Our letter to the editor was published in regard to an article in the Wall Street Journal that discussed the possibility of deregulating the practice of law. You can read our response as well as a couple of other individuals' responses here.
Showing posts with label Law and Lawyers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law and Lawyers. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Response To The Editor
Yesterday, August 22, 2011, we reviewed an article in the Wall Street Journal titled, "Time to Deregulate the Practice of Law." You can read the full article here. We responded to the article with a letter to the editor. This is our full response to the article:
August 22, 2011
Editor:
In regard to Winston and Crandall's essay "Time to Deregulate the Practice of Law" (WSJ 8/22/2011). A will is a simple document indicating how you want your assets distributed at your death. Simple. Anybody can write on a napkin, "Distribute my assets equally to my children." Simple.
Then you die. Your children are now faced with the processes of actually transferring your home, your bank account, your investment or retirement accounts, your life insurance policy, your car to themselves. The children must deal with county recorders and deeds, bank managers and signature cards, investment firms and contracts, life insurance companies and policies, the division of motor vehicles and titles. Dealing with these entitites may also be simple . . . or not.
To think that a will is the beginning and end of the legal issues involved in transferring assets at death exhibits a gross ignorance of reality, let alone the law, exactly the level of gross ignorance companies like LegalZoom (praised by the authors) deeply rely upon in selling their wares, but the kind of gross ignorance I did not expect from senior fellows at the Brookings Institution.
Craig E. Hughes
Hughes Estate Group, Attorneys
August 22, 2011
Editor:
In regard to Winston and Crandall's essay "Time to Deregulate the Practice of Law" (WSJ 8/22/2011). A will is a simple document indicating how you want your assets distributed at your death. Simple. Anybody can write on a napkin, "Distribute my assets equally to my children." Simple.
Then you die. Your children are now faced with the processes of actually transferring your home, your bank account, your investment or retirement accounts, your life insurance policy, your car to themselves. The children must deal with county recorders and deeds, bank managers and signature cards, investment firms and contracts, life insurance companies and policies, the division of motor vehicles and titles. Dealing with these entitites may also be simple . . . or not.
To think that a will is the beginning and end of the legal issues involved in transferring assets at death exhibits a gross ignorance of reality, let alone the law, exactly the level of gross ignorance companies like LegalZoom (praised by the authors) deeply rely upon in selling their wares, but the kind of gross ignorance I did not expect from senior fellows at the Brookings Institution.
Craig E. Hughes
Hughes Estate Group, Attorneys
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Estate Planning Fraud Alert
There is danger in using online documents. Read our article here on "The Dangers of Internet Documents." This blog posting is to give you an update on the two class action suits mentioned in the article.
The Missouri Case:
Todd Janson, et al. v. Legalzoom.com, Inc., Case 1:10-CV-04018-NKL
Synopsis of case: This class action suit claims that Legalzoom.com, Inc. ("Legalzoom"), an internet provider of legal documents, is unlawfully practicing law in Missouri by providing legal documents and instructions over the internet.
A judge ruled against Legalzoom's request to dismiss the case. The case goes to trial August 22, 2011. We will keep you posted.
The California Case:
Webster v. Legalzoom.com, Inc., No. BC 438637 (Los Angeles Super. Ct. filed May 27, 2010)
Synopsis of case: Katherine Webster, the executor of an estate, claimed that Legalzoom created a trust that was legally defective causing the estate to pay over $10,000 to undo damage done by the flawed trust. Ms. Webster claimed that Legalzoom used unfair and deceptive business practices as well as engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
Legalzoom is settling with the Plaintiffs in the Webster case which will also resolve a related class action suit, Whiting v. Legalzoom.com, Inc. Legalzoom is not accepting blame for the defective trust. They are offering to settle in order to stop legal costs in the courts. We will keep you posted.
Future Updates:
We will be covering a serious of online articles regarding the issues of the unlawful practice of law and online legal document companies in the next few weeks. It is a serious matter, and it is important for you to be aware of the issues in order to protect yourself from being harmed.
The Missouri Case:
Todd Janson, et al. v. Legalzoom.com, Inc., Case 1:10-CV-04018-NKL
Synopsis of case: This class action suit claims that Legalzoom.com, Inc. ("Legalzoom"), an internet provider of legal documents, is unlawfully practicing law in Missouri by providing legal documents and instructions over the internet.
A judge ruled against Legalzoom's request to dismiss the case. The case goes to trial August 22, 2011. We will keep you posted.
The California Case:
Webster v. Legalzoom.com, Inc., No. BC 438637 (Los Angeles Super. Ct. filed May 27, 2010)
Synopsis of case: Katherine Webster, the executor of an estate, claimed that Legalzoom created a trust that was legally defective causing the estate to pay over $10,000 to undo damage done by the flawed trust. Ms. Webster claimed that Legalzoom used unfair and deceptive business practices as well as engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
Legalzoom is settling with the Plaintiffs in the Webster case which will also resolve a related class action suit, Whiting v. Legalzoom.com, Inc. Legalzoom is not accepting blame for the defective trust. They are offering to settle in order to stop legal costs in the courts. We will keep you posted.
Future Updates:
We will be covering a serious of online articles regarding the issues of the unlawful practice of law and online legal document companies in the next few weeks. It is a serious matter, and it is important for you to be aware of the issues in order to protect yourself from being harmed.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Definition of the Week
Attorney: The word "attorney" simply means "representative." An attorney may be a person with a law degree, formally authorized to draft legal documents for others and represent others before judges. Or an attorney may be a non-lawyer or "attorney-in-fact" whom you name to represent you in a power of attorney.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Estate Planning Fraud Alert
$16 M default judgment entered against seller of living trust
By Michelle Massey, Texarkana Bureau
Southeast Texas Record
4/1/2009 7:25 PM
U.S. District Judge Harry F. Barnes granted plaintiffs a default judgment for more than $16 million against The Estate Plan, a company accused of ripping off senior citizens in Texas and Arkansas.
The Estate Plan and other living trust sellers are facing allegations of "masquerading as qualified financial advisers, estate planners, lawyers, and paralegals" to "exploit and prey" upon senior citizens with the creation and selling of "unnecessary and often useless" living trusts.
The suit claims companies intentionally misstate the law, and use fear of the estate tax to get senior citizens to buy "plans," that are often ineffective and unnecessary.
Once the plans are purchased these operators convince senior citizens to use their IRA accounts or other tax-exempt accounts to purchase variable annuities without disclosing the risks, fees, surrender charges, or commissions.
Defendants are accused of fraud, unauthorized practice of law, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy.
Defendants named in the lawsuit are John R. Vermillion, John Vermillion and Associates LLC, CLA USA Inc., CLA USA Insurance Services, CLA Marketing, CLA Estate Services, CLA Insurance Services, Charles Loper Jr., Charles Loper III, Steven Morgan, Robert Reese and The Estate Plan Inc.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Sept. 11 adding defendants Winning Strategies Marketing, Inc., Quest Staffing Group Inc., James E Bradshaw Jr, Joel Carson and Olaf Turek.
Correction: U.S. District Judge Harry F. Barnes granted plaintiffs a default judgment for more than $16 million against The Estate Plan after failing to answer the complaint. The Estate Plan has been severed from the suit. Charges are still pending against the others and all are maintaining their innocence. The commenter below is correct.
By Michelle Massey, Texarkana Bureau
Southeast Texas Record
4/1/2009 7:25 PM
U.S. District Judge Harry F. Barnes granted plaintiffs a default judgment for more than $16 million against The Estate Plan, a company accused of ripping off senior citizens in Texas and Arkansas.
The Estate Plan and other living trust sellers are facing allegations of "masquerading as qualified financial advisers, estate planners, lawyers, and paralegals" to "exploit and prey" upon senior citizens with the creation and selling of "unnecessary and often useless" living trusts.
The suit claims companies intentionally misstate the law, and use fear of the estate tax to get senior citizens to buy "plans," that are often ineffective and unnecessary.
Once the plans are purchased these operators convince senior citizens to use their IRA accounts or other tax-exempt accounts to purchase variable annuities without disclosing the risks, fees, surrender charges, or commissions.
Defendants are accused of fraud, unauthorized practice of law, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy.
Defendants named in the lawsuit are John R. Vermillion, John Vermillion and Associates LLC, CLA USA Inc., CLA USA Insurance Services, CLA Marketing, CLA Estate Services, CLA Insurance Services, Charles Loper Jr., Charles Loper III, Steven Morgan, Robert Reese and The Estate Plan Inc.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Sept. 11 adding defendants Winning Strategies Marketing, Inc., Quest Staffing Group Inc., James E Bradshaw Jr, Joel Carson and Olaf Turek.
Correction: U.S. District Judge Harry F. Barnes granted plaintiffs a default judgment for more than $16 million against The Estate Plan after failing to answer the complaint. The Estate Plan has been severed from the suit. Charges are still pending against the others and all are maintaining their innocence. The commenter below is correct.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Sloppy Retainer = Pro Bono
Top Stories From Law.com
Sloppy Drafting of Retainer Means Client's Estate Not Liable for Expert Fees
Michael Booth
New Jersey Law Journal
March 31, 2009
Someday, someone will devise a bullet-proof retainer agreement by which to make a client unequivocally responsible for all litigation fees and costs. Until then, Farmer v. Estate of Patel (.pdf) offers a teaching example of what not to do.
The Retainer Agreement
In addition to legal fees, you may be required to pay for expenses in connection with the institution and prosecution of your claim. Such expenses may include, among other things, expert's fees and expenses for other testimony or evidence, court costs, service fees, investigators' fees, deposition costs, cost of briefs, transcripts on appeal and photocopying, long distance telephone and postage expenses.
Meanwhile, the medical malpractice suit went on, though Patel died in early 2002 before trial. It ended in an Atlantic County jury's no-cause verdict.
Farmer then billed the estate's executor but was paid only $13,000 so he sued.
Decision
Any ambiguity had to be construed against the lawyer who drafted it.
The term "may be required to pay" was not specific enough
Farmer did not make full and complete disclosure to the client of all material facts and potential consequences from signing the retainer agreement.
Nor did he renegotiate the retainer agreement with Patel's executor, whose command of the English language is limited.
Sloppy Drafting of Retainer Means Client's Estate Not Liable for Expert Fees
Michael Booth
New Jersey Law Journal
March 31, 2009
Someday, someone will devise a bullet-proof retainer agreement by which to make a client unequivocally responsible for all litigation fees and costs. Until then, Farmer v. Estate of Patel (.pdf) offers a teaching example of what not to do.
The Retainer Agreement
In addition to legal fees, you may be required to pay for expenses in connection with the institution and prosecution of your claim. Such expenses may include, among other things, expert's fees and expenses for other testimony or evidence, court costs, service fees, investigators' fees, deposition costs, cost of briefs, transcripts on appeal and photocopying, long distance telephone and postage expenses.
Meanwhile, the medical malpractice suit went on, though Patel died in early 2002 before trial. It ended in an Atlantic County jury's no-cause verdict.
Farmer then billed the estate's executor but was paid only $13,000 so he sued.
Decision
Any ambiguity had to be construed against the lawyer who drafted it.
The term "may be required to pay" was not specific enough
Farmer did not make full and complete disclosure to the client of all material facts and potential consequences from signing the retainer agreement.
Nor did he renegotiate the retainer agreement with Patel's executor, whose command of the English language is limited.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Don't take a slice of my pie!
And from the inheritance fight that never dies, The Pacific Daily News reports the the son of DHL co-founder Larry Hillblon has sued his attorneys and others in federal court in California accusing them of taking too much money from his multimillion-dollar settlement.
According to Hillblom's Feb. 3 complaint, his attorneys were supposed to collect only 38 percent from Hillblom's share of the $550 million Hillblom estate, plus expenses, but they allegedly collected 56 percent. He and three other Hillblom children were each awarded 90 million dollars.
Girls from several Asian and Pacific countries made claims that he was the father of their children. Most of Saipan's attorneys became involved in the case. It was ultimately determined that a Vietnamese child, 2 Filipino children, and a child from Palau were heirs.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
One for the Ages - Abe Turns 200
"Discourage litigation," he writes in "Notes For a Law Lecture"
"Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser; in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peace-maker, the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough."
Abraham Lincoln
Quoted from ABA Journal
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Is This True?
At the Consumerist you can choose your own adventure through Mandatory Binding Arbitration. According to them, recent studies have found that arbitrators rule against consumers between 94-96% of the time.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Lucky Man
A law professor with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, better known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, has spurred Major League Baseball to raise money for research in an event on July 4, the 70th anniversary of the baseball great’s farewell speech.
Michael Goldsmith, 57, is a law professor at Brigham Young University and a former mob prosecutor. He learned he had the progressively paralyzing disorder in September 2006, the New York Times reports. In November 2008, he wrote an article in Newsweek called Batting for the Cure, urging baseball to make July 4 ALS-Lou Gehrig Day in an effort to raise money for a cure.
Goldsmith was profiled in November articles in the Deseret News and the New York Times.
Gehrig’s speech will be read at the seventh-inning stretch at all Major League ballparks where games are being played on July 4, according to MLB.com. Thirty ball clubs will auction items worn by players to raise money, and MLB will also make a contribution, the Times says.
The Speech
Fans, for the past two weeks you have been reading about a bad break I got. Yet today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth.
I have been in ballparks for seventeen years and have never received anything but kindness and encouragement from you fans. Look at these grand men. Which of you wouldn’t consider it the highlight of his career just to associate with them for even one day?
Sure I’m lucky.
Who wouldn’t consider it an honor to have known Jacob Ruppert? Also, the builder of baseball’s greatest empire, Ed Barrow? To have spent six years with that wonderful little fellow, Miller Huggins? Then to have spent the next nine years with that outstanding leader, that smart student of psychology, the best manager in baseball today, Joe McCarthy?
Sure I’m lucky.
When the New York Giants, a team you would give your right arm to beat, and vice versa, sends you a gift - that’s something. When everybody down to the groundskeepers and those boys in white coats remember you with trophies -- that’s something.
When you have a wonderful mother-in-law who takes sides with you in squabbles with her own daughter -- that’s something.
When you have a father and a mother who work all their lives so you can have an education and build your body -- it’s a blessing.
When you have a wife who has been a tower of strength and shown more courage than you dreamed existed -- that’s the finest I know.
So, I close in saying that I might have been given a bad break, but I've got an awful lot to live for.
Michael Goldsmith, 57, is a law professor at Brigham Young University and a former mob prosecutor. He learned he had the progressively paralyzing disorder in September 2006, the New York Times reports. In November 2008, he wrote an article in Newsweek called Batting for the Cure, urging baseball to make July 4 ALS-Lou Gehrig Day in an effort to raise money for a cure.
Goldsmith was profiled in November articles in the Deseret News and the New York Times.
Gehrig’s speech will be read at the seventh-inning stretch at all Major League ballparks where games are being played on July 4, according to MLB.com. Thirty ball clubs will auction items worn by players to raise money, and MLB will also make a contribution, the Times says.
The Speech
Fans, for the past two weeks you have been reading about a bad break I got. Yet today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth.
I have been in ballparks for seventeen years and have never received anything but kindness and encouragement from you fans. Look at these grand men. Which of you wouldn’t consider it the highlight of his career just to associate with them for even one day?
Sure I’m lucky.
Who wouldn’t consider it an honor to have known Jacob Ruppert? Also, the builder of baseball’s greatest empire, Ed Barrow? To have spent six years with that wonderful little fellow, Miller Huggins? Then to have spent the next nine years with that outstanding leader, that smart student of psychology, the best manager in baseball today, Joe McCarthy?
Sure I’m lucky.
When the New York Giants, a team you would give your right arm to beat, and vice versa, sends you a gift - that’s something. When everybody down to the groundskeepers and those boys in white coats remember you with trophies -- that’s something.
When you have a wonderful mother-in-law who takes sides with you in squabbles with her own daughter -- that’s something.
When you have a father and a mother who work all their lives so you can have an education and build your body -- it’s a blessing.
When you have a wife who has been a tower of strength and shown more courage than you dreamed existed -- that’s the finest I know.
So, I close in saying that I might have been given a bad break, but I've got an awful lot to live for.
Friday, January 9, 2009
He's One of Us, Part 2
Since Roland Burris' appointment to Illinois’ vacant U.S. Senate seat, there's been talk around the web about the monument to himself.
On Thursday, Burris explained to reporters that his tombstone is already prepared because “I am a probate attorney.”
“If I’m going to try to counsel people on preparing to leave this earth, and counsel them correctly, I have to also have to mine already prepared,” he added.
Burris was appointed by Blagojevich to fill the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama. He still faces legal challenges before he can go to Washington.
On Thursday, Burris explained to reporters that his tombstone is already prepared because “I am a probate attorney.”
“If I’m going to try to counsel people on preparing to leave this earth, and counsel them correctly, I have to also have to mine already prepared,” he added.
Burris was appointed by Blagojevich to fill the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama. He still faces legal challenges before he can go to Washington.
Monday, January 5, 2009
One of us
Roland W. Burris, who is expected to be named to Obama's vacated senate seat by disgraced Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is a lawyer with the Milwaukee based law firm of Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan.
According to their website his practice is in the areas of business transactions, consumer affairs, estate planning, wills, trusts and probate.
According to their website his practice is in the areas of business transactions, consumer affairs, estate planning, wills, trusts and probate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
