain unchanged; I offered to correct any specifically identified factual error and make the complaint more precise. What I would not do was erase the entire complaint merely to preserve continued representation. I stated plainly that “we’re not trading” continued representation for complaint removal. I further explained that if the firm withdrew improperly, I would use the lawful procedures available to report the withdrawal. Mr. Campbell characterized that statement as a threat. I rejected that characterization and clarified that reporting conduct to an agency possessing jurisdiction is a lawful procedural right, not an unlawful threat. My concern is therefore not simply that my claim remained pending for a long period. I understand that SSA and DDS delays can occur and that Mr. Campbell stated there was no statutory or regulatory deadline governing the adjudicator’s review. My concern is the combined sequence: approximately twenty-two months without direct attorney consultation; the first attorney contact occurring only after an external complaint; the firm explaining that I could have obtained attorney contact had I known to request it; the attorney requesting removal of the complaint; continued representation being presented as potentially incompatible with the complaint remaining in place; and my lawful statement concerning regulatory reporting being characterized as a threat. In my view, these facts warrant review under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1740(b)(3)(v), which requires prompt and timely communication and ongoing consultation with the claimant; § 404.1740(b)(3)(iv), which requires withdrawal to occur at a time and in a manner that does not disrupt adjudication and gives the claimant adequate time to obtain new representation; and § 404.1740(c)(1), which prohibits threatening, coercing, intimidating, deceiving, or knowingly misleading a claimant concerning benefits or other rights under the Social Security Act. The regulation also imposes supervisory responsibility for employees and others assisting with represented claims.