Client Accounts
What Clients Have Said About Working with the Firm
The accounts below have been gathered from clients who used one or more of the firm's services. They have been reproduced with consent and edited only for length.
Back to Home12+
Years of pension practice
340+
Clients served
4.7
Average satisfaction rating
78%
Appeals reaching written resolution
Client Reviews
In Their Own Words
Michael Harrington
Bangkok · Retired Civil Servant
I came to yutithaq after receiving a pension decision that I could not properly understand. The Decision Review note the firm produced was the first document in the entire process that actually told me what had been decided and why. It was plain, unhurried, and genuinely useful — which was not my experience with the authority's own correspondence.
April 2025
Siriporn Charoenwong
Nonthaburi · Former Government Employee
The appeal the firm drafted was thorough and clearly written. I was concerned that the process would be stressful, but the firm sent me a written update whenever anything significant happened, and the solicitor spoke with me before each step was taken. The matter was resolved at the administrative stage without going to court, which was the outcome I had hoped for.
March 2025
Robert Beaumont
Bangkok · British Expatriate
What I valued most was the fixed fee. I had spoken to another firm that quoted an hourly rate and could not tell me what the total would be. Yutitham told me exactly what each service would cost before I committed to anything. The Decision Review note alone helped me understand that my situation was more straightforward than I had feared.
April 2025
Wanchai Phromporn
Chiang Mai · Retired Teacher
My pension calculation had been wrong for three years and I did not know it. The firm identified the error in the review note and explained in clear language what the correct calculation should have been. The appeal process took about four months but the outcome was a corrected benefit and a back payment for the period of underpayment.
February 2025
Lucia Martini
Bangkok · Italian Expatriate
The firm was straightforward about what the Decision Review could and could not tell me. The opinion note was thorough and I appreciated that it set out the options without pushing me towards any particular next step. I chose not to appeal in the end — the note helped me understand why the authority had decided as it did, and on reflection the reasoning was sound.
March 2025
Prawit Niamsombat
Bangkok · Retired Bank Officer
The court representation was a serious undertaking but the firm handled it well. I was briefed in writing before each hearing and never felt unclear about what was happening or why. The matter took about eleven months from the court filing to judgment. I would recommend the firm to anyone whose pension dispute has reached that stage.
January 2025
Case Summaries
Selected Matter Outlines
Names and identifying details have been changed. Outcomes are described in general terms only.
Matter Outline 01
Calculation Error in Government Pension Fund Benefit
Challenge
A retired government officer received a monthly benefit that appeared lower than the amount he had calculated based on his years of service. The decision letter did not explain how the benefit had been calculated and the authority had not responded to his letters of enquiry over a period of eight months.
What the Firm Did
The Decision Review identified that a five-year period of service appeared to have been excluded from the calculation, likely due to a transfer between ministries in 2003. The firm drafted an administrative appeal setting out the full service record and the relevant contribution data. A supplementary submission was filed when the authority raised a procedural query.
Outcome
The authority issued a revised calculation accepting the five-year period. The corrected monthly benefit was higher than the original amount, and a back payment was made covering the period from the date of the initial decision. The total process from review to resolution took approximately five months.
"The written note at the start was worth the fee on its own. Everything else followed from understanding what had actually gone wrong."
Matter Outline 02
Eligibility Dispute — Social Security Fund Contribution Period
Challenge
A client in her mid-sixties had been informed that she did not meet the minimum contribution period for an old-age benefit under the Social Security scheme. She had contributed during three different employment periods over twelve years, but the authority's calculation appeared to exclude a period when she had been employed through an agency.
What the Firm Did
The Decision Review confirmed that the agency employment period should, under the applicable rules, have been counted. The firm prepared an administrative appeal citing the relevant provisions and attaching the employment contract and payslip records the client had retained. The submission took three weeks to draft and was submitted with a covering letter explaining the legal basis for inclusion of the period in question.
Outcome
The authority reviewed the submission and accepted the inclusion of the agency employment period. The client was confirmed as eligible for the old-age benefit. The process took approximately three months from filing to written confirmation. Court proceedings were not required.
"I had given up on this and accepted I would not receive the benefit. The firm's review showed there was a clear ground and the appeal settled it."
Matter Outline 03
Provident Fund Dispute — Court Stage
Challenge
A client had received a Provident Fund payout on retirement that was approximately 15% lower than he had calculated based on his contribution records. An initial administrative appeal had been rejected without detailed reasoning. He engaged the firm after the rejection to consider whether court proceedings were appropriate.
What the Firm Did
The Decision Review of the rejection identified that the authority had applied an incorrect vesting calculation for a period prior to an employer merger. The firm prepared a court filing, assembled the case file including employer contribution records and fund statements, and appeared at three hearings over a period of approximately ten months. The client was briefed in writing before each hearing.
Outcome
The court upheld the client's position in part, ordering a recalculation of the benefit for the disputed period. The additional amount recovered exceeded the legal fees incurred across all three services. The total duration from initial review to judgment was approximately fourteen months.
"The firm was calm and organised at every stage. I was nervous about court but the briefings beforehand meant I was never uncertain about what was happening."
Contact the Firm
Reach Us Directly
Telephone
+66 2 167 8423Address
89/2 Sathorn Tai Road, Thung Maha MekSathon, Bangkok 10120, Thailand
Office Hours
Monday – Friday: 09:00 – 17:30Saturday: 09:00 – 13:00
Closed Sunday & public holidays
Response Time
Written enquiries acknowledged within one working day.Credentials
Professional Standing
Lawyers Council of Thailand
All practising solicitors hold current registration, renewed annually.
Professional Indemnity Insured
The firm carries professional indemnity cover for its legal services.
PDPA Registered
Client data processed in accordance with Thailand's Personal Data Protection Act.
Your Matter
The Firm Is Ready to Look at the Decision You Have Received
Send a written enquiry describing the decision and the question you have about it. No charge is made for the initial exchange.
Send an Enquiry