Tag Archives: legal

Legal Services Corporation Needs a Lifeline

This week BBA President Lisa Goodheart sent a letter to Senator John Kerry and the rest of the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation requesting support and protection for the funding of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC).  As written about before on Issue Spot, support for legal services is a core part of the BBA’s mission and is a vital service to some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Funding for civil legal assistance in Massachusetts is a partnership between federal, state and local governments as well as private attorneys and foundations.  The current economic climate has led to a substantial drop in resources for LSC programs due to both a 50 percent decrease in IOLTA revenue over the past two years and budgetary constraints among state and private contributors. All this comes at a time of unprecedented need – more than 1 in 5 Americans now qualify for legal assistance.

Legal services funding is not merely a spending issue.  LSC-funded programs in Massachusetts provide critical legal services to individuals who need it most, including victims of domestic violence, veterans returning from combat, those coping with the after-effects of natural disasters, persons with disabilities, and individuals undergoing foreclosures and evictions.  LSC funds four programs in Massachusetts – the Volunteer Lawyers Project of the Boston Bar Association, the Massachusetts Justice Project, Merrimack Valley North Shore Legal Services and the New Center for Legal Advocacy – all of whom have already absorbed massive cuts to their budgets and staff.

Why is LSC funding in jeopardy now?  It all goes back to August when Congress, reaching a last-minute compromise on the debt ceiling crisis, established the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.  The Committee is made up of 12 lawmakers – including Massachusetts Senator John Kerry – who have been tasked with finding $1.2 trillion in budget savings by November 23rd.  If the Committee is unable to come up with the necessary savings, the difference will be made up by automatic spending cuts, divided evenly among domestic and defense programs.

Senator John Kerry and, in general, the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation have been supportive of legal services.  They understand that legal aid attorneys provide meaningful representation to people who have no place else to turn.  Despite the presence in Congress of legal aid advocates who appreciate the importance of legal services, the fiscal situation before the Committee is daunting.  Funding cuts threaten to adversely impact our neighbors, friends, families, and communities.  We need to do everything we can to ensure that the citizens of Massachusetts are able to receive the legal assistance they need.

 

-Kathleen Joyce

Government Relations Director

Boston Bar Association

Comments are disabled for this blog. To submit your comments please e-mail issuespot@bostonbar.org

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Passage of Probate Laws Needed ASAP

The Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code (UPC) will be effective for estates on January 2, 2012; it became effective for guardianship on July 1, 2009.  This landmark piece of legislation is something the BBA has worked on and supported for over 20 years.  Not only does the UPC improve what was a deplorable situation concerning the appointment and conduct of guardians, but it will simplify the probate process for families and our courts while expediting the process for administering estates. The UPC facilitates the appointments of executors and also provides options for choosing informal or formal procedures to open and close probate matters.  All in all, lawyers and the courts are pleased with it.

The Probate and Family Court has been educating its staff on the new law and working diligently to promulgate new forms that will be used when the rest of the UPC is rolled out in January.  To supplement their efforts, the BBA will offer a continuing legal education seminar introducing the new estate rules in November to help practitioners navigate the changes.

Now what? The Legislature needs to pass two more bills quickly.  The first, S704, contains technical corrections to the UPC.  These corrective changes address issues that came to light during the initial implementation and take into account things like missed cross references, typos and other oversights. The second bill, the Massachusetts Uniform Trust Code (MUTC), is a companion piece to the UPC.  Since the MUTC repeals most of Article VII of the UPC and replaces it with more current language, it would be advantageous to have all the statutory trust law provisions in the same place in the new MUTC and take effect as scheduled on January 2, 2012.

Like the UPC, the MUTC is a substantial bill that has been well-vetted.  It was produced by the Uniform Laws Commission after a five-year drafting period.  Then in 2005, an ad hoc committee of lawyers, including members of the BBA, was convened to review the bill in detail.  They debated each section of the MUTC and, as a result, what we have is a statute that will simplify and make the trusts laws in Massachusetts more accessible.

Here are just a few reasons that the MUTC should be passed:

  • The laws concerning trust will be uniform, comprehensive and easy to find.
  • It will make the administration of trusts more uniform among the states.
  • It will reduce uncertainty and costly and needless litigation.
  • It provides guidance and protection for trustees who, by the terms of the trust, are to take direction from a non trustee.
  • It simplifies judicial proceeding regarding non judicial settlement agreements and modification and termination of trusts.

January is less than five months away and, realistically, we are looking at a legislative schedule that at best might enact the bills by late September – not a lot of time to conduct the education and training necessary for a smooth implementation next January.  Whatever can be done to facilitate the prompt passage of the MUTC legislation should be done.  Adopting the MUTC will move Massachusetts into the 21st century in trust law.

-Kathleen Joyce

Government Relations Director

BostonBar Association

Comments are disabled for this blog.  To share your comments email issuespot@bostonbar.org

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Practictioners’ Perspectives on the Alimony Reform Act

With the Alimony Reform Act of 2011 poised for passage, we thought we’d ask some of our members to share their reactions on the coming changes.  Here are the independent thoughts of the expert family law practitioners we canvassed:

Nan Elder – Bowman Moos & Elder, LLP

I think the principle benefit of the impending statutory change lies in the fact that it provides some scaffolding around which alimony awards can be negotiated and structured.  But the amount is only “some,” and the structure only “scaffolding” because the legislation also provides significant opportunity for deviation and modification – the exercise of judicial discretion – and it will take some years and quite a bit of litigation and appellate work to better clarify the full structural outlines.  For shorter term marriages, it may provide more guidance and definition sooner, and thus enable more ready resolution of them.   Longer term marriages will, however, quite probably still raise significant issues regarding its application.  This will be especially true in both new divorces and modifications for those “traditional” cases where one spouse has been the primary wage or salary earner and the other the caretaker and homemaker, often in expectation of, reliance on, and even with the express understanding between spouses of, the indefinite continuation of this family model.

As with any change of such magnitude, the transition will be arduous in a number of respects.   For litigants, it presents both an opportunity for relief and resolution for some and a source of reopening of wounds and the burdensome expense of extended or renewed litigation for others.  For lawyers, it presents an opportunity for some really creative thinking and lawyering, as well as for providing a framework for advising clients – but cynics might also suggest it presents an unexpected or unwarranted bonanza of new work.  For the courts, its implementation risks further burdening an already broken system.  Although the legislation staggers the availability of modifications of alimony judgments predating its effective date in March 2012, most practitioners I’ve talked with expect a flood of requests in addition to the uncertainty and litigation that will inevitably ensue as the statutory structure is fleshed out.

While the transition and implementation may well be both lengthy and rocky, the end result will hopefully provide some measure of clarity, if not certainty, especially for shorter term marriages.

Jennifer Rivera-Ulwick – Middlesex Probate & Family Court

The benefit of the proposed changes is the potential sense of predictability and consistency in determining alimony which will allow people to resolve this issue without seeking court intervention at the trial level.   Like the Child Support Guidelines, the law will provide a roadmap of sorts in formulating the appropriate alimony award, if any, based on the circumstances of the parties.  Given the new scheme for setting the duration, amount and form of alimony awards, I anticipate not only a decrease in the number of cases tried over alimony but also an increase in modifications being filed with the court to adjust prior alimony orders in accordance with the new legislation.  The roll-out dates, which determine when a modification may be filed as a result of the change in the law, will initially help relieve the courts from being overburdened with modification filings although the number of filings may depend in part on the level of awareness of the changes on the part of alimony obligors which is sure to increase each year after the law becomes effective.

Anita Robboy – Prince, Lobel & Tye, LLP

Massachusetts is long overdue for a critical look at Section 34 as our Commonwealth is very much out of line with nearly every state in the duration of alimony awards.  The Bill has clear guidelines regarding expected points of termination.  The major change will be that attorneys can no longer state that a Probate and Family Court judge lacks the power to terminate alimony.  The Bill specifically enables judges to limit the duration of alimony and to amend prior judgments that had no termination point.  The interplay between alimony awards, if any, and the division of assets is forever altered.  The recipient of alimony has lost an important ‘chit’: the value of future alimony.  The payor can rely on obtaining termination upon the happening of certain events, such as age, the length of alimony already received in relation to the marriage, and cohabitation.  Counsel must now advise clients that alimony comes, if at all, in a variety of flavors.  It will be important to strategize which form of alimony is applicable and/or most advantageous.

John Fiske – Healy, Fiske, Richmond & Matthew

As a mediator, I see the greatest benefit of the alimony bill as analogous to the Child Support Guidelines: it gives clients a good idea of what a court would do without their having to go to court.  In my 32 years of mediating divorces, the uncertainty of the length of alimony has been the most challenging obstacle for many husbands and wives.

I will tell [my clients] I want them to make informed choices, and to read the law, or any available summary of the law including my own, to get an idea of what a court would do before they choose their own solution.  The outcome of many of my cases would not be very different [had the reforms been in place previously], but the process of getting there will be more efficient. The outcome in some of my cases will be different, probably reducing the number of cases where clients define alimony for a certain period and then agree to leave open the question of whether to continue alimony in some amount after that date.  This law will be beneficial to just about everybody: clients, children, lawyers, mediators, judges, probation officers and financial planners for example.

-Michael Bouton

Government Relations Department

Boston Bar Association

Comments are disabled for this blog.  To share your comments email issuespot@bostonbar.org

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A Tale of Two Hearings

In a study in contrasts, the Judiciary Committee and the Revenue Committee held public hearings this week on issues of importance to the BBA.  The Judiciary Committee held a record breaking 20-minute hearing earlier this week on court reform, a BBA priority for at least the past 20 years.  Judiciary hearings are known to be lengthy and frequently last late into the night — with bills taking many months to work their way out of the committee.  After this week’s relatively brief hearing, the chair promised to swiftly move the bill along.  In fact, it is expected to be taken up by the full House next week.

The court reform bill on the Judiciary Committee’s agenda would replace the Chief Justice for Administration and Management with a professional administrator who would handle non-judicial functions.  There would also be a new “chief justice of the Trial Court,” to oversee strictly judicial matters.  Described by many as an historic and radical reshaping of the court department, the bill calls for other reforms that would impose guidelines on letters of recommendation for job candidates throughout state government and would require applicants for certain positions to take a screening exam.

The Revenue Committee’s public hearing held today was an entirely different story.  On the agenda was a proposal to raise revenue in an effort to reduce budget cuts.  This bill was described by supporters as making the tax system more equitable.  They testified that lower income people would see their tax rates dip and higher income people would see their tax rates increase.

Also on the Revenue Committee’s agenda was H 2559, An Act Relative to Continuing the Tax Base Rule for Property Acquired from Decedents, or the so-called income tax “step-up” bill filed by Representative Alice Peisch on behalf of the BBA.  The step-up bill, a detailed but very important piece of legislation, addresses a substantial yet hidden Massachusetts tax for successors to decedents’ property resulting from the change in the federal basis rules for 2010.

Unlike the Judiciary’s hearing which was held in a typical hearing room with plenty of seats for those in attendance, the Revenue hearing was standing room only.  The auditorium was filled with concerned citizens from across the state.

A great big hat tip to the BBA members who stood in line for thirty minutes just to get through the doors of the state house only to find the auditorium jam packed!  Citizens who support raising taxes for the wealthy made their presence known by loudly rustling pieces of yellow paper in unison.  Even with our sponsor by our side, we waited for 3 hours before being asked to wait some more.  So what happens next now that the bill has been publicly heard and is officially in play?  We’ll meet with Chairman Jay Kaufman and the Revenue Committee staff and go over the details of the BBA’s step-up bill.  This will provide us with the benefit of an open dialogue, and we won’t have to restrict our testimony to 3 minutes.

-Kathleen Joyce

Government Relations Director

BostonBar Association

Comments are disabled for this blog.  To share your comments e-mail issuespot@bostonbar.org

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Alimony Reform . . . Seeing the Light at the End of the Tunnel

At its April meeting, the BBA Council voted to support S 665, “An Act to Reform and Improve Alimony,” co-sponsored by Senator Gale Candaras and Representative John Fernandes.  This bill, the result of a Herculean effort led by the Legislative Alimony Reform Task Force, is the result of thoughtful discussion and negotiation.  The final product provides a structure that gives durational and amount limits to alimony orders while giving the court the ability to consider the facts and circumstances of each case, which is key to preserving judicial discretion within the framework of reform.  Our Family Law Section has taken it one step further and has provided additional comments for the Legislature to consider.

The Legislative Alimony Reform Task Force was convened to bring all parties with an interest in alimony reform together in one room to collaborate on a single, compromise piece of legislation. The Task Force constituted one of the broadest groups of family law stakeholders possible, including Chief Justice Paula Carey of the Probate and Family Court in an advisory capacity, and representatives from the BBA, the Massachusetts Bar Association, the Women’s Bar Association, father’s rights groups and private family law practitioners.  Members met for marathon sessions over fourteen months under strict confidentiality  —  trudging through various alimony reform proposals already in existence and working together on each piece of the new legislation.  The BBA’s Family Law co-chair, Kelly Leighton, acted as the BBA’s liaison throughout the process.

The call to reform alimony laws in Massachusetts has gotten louder and louder over the last several years.  These laws have a direct impact on the lives and livelihoods of so many people throughout the Commonwealth.  The current laws give little discretion to judges to set a termination date on alimony payments absent a significant change in the lives of the two parties. Often there is little consistency in alimony rulings because of the ambiguities in the current statutes.

We aren’t the first group calling for change in this area of the law, and it was only after our collaboration with other groups that it appears Massachusetts will finally benefit from legislative reform.  Our work on this started years ago, when the BBA and the MBA convened a joint task force to study the alimony issue and make recommendations.  In 2010 the BBA endorsed the report of that joint task force, which was utilized in the drafting of “An Act to Reform and Improve Alimony.”

Although the alimony reform process may still take some time, it certainly looks like Massachusetts will finally have an alimony system which is consistent while allowing for judicial discretion.  Legislators rely on groups like the BBA to help frame issues in a way that can bring about meaningful change.  The next step in the process is to weigh in publicly with our support when the Judiciary Committee schedules a public hearing on this issue.

-Kathleen Joyce

Government Relations Director

Boston Bar Association

Comments are disabled for this blog. To submit your comments please e-mail issuespot@bostonbar.org

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

We’re Making Progress in Debt Collection Reform

As a membership organization with nearly 10,000 members, issues of public policy and opportunities to comment and suggest reforms routinely present themselves to the Boston Bar Association (BBA).  The BBA Council has adopted policy positions on a wide variety of issues.  Once a position has been approved, many of our members wonder, “What now?”

The answer usually depends on timing – the timing of Council approval in relation to what the Legislature is focusing on at that particular moment.  The salience of an issue often dictates how much traction it will have in the Legislature and other governmental agencies.  Unfortunately, forecasting what will capture the attention of government officials is more of an art than a science.  So advancing BBA positions demands patience and perseverance.

Just one example. . .When word came to the BBA last Friday that the Attorney General was submitting proposed updates to its Debt Collection Regulations to provide stronger consumer protections, we were thrilled.  As noted in Issue Spot last August, the BBA’s Consumer Finance Committee wrote a report proposing updates to the current regulations to reflect the real world today.

Many of the proposed updates submitted by the BBA group are found in the proposal submitted by the Attorney General’s Office.  These changes will provide substantial relief for debtors that have been subjected to unfair collection practices not covered by the current regulations.

Before the regulations are updated, there is a comment period and a hearing scheduled on May 18th.  Members of the BBA Consumer Finance Committee will present testimony on the Attorney General’s proposal to express the BBA’s support for these important modernizations of debt collection practices.  The BBA is proud to work with the Attorney General’s Office and all other agencies where the expertise of our membership can be useful.

-Kathleen Joyce

Government Relations Director

Boston Bar Association

Comments are disabled for this blog.  To share your comments e-mail issuespot@bostonbar.org

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

D-Day for DOMA

Yesterday’s decision by President Obama to no longer defend the constitutionality of a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) came as a surprise.  The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) determined that DOMA is unconstitutional , an argument that Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has used in the Massachusetts lawsuit challenging the law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

Currently, there are DOMA cases pending in the First Circuit Court of Federal Appeals.  Both the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (“GLAD”) and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office have succeeded in the Federal District Court challenging DOMA, and the DOJ has appealed.  The lawsuits argue, among other things, that the federal definitions of “marriage” and “spouse” are sexual orientation based classifications that should be found unconstitutional.

The DOJ’s new refusal to defend DOMA does not mean this litigation will go away.  It simply means that the DOJ will not stand in any of the DOMA cases.  A little-known statute, 28 USC 530D, declares that if the DOJ decides not to defend a case, notice must be given to Congress.  Congress then has the right to appoint its own attorney to intervene and defend the law.  With no clear guidelines as to the application of this statute, it’s hard to predict how Congress will respond.

A look at our recent involvement reveals the BBA has been active on issues of discrimination, civil rights and same-sex marriage.  Here’s a brief timeline of how the BBA has participated in this debate in the past.

  • In October 2002, the BBA filed an independent amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health arguing that denying them civil marriage licenses violated the Massachusetts Constitution.
  • In October 2003, the BBA Council voted unanimously to support legislation that would allow for same-sex marriages in Massachusetts.
  • In December 2003, the BBA Council voted unanimously to sign the following resolution stating clearly the BBA position on the issue:

“We, the BBA, unequivocally support the ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, to stop denying same-sex couples access to civil marriage licenses and all of the protections and responsibilities conferred by legal marriage. The government should treat all people equally and fairly under the law. We also unequivocally oppose any attempt to change the constitution of Massachusetts in order to discriminate against same-sex couples.”

  • In 2004, the BBA testified before the Massachusetts legislature in opposition to a bill that would have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
  • In January 2005, the BBA Council voted unanimously to draft an independent BBA amicus brief supporting GLAD’s position in the Cote-Whiteacre v. Dept. of Pub Health case arguing that the 1913 statute, which prevents non-resident couples from marrying in Massachusetts if that marriage would be void in their home state, is unconstitutional.

As an organization that supports civil rights for all, the BBA will keep an eye on Congress in the coming weeks.

-Kathleen Joyce

Government Relations Director

Boston Bar Association

Comments are disabled for this blog.  To share your comments e-mail issuespot@bostonbar.org

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized