Law Blog

I was thinking the other day how there are a lot of things that I don’t know.  For example, I don’t know why the staff at Chipotle constantly puts cilantro in my burrito despite how much I tell them I don’t want it (though from the looks of it, that place has got a whole other set of problems).  I don’t know why $50 shampoo is better than the generic stuff I get at Walgreens because it works just fine despite what my sisters tell me, seeing as how my hair has yet to fall off or cause me to contract cancer.  I also don’t know why I occasionally see a squiggly line in my eye fluid.  The list goes on and on, and continuing it any further in this post will do nothing but increase my already growing depression.

Anyway, the reason why I was thinking about my intellectual inadequacies is because sometimes you just see a news story and realize how much there is to know in this world and also how little of it that you actually know.  For instance, is there any reason why regular people like you and me can’t keep chickens as pets?  Because apparently there’s a movement in Ann Arbor, MI to get the city to pass an ordinance that would allow its residents to keep chickens as pets.

Really, is this an issue?  I had no idea there was even a problem with doing this, let alone that it was illegal.  I remember when I was a wee lad my neighbor had a couple of chickens in his backyard.  He’d feed them corn, harvest their eggs, and occasionally even allow them to berth a couple of chicks.  This all wouldn’t be so strange except that I grew up in a major urban California city.  Though I never thought twice about it when I was a kid, I just thought my neighbor really liked fresh organic eggs and playing farmer.

Coincidentally, the organic food movement is what Stephen Kunselman, the Ann Arbor councilman spearheading the move to pass the ordinance, is using as the basis to promote chickens as pets.  Supposedly, fresh eggs are a lot tastier and healthier for you than what you get at the supermarket.

Sounds great right?  Except that a lot of residents and the local Ann Arbor government are clucking (HA, I’m so witty) about the health and safety issues that come with owning chickens.  Apparently there’s a concern that allowing people to keep chickens as pets will encourage or at least not help to stem the spread of avian bird flu – which I hear is pretty nasty.  There’s also the issue of noise disturbance – less we forget what it is roosters are known for besides providing hours of entertainment (I’m joking, please no letters).

Anyway, all this got me thinking about chicken laws in other cities, specifically what’s the penalty for owning chickens?  Well, it ranges from fines to a misdemeanor depending on the circumstances (e.g. number of chickens, sanitation issues, etc.).  For those of you interested in keeping a chicken(s) as a pet(s), I strongly suggest you check your local laws to find out whether it’s legal.  The internet is an amazing place, by the way, so be sure to use it.

Preparing and contemplating ones own death is not a welcome thought or process.  However, what was previously a practice that simply involved drafting a will has morphed into a much more complicated process that not only plans for death but also for life.

Estate planning today rarely involves the composition of just a will but also creates trusts, guardians, powers of attorney, gifts, funeral arrangements, organ donations, and other estate planning techniques. Modern-day estate planning is not the dreaded process that it has been branded over the years mainly because it is no longer just about bequeathing property and assets to loved ones and can carry many benefits that an individual can enjoy while sill alive.

A recent LegalMatch study revealed a range of questions regarding estate planning, and how the high level of overall inquiries in this intricate legal field seems to be on the rise.  Part of this rise in interest can be attributed to the range of fields that estate planning incorporates- general estate planning, tax law, family law, complicated health care directives, and many others depending on individual circumstances.

I agree with a recent article published that catalogued some of the major trends in estate planning:

1.) Fewer estates will be taxable

2.) Careful planning to avoid probate court during incapacity is on the rise.

3.) There is an increasing concern over the wrong people gaining control over an individual’s assets.

4.) The arrangements or terms controlling the distribution of an inheritance are becoming increasingly detailed

5.) The amount gifted to charity is increasing steadily

6.) Having long-term health insurance is becoming more common

7.) Using a specialist in the estate planning process is on the rise

As the trends reveal, people are becoming increasingly aware of the need to plan for any and all possible future events. There are a tremendous amount of benefits from consulting an estate planning lawyer to planning for an individual’s specific needs and also to take advantage of the tax benefits associated with the creation of trusts and other planning tools.

LegalMatch just conducted a study looking at age-discrimination issues and found an overall increase in queries over the past 12 months.  Why the sudden increase in people seeking legal help for their age discrimination claim?  And what other trends have recently surfaced in the area of age discrimination law that effect everyday people?

Let’s start with the basis for any age discrimination claim: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).  The ADEA provides that discrimination of individuals over the age of 40 based on their age is illegal and a prosecutable offense.

Currently, the majority of age discrimination cases we see at LegalMatch are employment related: hiring, firing, and forced retirement contexts.  This trend is not limited to one employment sector but rather affects both blue collar and white collar employees alike.

The most obvious culprit affecting these age discrimination numbers is the rising nationwide unemployment rate, currently hovering around 9.1%.  Any time there is an economic downturn, people lose their jobs.  When alternative jobs aren’t immediately available, a layoff that normally would be ignored can turn into an age discrimination lawsuit.

Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court recently made it much harder to win an age discrimination suit by ruling that the employee now bears the full burden of proving that age was the determining factor in his or her layoff, firing or demotion.  This is a significant departure from the previous balancing test the Court employed, and makes this type of lawsuit especially difficult because rarely would an employee be present when their employers are discussing their future- a key piece of evidence.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal looked at another interesting aspect of age discrimination in the wake of layoffs- reverse age discrimination.  The article examined the rise in younger employees being laid off, often times in numbers equal or greater than their older colleagues.  Employees in their 20s and 30s are finding themselves more at risk of a layoff, as employers look to avoid age-discrimination lawsuits by adopting a last-one-in, first-one-out policy.

The LegalMatch study also confirmed this trend as a number of the age-discrimination inquires were disgruntled employees under the age of 40.  One of the big problems with this trend is that this younger age group does not have the same legal recourse.  There is no similar protection as the ADEA in place provided for the younger generation.  Essentially, by laying-off the younger members of the company, employers are shielding themselves from an age discrimination lawsuit.

Although the standard for age discrimination has been raised, the potential for suits is alarming and laying off younger workers is seen as a solution.

Lawyers get a bad rap.  The public often sees attorneys as conniving opportunistic people who are only out to make a quick dollar by capitalizing on the misery of others.  Ask most people to describe what they think the typical attorney is and you’ll likely get the stereotypical view of the fast-talking imposing dark-suited figure with slicked back hair and a total lack of morals.

The media doesn’t help this image either.  For every Atticus Fitch, there is a multitude of Lilah Morgans.  It’s no wonder then why so many distrust attorneys.  With a reputation like that, who would ever want to deal with one, let alone be forced to hire one to represent them?

Though as bad as a Lilah Morgan can be, what hurts the image of attorneys more are the Lionel Hutzes, the incompetent lawyer who takes your money and does absolutely nothing in return.  This image is in many ways much worst then the evil money-grubbing one.  Chances are most people would rather have an amoral competent attorney than an amoral idiotic attorney.  Couple this fear with the terrifying prospect of actually being involved in a legal dispute where the only way out is to retain a lawyer, and you’ve just described hell.

This fear can be described in two simple words: legal malpractice.  This horrible phrase inevitably lingers in the back of the mind of every person who has hired a lawyer.  Because poor representation not only means you’ll likely lose whatever legal issue you’re involved in, but it also means that you’ll probably have to deal with the expensive headache of cleaning up your lawyer’s mess afterward.  Not to mention the additional nightmare of bringing a new lawsuit against your old attorney.  To some people, this prospect is enough for them to want to represent themselves rather than to retain a lawyer.

But is legal malpractice really something you should be afraid of?  Yes, it is.  But is it really all that likely to occur?  Probably not.

Legal malpractice isn’t as common as the public may think.  Lawyers are subject to constant scrutiny, from the court, their respective state bars in the form of continuing education, and their clients.  Furthermore, the process of becoming a lawyer is no easy task in of itself.  To be admitted into law school takes top grades and a high LSAT score, not to mention the three years it takes just to finish law school.

In fact, the total number of legal malpractice cases handled by LegalMatch.com in California alone is on average 50 percent less then the number of medical malpractice cases handled in just the northern half of California.  This statistic is true almost uniformly across the board.  Personal injury, family law, even wrongful termination cases on average total more in number than legal malpractice cases.  In a sense, it’s much easier to find a good attorney, than it is to locate a good doctor, employer, or spouse!

Recently Nebraska amended its controversial Safe Haven Law, after it led to alarming consequences reflecting a shortcoming in social services resources.  The law at issue (Legislative Bill 157 or LB 157) permitted parents to leave children up to 17 years old with a state hospital without facing criminal liability.  Since the law went into effect in September 2008, 35 children were abandoned at hospitals across the state:  the majority of them were at least 11 years old, and many of them were afflicted with substantial behavioral conditions.  Furthermore, parents from outside the state traveled to Nebraska to leave their children in the state’s care. 

Nebraska’s amended law, which contains an age limit of 30 days old, now conforms to nationwide norms as well as the purpose behind safe haven laws.  Safe haven laws were enacted to protect young children from immediate danger, not as a way to deal with misbehaving or difficult children.

Questions have been raised as to what will happen to the 35 children who were abandoned during the time when LB 157 was in effect.  Under LB 157, parents cannot be prosecuted for abandonment by leaving their children at a licensed Nebraska hospital; yet, these parents could face other charges and consequences.

For example, if authorities discover that a child was subjected to abuse or neglect before being left with the state, County Attorneys have the choice to file charges.  Additionally, parents who abandoned their children will not be free from all parenting responsibility.  Courts regularly make parents to take parenting classes, participate in therapy, and engage in conflict resolution education – all in an effort to eventually reunite with their children.  Moreover, parents may need to pay child support while their children are in state custody. 

Although Nebraska’s simplest option (a.k.a. LB 157) is no longer available to parents, this is probably a good thing – so long as other resources are offered and made easily accessible.  If not, however, children face the very real prospect of neglect, abuse, or worse.  Some may claim that parents shouldn’t be able to hand off their parental responsibilities to the state, but if social services are not made available, innocent children – and ultimately society at large – suffers.  Therefore, authorities should make parents aware of their options, and not be judgmental when they seek help. 

For now, parents can get state assistance by calling social services, 211, or local United Way organizations.  Parents can also visit their local DHHS office online.  Various resources within the community, including parent support groups, crisis hotlines, faith-based organizations, and treatment centers, can be helpful.  Finally, parents may contact law enforcement after exhausting other options, or if other options are simply not feasible.