An unfavorable ALJ decision does not have to mean the end of a valuable client relationship.
By referring Appeals Council cases to us, you can offer your clients an additional level of sophisticated appellate review without having to devote your own attorneys or staff to researching and drafting Appeals Council briefs. We perform the legal analysis and prepare the Appeals Council brief at no charge on cases we accept.
You can turn your lost cases into wins (and additional fees) — If the Appeals Council remands the case, the case returns to you for further representation at the administrative level. You maintain the client relationship and the opportunity to earn the fees associated with a successful claim.
If the Appeals Council denies review, we will appeal to federal court.
The goal is simple: extend the life of meritorious claims, improve the quality of appellate advocacy, and allow you to concentrate on the administrative practice you already handle, and help you turn your losses into wins!
Yes. We accept Appeals Council referrals nationwide.
Because Appeals Council review is part of the federal Social Security administrative process, we can work with attorneys and representatives throughout the United States.
No. Every potential appeal is reviewed for merit before we agree to handle it.
We are not interested in filing generic or boilerplate Appeals Council briefs simply because a claimant received an unfavorable decision. Our review focuses on whether the ALJ’s decision presents meaningful factual, legal, procedural, or vocational issues that can be developed into a persuasive appellate argument.
Selective case acceptance also allows us to devote our resources to the cases in which we believe appellate advocacy can make a meaningful difference.
Our acceptance rate varies depending upon the cases submitted for review and the quality of the potential appellate issues. However, our acceptance has been hovering around 40-50%.
Statistics vary and providing specific and completely reliable stats is difficult with appeals. However, historically when we brief an AC case our remand rate has fluctuated between 20 and 25%.
For comparison, Social Security Administration data show that the Appeals Council remanded approximately 15.5% of all Requests for Review it disposed of during Fiscal Year 2025.
Our objective is to improve upon ordinary outcomes through selective case acceptance, detailed legal analysis, and focused briefing. Of course, past results and national statistics cannot guarantee the outcome of any individual appeal.
Our federal court practice has historically produced remand rates that can reach an average of approximately 70%. From year to year, some jurisdictions have significantly exceeded this remand rate (as high as 90-100% in some jurisdictions), but some have been significantly lower. Results fluctuate over time and from one group of cases to another and between jurisdictions.
Every case depends upon its own administrative record, legal issues, jurisdiction, procedural history, and judicial review. Past results and national statistics cannot guarantee the outcome of any individual appeal.
However, we tend to maintain a high remand rate when balanced against our generally high acceptance rate.
A remand is not itself an award of benefits. It returns the claim to Social Security for additional proceedings and, in many cases, another hearing.
Historically, cases remanded from AC or federal court have had a substantially improved opportunity to result in a favorable administrative outcome. Our federal practice materials have traditionally used an approximate two-thirds favorable-outcome rate following federal remand as a general benchmark. As a “back-of-napkin” general estimate, on a nationwide basis remanded cases receive a favorable outcome in about 50-60% of cases. However, as always, statistics vary and are not always completely reliable. No statistical average can predict the result of an individual claim.
Yes. Once we accept a case, we obtain the information and authorizations we need directly from the client. We will sign the client up for both the AC representation and the federal representation simultaneously to ensure continuity of representation if AC denies the appeal.
Our goal is to make the referral process as easy as possible for the referring attorney or representative. We do not expect your office to duplicate work unnecessarily or assemble an elaborate referral package merely so that we can begin handling the appeal.
Yes. For cases we accept we file Form SSA-1696 to formally notify Social Security that we are representing the claimant for purposes of the Appeals Council proceeding.
Being formally recognized as a representative allows us to receive relevant notices and communications from Social Security so that we are informed of the outcome of the AC appeal..
Our involvement at the Appeals Council does not mean that we are attempting to take over your administrative practice. If the case is remanded, our normal model is for the case to return to the referring attorney or representative.
Our Appeals Council representation and briefing services are 100% free for accepted cases. We do not charge or receive attorney’s fees for these services.
If the Appeals Council denies your client’s appeal, we will proceed to federal court, where we seek attorney’s fees for our representation. Federal court representation is covered by a separate fee agreement, which explains how we are paid.
AI changed the economics of appellate brief preparation for Appeals Council level appeals.
The Federal Appeals Firm™ has devoted significant time and financial investment into developing AI systems, workflows, legal knowledge resources, and proprietary technology specifically for Social Security appellate practice. That infrastructure now includes Brief Master™, our specialized appellate intelligence platform.
Brief Master™ and our AI systems dramatically accelerates AC brief drafting.
That increased efficiency makes it economically possible for us to provide Appeals Council briefing services without charging the client or referring representative a fee for the brief itself.
*For the inquiring mind: In our experience, our AI systems have been an amazing tool for federal drafting as well. However, for federal court work, in our experience it has not meaningfully reduced time spent working on appeals. That is due to several factors, including numerous manual tasks such as medical record review, legal research, drafting and re-drafting, and because Rule 11 requires significant attention to detail. Many firms throughout the country have been sanctioned for submitting hallucinated case law. As a result, the work requirements at the AC level and Federal level are significantly different.
Because Appeals Council representation fits naturally into our federal appellate practice.
Many potentially meritorious federal cases begin with an Appeals Council appeal. By becoming involved earlier, we can identify and develop appellate issues at the administrative-review stage rather than first seeing the claim after the Appeals Council has already denied review.
Sometimes that advocacy results in a remand from the Appeals Council. When it does, the client gets another opportunity before an ALJ and the referring representative keeps the case.
If the Appeals Council denies review, we automatically convert the case to a federal appeal. We already understand the legal issues and can build upon those issues in federal court.
We believe that arrangement benefits the claimant, the referring representative, and our appellate practice.
No. Our role is appellate.
We do not seek to replace the attorneys and representatives who handle claims before Administrative Law Judges. If we obtain an Appeals Council remand, the case ordinarily returns to the referring attorney or representative to handle the proceedings before OHO.
This division of responsibility allows each practice to concentrate on what it does best: you handle the hearing practice; we handle the appellate work.
Generally, a claimant must request Appeals Council review within 60 days after receiving the ALJ’s decision or dismissal.
There is also a build in 5-day grace period. Social Security generally presumes that the claimant received the decision five days after the date shown on the notice, unless the claimant establishes that it was received later.
Because missing the deadline can jeopardize further appellate rights, Appeals Council referrals should be submitted to us as early as possible.
If the deadline has already passed, an untimely request may sometimes be filed with a request for an extension based upon good cause, but an extension is not automatic.
Generally, when a case has not been previously remanded by a federal court, a civil action seeking federal judicial review must be commenced within 60 days after the claimant receives notice of the Appeals Council’s final action.
There is also a build in 5-day grace period. Social Security generally presumes receipt five days after the date of the notice unless there is evidence of later receipt.
Extensions may sometimes be requested from the Appeals Council, but representatives should never assume that an extension will be granted. Potential federal appeals should therefore be referred for review promptly after the Appeals Council issues its notice.
The rules are different when a case has been previously remanded by a federal court.
Brief Master™ is a proprietary legal intelligence and brief-development system built specifically for Social Security disability appeals.
Unlike a general-purpose artificial-intelligence platform, Brief Master™ is designed around the unique analytical demands of Social Security appellate litigation.
Its framework assists with the systematic review of administrative records, identification of potentially reversible errors, development of legal arguments, jurisdiction-specific analysis, vocational issues, and preparation of appellate briefs.
Brief Master™ combines specialized technology with a structured knowledge architecture and attorney review. It is designed to enhance—not replace—the legal judgment of experienced appellate counsel.
For more information about Brief Master™, please visit: www.briefmaster.ai
An Appeals Council brief should do more than summarize the claimant’s medical history or state that the ALJ reached the wrong result. It should identify specific, reviewable errors and explain why those errors matter.
Brief Master™ helps our attorneys create a short and succinct brief, but one that is persuasively drafted and easy to read.
Longer is not necessarily better.
An effective Appeals Council brief should be long enough to identify and develop the strongest reversible errors, but concise enough that the important issues are not buried beneath unnecessary factual recitation or repetitive argument.
Appeals council reviews thousands of cases each year. They remand comparatively few. In our experience, it is not uncommon for AC to ignore lengthy briefs that are filed, or that fact-pack the briefs with references to medical records. Much like federal court, AC is more interested in whether the rules and regulations were followed than whether the record supports disability. They will not typically reweigh the facts. Thus, AC briefs should focus on legal errors and use the facts to highlight those errors.
In our experience, each error being raised should be around 300-350 words. More than that is often a waste of time and runs the risk of AC simply ignoring the brief entirely.
Our philosophy is to write as much as necessary—and no more than necessary—to persuasively explain why the decision warrants review or remand.
With our Brief Master™ systems, the initial analytical and drafting process can often be completed in minutes rather than hours. A substantial first draft of an AC brief can often be generated in under 10 minutes.
Every brief is ultimately subject to attorney review and quality control before submission.
Our merit review process is significantly longer than the time it takes to draft an Appeals Council brief.
Yes. In our practice, federal court briefs require substantially more attorney time than Appeals Council (AC) briefs because they involve broader record review, more extensive legal analysis, and additional verification.
In our experience, AI has significantly enhanced the federal briefing process, but it has not materially reduced the total attorney hours required, nor has it reduced our need for associate attorneys. Its principal benefits include stronger issue development, more thorough analysis, and additional opportunities to identify and address errors. The attorney’s responsibility to independently review, refine, and verify the work at the federal district court level remains substantial.