Just the facts, Jack
The value of using checklists to gather information can not be underestimated. Most forensic economists will, or should, use some type of case specific checklist to gather all the relevant information about the case. Even if the attorney and the attorney's client does not have the information, this will let the economist know that they have at least not forgotten to address the issue.
Using a checklist can also help minimize the number of surprises at trial.
The following story, which was relayed on a forensic economics board, illustrates what can happen when a forensic economist is not provided all the information.
"...I've seen this happen on the other side in divorce cases- the other spouse tries to hide assets to protect them from being declared community property. But sometimes it can happen honestly....
Last Thursday I testified to the present value and marital portions of the husband's defined benefits and the wife's two retirement plans. Information about the husband's plan came from the plan's administrator and information about the wife's plan was provided by her employer.
The information, as always, was provided to me by my lawyer, with appropriate telephone numbers for corroboration.
On the witness stand, opposing counsel handed me a sheet of paper and asked me if I had seen it before. I hadn't. It was a document identifying my client, the husband, as a participant in a 401(k) through his employee union.
I had not considered this info because I didn't possess it. The judge asked me if I could leave the witness stand, confirm the current value of this plan, and determine if it were (as the client claimed) his present pension plan. I knew it wasn't.
Out of the courtroom, the client swore to me he had only one retirement plan, and that the old one had been rolled over into this new one [(401)k]. I said, in that case, the new one will have a positive balance on the date of inception. We called, it didn't.
He argued that they had to be the same because the date his old defined benefit plan was rolled over was almost the exact date that he began this (401)k. Moreover, the current value of the (401)k was almost the exact same amount as the present value of his defined benefit plan. Unfortunately, those were coincidences.
...."
Using a checklist can also help minimize the number of surprises at trial.
The following story, which was relayed on a forensic economics board, illustrates what can happen when a forensic economist is not provided all the information.
"...I've seen this happen on the other side in divorce cases- the other spouse tries to hide assets to protect them from being declared community property. But sometimes it can happen honestly....
Last Thursday I testified to the present value and marital portions of the husband's defined benefits and the wife's two retirement plans. Information about the husband's plan came from the plan's administrator and information about the wife's plan was provided by her employer.
The information, as always, was provided to me by my lawyer, with appropriate telephone numbers for corroboration.
On the witness stand, opposing counsel handed me a sheet of paper and asked me if I had seen it before. I hadn't. It was a document identifying my client, the husband, as a participant in a 401(k) through his employee union.
I had not considered this info because I didn't possess it. The judge asked me if I could leave the witness stand, confirm the current value of this plan, and determine if it were (as the client claimed) his present pension plan. I knew it wasn't.
Out of the courtroom, the client swore to me he had only one retirement plan, and that the old one had been rolled over into this new one [(401)k]. I said, in that case, the new one will have a positive balance on the date of inception. We called, it didn't.
He argued that they had to be the same because the date his old defined benefit plan was rolled over was almost the exact date that he began this (401)k. Moreover, the current value of the (401)k was almost the exact same amount as the present value of his defined benefit plan. Unfortunately, those were coincidences.
...."
posted by The Experts @ 7:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home