Page 6 - Ohio Vol 4 No 7

ARY A. SHUL
From Carrying Buckets to National QDRO Expert
WRITTEN BY DAN BALDWIN PHOTOGRAPHED BY JASON KERESSI
ATTORNEY OF THE MONTH
Gary A. Shulman never thought about becoming a lawyer, or even working in the eld of pension bene ts when he attended college. During those summers, Shulman earned his way by shoveling gravel and carrying boiling buckets of tar. His claim to fame was helping to install the roof on the Rich eld Coliseum, home of the Cleveland Cavaliers.
Shulman is the founder of QDRO Compliance Servic- es and author of the “Quali- ed Domestic Relations
Shulman recalls one of Jim’s favor- ite quotes: “Cleanliness is not next to Godliness, Grammar is next to God- liness.” e work ethic, attention to detail, and the drive to do a job right learned during those years helped propel him into a successful career as an attorney and noted author in the eld of QDROs.
In the early eighties, he le the ac- tuarial rm to work in the employee bene ts department of Eaton Corp. He didn’t realize it then, but his ten- ure with Eaton proved to be the per- fect storm of setting up his future as one of the leading QDRO experts in the country. While working full-time at Eaton, he decided to attend Cleve- land-Marshall School of Law at night. is was also the time the Quali ed Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was created by Congress as part of the Retirement Equity Act of 1984.
e act established the rights of former spouses of pension plan par- ticipants to receive their marital share of the monthly pension directly from the plan administrator. Participants no longer had to liquidate every other asset they owned to o set the value of the pension.
“ is totally and dramatically changed the game in the area of property divi- sion in divorce,” he says.
SORRY, JUDGE, TRY AGAIN
A QDRO is a court order signed by the judge for the purpose of awarding
the former spouse his/her property right in the pension. Unfortunately, Shulman says, Congress gave plan administrators the right to reject the QDRO if they didn’t like it. “QDROs represent one of the few areas of the law where someone can take a court order, rip it up and say, ‘Sorry, judge, try again.’ at attitude presents a huge challenge for attorneys and the people they represent.”
One of Shulman’s responsibilities at Eaton was reviewing and interpreting QDROs – the rst ever to enter the legal marketplace. e act was new and that meant the nation’s attorneys didn’t understand how to dra them and plan administrators didn’t know how to review them. is was also a time when virtually every retirement plan in the country was of the de ned bene t variety, and divorce lawyers for the rst time in their careers were hearing words such as early retire- ment subsidies, joint and survivor an- nuities, actuarial equivalencies, and so on.
As a result, more than 90 percent of QDROs were rejected by plan ad- ministrators nationwide. Plan Ad- ministrators were also not required to explain why they rejected the QDRO. is le divorce lawyers in the dark and it was not uncommon for a QDRO to be rejected ve or six times.
THERE HAD TO BE A BETTER WAY
By the early ’90s, Shulman had re-
rd Order Handbook” (3 Edi-
tion), “Dividing Pensions in Divorce 3rd. Ed,” and “ e Complete QDRO Training Manual for Corporations and Plan Administrators.”
“I am incredibly lucky in that I have found a calling that combines my love of mathematics with my love of the law, and my passion for helping peo- ple through the challenging process of quali ed domestic relations orders (QDROs). Being able to share what I have learned and experienced with other attorneys and business leaders through my work, my books and my seminars and teaching opportunities is incredibly rewarding,” Shulman says.
THE PERFECT STORM
A er earning his Bachelor of Sci- ence in mathematics, he thought, “So, I’m good at math, now what?” e answer came in the form of employ- ment in the actuarial eld with Kass, Germain & Co., an actuarial pension consulting rm in Cleveland. Work- ing with mentors Jim Germain, Dave Kass and Mike Libman, his time with the rm was formative in developing the motivation to achieve success in his current practice area. He says, “My education really started a er I gradu- ated from college.”
ATTORNEY AT LAW MAGAZINE · CLEVELAND · VOL. 4 NO. 7 6
GM