Category: News Feeds

Former prosecutor Matthew J. King went to prison a few years back after he met a guy at a strip club who he thought was a cocaine dealer. It turned out, the guy was an informant wearing a wire and he recorded King explaining a plot to launder $20,000 of supposedly ill-gotten gains through his attorney trust account.

Some of you may remember this as the scheme Saul Goodman employed to clean up Walter White’s assets in Breaking Bad. Basic cable is of course not the best source for criminality tips — those should come from acknowledged experts — and law enforcement was more than prepared to suss this one out. This is so obvious that in Office Space they had to lampshade the idea of stealing a plot from a movie by claiming Y2K would throw enforcement efforts off their trail.

King tussled with the feds, challenging a conviction that wouldn’t allow him to confront the informant in court. The Sixth Circuit explained that the rest of the evidence was more than enough to sustain a conviction and there’s no special right to confront every possible witness — a holding that makes a lot of sense and will probably fall apart when the Supreme Court decides it’s inconvenient for this administration. When all was said and done, King was sentenced to 44 months and served half of his sentence before getting out last summer.

Today, the Ohio Supreme Court decided that this sort of behavior couldn’t be allowed to stand and indefinitely suspended King’s law license. It’s actually a win for King, who has the option to apply for reinstatement down the road, with his AA sponsor supporting King’s argument that his transgressions stemmed from an alcohol addiction that he’s now dealing with.

And generally speaking permanent bans are bad. People should always have a shot at getting back in the good graces of the profession and whether or not he can ever convince the court that he’s fully prepared to come back is a question for another day. Still, if there were ever a case for a permanent canceling it’s got to be “using your law license to help people commit crimes.” I suspect King’s going to have a hard time winning over future panels when he applies.

Ohio Supreme Court yanks law license of Cleveland attorney convicted in Breaking Bad-inspired money laundering scheme

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

According to the Princeton Review’s 2020 law school rankings, which law school has the best quality of life?

Hint: The ranking is based upon student ratings of the beauty, safety, and friendliness on campus.

See the answer on the next page.

Lawyers today are inundated by an endless stream of hype aimed at getting them to embrace the latest technological flavor-of-the-month: AI! Predictive Analytics! 5G! Blockchain! And on and on… Overlooked amidst the buzz is the indisputable fact that, for a legal practice, there is no more important piece of technology than… the telephone. You may license the most cutting-edge practice management platform, but if your phone system is outdated, overpriced, and immobile, then your client service will suffer and along with it, your bottom line.

Join us on Thursday, December 5 at 4 p.m. EST and learn how to optimize your practice’s phone system. Learn from the experts from our friends at Ooma all about the benefits of a truly efficient, economical phone system fully integrated into your attorney workflow.

This webinar will be moderated by Jared Correia and is eligible for 1 hour of CLE credit (NY, NJ, & California only).

REGISTER HERE!

It’ll be that much harder to schedule hearings in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department starting in January. As reported by Law.com, the court announced beginning in January 2020, the number of weekly oral argument sessions will be just two, reduced from three.

This change is a result of a number of vacancies on the court. Earlier this year, Presiding Justice Rolando Acosta also announced that panels would be shrunk — from five judges to four. In a statement, the court left open the prospect of returning to normal operating procedures when the vacancies are filled:

A spokesman for the state courts said appeals court leadership “must balance the time that the court hears oral arguments with conference and chambers time for the associate justices.”

“As the court returns to its full complement of judges, Justice Acosta will modify the oral argument sessions as appropriate,” Lucian Chalfen said in an emailed statement.

There are currently three unfilled seats on the court, plus there’ll be three more vacancies in 2020 with the upcoming retirements of Associate Justices Peter Tom and John Sweeney Jr. and Associate Justice Rosalyn Richter’s plan to step down in the summer.

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

A little more than a week ago, on November 8, 2019, the University of Pennsylvania Law School, which has long been known as Penn Law for short, accepted $125 million from the W.P. Carey Foundation — the largest gift ever made to a law school — and honored its donor with naming rights to the elite institution. From that day forward, the school would be known as the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, the most prestigious law school to ever be renamed for a donor.

Unsurprisingly, students and alumni immediately objected to the school’s rebranding as “Carey Law,” and created a petition against the “Carey Law” monicker. That petition, which received thousands of signatures, reads:

While many of us are grateful for the generous donation from the Carey Foundation and the benefits it will bring to Penn Law, given the long-held history of referring to this institution as Penn Law, we respectfully ask that the shorthand for the law school remain Penn Law. Not only is there another law school utilizing the same “Carey” name (University of Maryland Carey School of Law), but past and current students chose to attend “Penn Law,” not “Carey Law.”

The undersigned would like to preserve the brand recognition, over century-long history, and clear association with the University of Pennsylvania that comes with the name Penn Law. This is in no way meant to belittle or disrespect the immensely generous gift by the Carey Foundation as we are extremely grateful for their support and look forward to the positive changes and improvements that come as a result.

Will these T14 law students and alumni be able to preserve tradition and brand recognition for their alma mater? The answer seems to be yes — for a limited time.

According to a letter from Dean Ted Ruger, the school will continue to be known as Penn Law, but only until the start of the 2022 academic year, when its shorthand name will become “Penn Carey Law.” This will allow current students to graduate under the Penn Law name, but future students will graduate from “Penn Carey Law”:

Much of the conversation has centered on concerns over the short-form name, instead of a focus on how the Carey Foundation gift will be used. We have heard you. Like all of you, my colleagues and I care deeply about the Law School’s history, tradition, and reputation in the academy, profession, and across the globe. Therefore, consistent with the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, which is our official name, the Law School will continue to use Penn Law as our short-form name until the start of the 2022-23 academic year, after which we will use Penn Carey Law, thereby embracing both tradition and transformation.

In an interview with the Daily Pennsylvanian, Pepper Hamilton partner M. Kelly Tillery, a 1979 graduate of the school, claims that alumni are discussing a donation moratorium unless “Penn Law” remains the school’s permanent shorthand name, going on to criticize the proposed name change:

Tillery called “Penn Carey Law” the “McDonald’s of law schools” because the name appears to be in a franchise with “Maryland Carey Law.” University of Maryland’s law school was renamed in 2011 after a $30 million donation from the W. P. Carey Foundation.

“The essence of a franchise is that the quality of the goods and service is not necessarily good, it is just consistent,” he said. “And the consistency level is defined by the lowest denominator: here, the University of Maryland, a fine school no doubt, but not the caliber of Penn Law.”

“I guess we will have to ask students, ‘Would you like fries with that law degree?,” he said.

Wow. This is perhaps the first time a T14 law school has been likened to a McDonald’s, but Tillery is definitely not lovin’ it.

Let’s get real here for a moment: Even when Penn Law formally becomes known as “Penn Carey Law,” does the administration seriously think students will actually refer to the school by its new name (aside from on résumé lines and t-shirts)?

(Image via Giphy)

(Flip to the next page to see the full letter from Dean Ruger.)

‘Penn Law’ Keeps Its Name—For Now [Law.com]
‘A complete nightmare’: Penn Law students and alums reflect on name-change process [Daily Pennsylvanian]

Earlier: Disgruntled T14 Students Take To Twitter To Protest Law School’s Name Change
Students And Alumni Are Pretty Pissed About T14 Law School’s Name Change
T14 Law School Receives Historic Donation, Changes Its Name

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

The internet and television are replete with articles and shows about how to declutter your life. This includes everything from throwing out old dance recital costumes to tossing old canned goods to clearing out computer files filled with old, blurry photos. For those of us who do not lead clutter-free lives, distributing our estates, upon our passing, can be tedious, time-consuming, and frankly, unpleasant, for family, friends, and professionals charged with the task.

In talking to my clients about estate planning, they often raise the issue of “stuff.” In other words, what happens to all of their “stuff” when they die? First, a last will and testament is not going to inventory every single item that you own and direct the executor where to send it or how it should be preserved. Most last wills and testaments have a general close citing cars, boats, glass, appliances, clothing, books, jewelry, and bric-a-brac, which I choose to call chotchkes (think mini Eiffel Tower statue or “#1 Sister” trophy). If married, the tangible personal property is generally left to the spouse. If there is no spouse, then to the testator’s descendants. Often the distribution of tangible personal property is left to the executor to sort out, after the last will is admitted to probate. This means that the executor inventories your home and decides who gets which item, taking into consideration the beneficiary’s wishes and the items’ values. The rest of the items (that no one wants) is sometimes sold, but often thrown out or removed by junk-removing companies.

In many states, testators leave a special memorandum with their last will and testament. This is a document separate from the last will which notes particular tangible items and to whom the testator wishes the executor to distribute to upon the probate of the last will. The last will may reference the memorandum and incorporate it into the terms of the last will, depending on the state’s laws. Under the memorandum, a testator will often include specific directions as to jewelry or family memorabilia. A memorandum is used for several reasons. Often tangible personal property is hard to locate upon a testator’s passing. The gold bracelet mentioned in a last will may be hard to identify or even find. Distributions under a memorandum are often unenforceable as to the value of the item, if it should go missing. Moreover, if not specifically listed in the last will, it provides privacy for the testator so that the public and the family does not see what exactly is being distributed to each individual.

Often, tangible personal property, like jewelry, is transferred during a testator’s life, especially as one ages. This prevents fighting after death as to whom should get what piece of jewelry or which set of candlesticks, and it also gives the testator the joy of seeing the gift realized. Of course, many proceedings arise after death as to whether or not the transfer was an actual gift or if it was a conversion. Therefore, if one anticipates family litigation as to tangible personal property, be certain to document the gifts as to date, value, and other circumstances.

For items not listed specifically in a memorandum or in the last will, the executor will need to decide next steps. Often items are of little monetary value, but of great nostalgia. As an executor, I am thrilled when beneficiaries wish to receive undesignated tangible personal property because it relieves the pressures of emptying a residence, trying to sell unmarketable items, or looking for opportunities to donate. In this day and age, there are not many outlets for CDs, cassette tapes, and VHS tapes. Old televisions and stereo systems are not wanted. Libraries often request a monetary donation with books in order to sort through and organize them. Junk removal services charge significant fees to take items out of a residence. That’s right, an estate will pay a company to remove a decedent’s entire life. Simply, your stuff is not marketable.

Not everyone is a celebrity whose personal effects are in demand. Famed Hollywood actress Doris Day’s personal property will be put on auction in April. Included in the collection are her awards, a Valentino outfit, and gifts from Rock Hudson and Paul McCartney. Famous chef Anthony Bourdain’s items, including a knife he used, were recently put up for auction. This summer, Madonna lost an appeal to stop the auction of a 1995 letter written by TuPac Shakur to her, while he was in prison. In the letter, he breaks off their relationship. The public wants TuPac’s stuff. Yours, probably not.

It is hard to manage the clutter in our lives while we are alive, and it is even more difficult when we pass away.  In considering one’s estate plan, besides the big-ticket items such as children, real estate, and brokerage accounts, be sure to pay attention to the small stuff. One’s legacy should include a somewhat organized and thoughtful distribution of personal items, so that one’s wishes can be carried with dignity and efficiency.

Cori A. Robinson is a solo practitioner having founded Cori A. Robinson PLLC, a New York and New Jersey law firm, in 2017. For more than a decade Cori has focused her law practice on trusts and estates and elder law including estate and Medicaid planning, probate and administration, estate litigation, and guardianships. She can be reached at cori@robinsonestatelaw.com.