Law Blog

If you could make sure that all your money, property, and other important belongings were given to exactly the right people, wouldn’t you do it?  The question seems like a no-brainer but the reality is that the majority of Americans do not do this!

A 2008 study found that 58% of Americans do not have a will.  I find this number to be shocking.  I know that death and dying is an unwelcome topic, however dying without a will is a really bad idea.  This holds true whether you are worth millions or a lot less.  Wills, trusts, and other estate planning tools give you the power to decide how to distribute your estate.

When an individual dies without a will (or when they have an incomplete will), their estate goes through intestacy, which basically means the state decides how your estate will be distributed.  This is especially risky if you have step or adopted children as some state’s do not allow an adopted or stepchild to inherit in intestacy, or those non-biological children inherit less.

A recent article I read outlines the top 9 excuses for people gave for not making any type of estate plan:

(1)I don’t see a need for an estate plan

(2)I don’t plan on dying

(3)I don’t plan on dying – at least not soon

(4)I don’t want to pay for it

(5)I don’t want to spend the time

(6)I don’t want to talk about my family

(7)I don’t want to talk about my money

(8)I don’t want to ruin my kids

(9)I don’t trust my kids

As you can see, some of these excuses are just avoiding the inevitable.  One of the beauties of estate planning is that you have the ability to change the majority of your plan as situations change.  Without an estate plan, you are putting your finances and property at the mercy of a judge who has no idea what you and your family are like.

A recent LegalMatch study found that the majority of people interested in preparing for their future were more interested in overall estate planning than drafting a single will or trust.  These findings make sense in that those individuals that are thinking about wills and estate planning are really trying to maximize the benefits and thus are creating more complicated schemes than just a will or trust; and those individuals who are not are in the majority and doing nothing to plan.   In addition to the ability to specifically provide for your family and loved ones, there are tremendous tax benefits to creating a will and/or trust.

It is not necessarily that I think everyone needs to embrace their own death.  Rather, I am advocating for embracing the lives you will leave on your death.  Estate planning is such a powerful tool and for all the time that people spend worrying about money and their families in their lives they should take a little time and worry about them after they die too.

According to our internal traffic statistics, it appears that one of the most popular law library articles on our website is about wrongful terminations.

Does this mean that your employer is going around firing employees left and right, just for fun? Probably not…unless you work for this guy.

More likely, the current state of the economy (in case you haven’t heard, it’s not doing too hot right now) has led to many people losing their jobs, with no sign that the bloodletting of employment is going to abate anytime soon. When someone loses their job, especially if it’s for economic, and not performance-related reasons, they are understandably upset.

However, the vast majority of terminations are perfectly lawful. In virtually every state in the U.S., employment is “at-will,” meaning that the relationship is completely voluntary, and dependent on the mutual consent of both parties. This means that employees can quit their jobs at any time, and that employers can fire them at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all.

There are exceptions, however. For example, under federal law, and the laws of almost every state, it is unlawful to fire or refuse to hire a person because of their race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or disability (if it can be reasonably accommodated). Also, if the employee is working under an employment contract, they can only be terminated pursuant to the terms of the agreement.

Whether your termination is ultimately found to be lawful or not, it is not a bad idea to speak with an attorney if you suspect that improper motives colored your employer’s decision. It’s better to talk with an attorney for a few minutes and have them tell you that you don’t have a case, then to sit on your rights, and let a valid claim for wrongful termination slip through your fingers.

Many people seem to recognize this, and are using LegalMatch to help.

Rush Limbaugh is in the news again and this time it’s not because he said something horribly insensitive, stupid, narrow-minded, and/or racist.  It’s because someone else made up an insensitive, stupid, narrow-minded, and/or racist quote and attributed it to him.

Specifically, that someone was CNN’s Rick Sanchez, who claimed on air that Limbaugh said:

“I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.”

Ouch.  Harsh words, whether Limbaugh said it or not.  Check out the video here (the bogus Limbaugh quote comes up about 1 minute and 14 seconds in).

Limbaugh was understandably steamed at the fraudulent attribution.  No one wants to be called a racist, unless of course they actually are one, then they’re probably okay with it.

So now the inevitable question being asked by political pundits around the country, “Will Rush Limbaugh sue for slander?”

The answer (in my opinion anyway): probably not.  Rush will probably just want some sort of apology from Sanchez and CNN, which he already received via Twitter, though he’d probably would want more of a formal one.  If anything, he’ll just use it to further push his far-right republican conservative agenda.  “More evidence of liberal bias, using me as a target to demonize…blah blah,” is probably how it will go down.

Though if he did sue, he probably wouldn’t have too tough of a time convincing a jury to award him money.  Since he’s (arguably) a celebrity, he’d be considered a public figure and would have to satisfy the higher actual malice standard set out in The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in order to prevail on a defamation lawsuit against CNN and Sanchez.  Basically he’d have to prove that the CNN and/or Sanchez knowingly or recklessly made false defamatory statements about him.  And in light of the fact that the CNN Twitter post admitted to this, it would at least appear that Rush has a good case.  Though CNN could probably throw up some defense by publicly admitting and correcting their mistake, in my opinion it looks like Limbaugh would have a strong case.

Celebrities have it tougher when it comes to proving libel and defamation – it’s one of the few times where all us little people have an edge.  All we have to do, essentially, is prove the false statement damaged our reputation.  Though it may seem like defamation wouldn’t be a huge problem for non-public figures, LegalMatch does receive its fair share of defamation lawsuits.  So don’t be afraid to press your rights.  Unless you’re Rush Limbaugh, in which case you should probably reevaluate your life and try to figure out why people would so naturally believe you’d make such an outlandish racist statement.

If you’ve been watching cable news, you’re probably aware of the “Birther” movement – a loose coalition of individuals and organizations promoting the idea that Barack Obama is, for one reason or another, not constitutionally eligible to serve as President.

They make a variety of factual and legal arguments to support their conspiracy theories. The most common “factual” (a term I use loosely) argument they make is that Obama was not actually born in Hawaii, as is widely accepted. Instead, they claim, he was born in a foreign country (usually Kenya). Of course, they ignore that a Certification of Live Birth has been released, and confirmed to be accurate by the relevant officials in Hawaii.

Others concede that he was born in Hawaii, and rely on dubious legal arguments to support their claims. Some claim (usually without citing any supporting authority) that, in order to be a “natural born citizen” under the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, both parents must also be citizens of the United States. To be fair, the Supreme Court has never firmly ruled on what it means to be a “natural born citizen” under the meaning of the Constitution. So, the birthers have simply settled on their own definition, to the exclusion of all other possible definitions.

To support this point, they often rely on the writings of a Swiss political philosopher named Emerich de Vattel, author of the 1758 book “The Law of Nations.” This tome was apparently quite influential in the early development of international law, and it advocates the idea that, for a person to be a “true” citizen of a nation, both of his or her parents must also be citizens. There’s just one problem: no evidence suggests that this work particularly influenced the framers of the U.S. Constitution when they were drafting that document. Even if it did, a Swiss book on political philosophy is not binding legal precedent in the United States.

None of this has stopped a dentist/lawyer named Orly Taitz from filing a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s eligibility to serve.

The result? The case was dismissed almost immediately. However, Ms. Taitz continued to file motions, and, after repeated warnings from the judge, was slapped with a $20,000 fine for misconduct, noting that she made no coherent legal arguments, and that her briefs and motions read more like political manifestos than court documents.

It should be noted that one of the best things about this country is the fact that you can say almost anything about anyone, especially elected officials, with relatively few legal ramifications. However, that does not mean that you are guaranteed a platform to air your views, or that you get to use the courts to air whatever crazy idea happens to pop into your head. If that were the case, I’d be in court right now, arguing the merits of hamburger earmuffs.

In the end, we should all remember that the courts are a place to settle genuine legal disputes, and the non-issue of Mr. Obama’s citizenship is not one of them. Ms. Taitz has every right to express her political views in any number of ways. She could buy space on a billboard, she could run spots on the radio, or she could simply make like this guy.

A recent annual check-up got me thinking about healthcare.  Healthcare reform is all the rage right now.  But if you are like me (not a doctor and/or someone with limited medical background) the current debate is often too confusing to follow and you are not sure exactly what to think.

Medical malpractice and tort reform are one such aspect of the debate where you see the convergence of medical and legal issues searching for a solution.  To put it simply, medical malpractice has to do with professional negligence on the part of the care provider that results in some type of harm to the patient.  Because of these potential for errors, medical practitioners carry malpractice insurance to help offset the costs of a potential problem.

Doctors argue that frivolous lawsuits and high jury verdicts have driven up the cost of malpractice insurance to such levels that some doctors refuse to practice the more litigation-ridden areas of their profession or have resorted to conducting costly unnecessary test and procedures to further shield themselves from lawsuits.  While it is true that some attorneys have made millions on medical malpractice suits, many lawsuits bring with them legitimate claims that should continue to have a voice in the American legal justice system.

LegalMatch provides attorneys for both sides of a medical malpractice claim.  The most common situations in which this is found are:

• When there has been a failure to perform surgery
• Delay in treatment
• Failure to properly explain medical procedure or potential side affects
• Prescription errors
• Failure to properly diagnose a medical condition
• Improper treatment

No matter what side of the debate you are on, there are solutions.  As a NY Times article put it, “the goal is not to reduce malpractice lawsuits, it is to reduce malpractice.”  But that is the difficulty: to develop a system that allows providers, doctors, and patients to maintain a trust in the health care system while keeping costs down.  Now we just need to do it.