| Legal ForumsRegisterSign inBankruptcyBusinessCriminalEmploymentFamilyImmigrationReal EstateMore... | ChatUpcomingArchiveHelpAsk a LawyerAsk a Question |
Whether and to what extent legal arguments in Federal Disability Retirement cases under FERS or CSRS should be made, should rarely be ventured into by non-lawyers. The boundaries of legal arguments are naturally constrained for lawyers both internally and externally: internally, because (hopefully) lawyers are trained to recognize that maintaining the integrity of legal precedents is vital to the process, and externally, because all legal arguments are ultimately subjected to... Read More
Lawyers, and specifically civil litigators, have always had a target on their back. When a person in power, or a person aspiring to gain power, badmouths lawyers, you can be sure that he (let's call him the "basher," but rest assured that he is aligned with many who think just like him) was just tagged with another loss in the courtroom, a loss that probably resulted in a finding by the jury that the basher did something horribly... Read More
There is a line to be drawn between arguing the law within a boundary of integrity, and arguing the law beyond any reasonable interpretation of the law. This principle is no less true in administrative law, which is what Federal Disability Retirement law is considered. I often see non-lawyers make "legal arguments" in an initial application to the Office of Personnel Management, which is then denied, and I then enter my appearance in the case at the Second,... Read More

