I was trained in Philosophy, first; obtained my undergraduate degree in Philosophy; then went on to graduate school to study Philosophy. Somewhere along the line, I decided to switch lanes and go to law school. However, the training I received in philosophy — of symbolic logic; of the analytical discipline of evaluating the logical consistency, force, soundness and validity of argumentation and methodology of argumentation, has remained with me throughout my legal career. In recent years, I have found that logic, validity, soundness of arguments, and consistency of argumentation, has become a rare breed. Whether this has more to do with a greater lack of rigorous education, or the belief that there is little to distinguish between “objectivity” and “subjectivity”, I do not know. I do know, however, that there remains, even today, a sense of the “integrity” of an argument. An argument’s integrity is found in an objective, dispassionate description of a case.
That is the role of an attorney — to give the narrative of the Federal Disability Retirement applicant under FERS & CSRS a sense of proper context, a picture of objective validity, and a substantive presentation of the issues which are relevant: medical, life, impact, occupation, and the intertwining of each issue with the others, without undue and over-reaching emotionalism which can often undermine the very integrity of the narrative presentation.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: The Job of a Federal Disability Attorney | Tagged: applying philosophical principles to law, argumentation and interpretation in opm disability law, argumentation principles learned in philosophy and applied in opm law, civil service retirement system for injured workers, consistency of argumentation principles key to success, CSRS disability retirement federal attorney, disability coverage for federal employees, doing of philosophy, federal disability law and legal argumentation, federal disability retirement, federal employment law and disability retirement, FERS disability retirement, filing disability with the postal service, integrity in law firm practice, integrity in legal arguments used on behalf of injured postal workers, lawyers as philosophers, legal argumentation to the administrative judge, methodology of argumentation and its application in opm disability law, OPM disability retirement, philosophers as lawyers, philosophical pragmatism to the domain of opm disability law, Post Office disability, requirements for medical retirement for postal workers, resources for injured federal workers, role of a federal disability lawyer in an opm disability case, soundness of legal arguments used in administrative law, the appropriate factual argumentation in your specific opm disability claim, the attorney's description of an opm medical retirement, the best expertise available in opm disability retirement, the integrity of an argument during the description of an opm claim, the job of a federal disability retirement attorney, the role of an attorney in a federal disability case, the value of applying philosophical principles into law practice, us government employee disability benefits, us postal service disability retirement, us postal service workers comp, USPS disability retirement, usps filing merit system protection board, usps injured employees cases, validity of argumentation used on behalf of the opm disability applicants, working exclusively for federal employees seeking medical retirement |
Hi webmaster – This is by far the best looking site I’ve seen. It was completely easy to navigate and it was easy to look for the information I needed. Fantastic layout and great content! Every site should have that. Awesome job