• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Retirement calculations problem

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Msradell

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Kentucky

I returned from a major international Corporation last year after 33 years of service. I really didn't intend on retiring but became disabled several years ago and ended up on long-term disability during which time my seniority continue to accrue. My benefits also continued for a period of 5 years, the LTD payments would continue until I was age 65 but I decided to retire because I would end up with more money because under the retirement plan insurance for my wife and I is covered by the company and I would have had to begin paying for it out-of-pocket otherwise.

There was a major discrepancy between my calculation of the retirement benefit and their calculation of the retirement benefit due to the fact that they were wrongly calling my retirement and early retirement (I was age 58) and the plan clearly states that if you are retiring after age 55 and are permanently disabled the calculations will be done as if you are retiring at your normal retirement age.

Since this is an ERISA matter it has to be pursued in federal courts which require me to have the services of a lawyer. I don't understand why since this is such a cut and dry issue I need to give 33% of my retirement benefits to a lawyer to pursue the case for me. ERISA only allows recovery of the actual loss, nothing additional can be sued for so I am going to be out about $5000/yr!

Why does our legal system mandate that people who are wronged have to lose a significant portion of anything they recover to a lawyer instead of allowing them to pursue the recovery themselves in the court system? I'm an engineer and have an MBA so is not exactly as if I'm dumb and couldn't do it. I probably would end up doing a better job than a lawyer because I have a bigger vested interest in the outcome.
 


commentator

Senior Member
You are asking a rhetorical question, so there's not really a clear cut answer. But I'd assume that this requirement that you have legal representation is because the federal courts do not wish to be jammed by people who insist on self representing and have to have the system and the way it operates explained to them as they go along. Then there's the problem of a person who self-represents and then wants to appeal because he did not have adequate representation.

It's sort of the reason that even though you are a very smart person, and you are quite competent in your own field, you still are not allowed to perform major medical procedures, mix your own medications or pilot your own airplane without specific training in those fields. You can look up the "how to's" on the internet. You may be able to read case law and quote statutes, but basically, you do not know how to use the federal court system. You are a layman in that field. Certainly you have a very strong interest in the outcome, but it is not your field of expertise.

I think that many years of lawyer shows and "cop" shows on television have demystified the legal profession to the point that people think it doesn't look hard, they think, "Hey, I could do what that guy did! Why should I have to pay him?" It's the old thing about the plumber who charges the guy $100 and all he does is tap on the pipe. When the angry customer demands an itemization of the bill, it says, "One tap on the pipe, $5. Knowing where to tap, $95."
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top