Archive for April, 2008

« Back

CUT COSTS, SAVE MONEY ON FAMILY LAW CASES

Friday, April 18th, 2008

Representation by a quality, skilled attorney costs money. As with your family doctor or neighborhood grocer, your attorney also has to pay monthly professional costs such as insurance, office rent and utilities, wages of staff, bar association fees, and so forth to keep the front door open and the lights on for clients. In a divorce, child support, or custody matter, total costs of litigating a case can range from a couple thousand dollars to the tens of thousands, depending upon an array of variables.

Sterling Law Office family law attorneys pursue client legal goals with the most efficient, minimal cost because we recognize that our clients also have budget limits and financial goals, especially in the current difficult economic times. On the client’s part, there are a number of things that can be done to control and reduce legal fees, and other potential costs of a family law case.

For starters, clients can cut down significantly on background research time on their case by fully completing all information that is requested at the initial consult, usually in the form of an intake questionnaire. Every kernel of information, such as account numbers, pension plans, family member birthdays and Social Security numbers, etc., which the client supplies saves time-and-money consuming phone calls and correspondence by the law office. When you prepare for the first consultation with a family law attorney, compose a file to bring along that includes copies of all family financial, educational, property, demographic and other information which is relevant to your case. Leaving copies of such documents with your attorney will give a serious boost to the “paper chase” for your matter, as well as saving time, paper and postage costs of the law office having to make the copies and return the originals to you.

A letter or e-mail offers an economical means of communicating information and questions to your attorney. Receiving information or questions in writing gives the attorney a chance to digest the information, research any questions, and devise advice before communicating with the client. A written document also can help the client organize thoughts and can be kept in the client file for future reference. This is a much more efficient use of the attorney’s and the client’s time than long, explanatory phone calls. Treat your attorney as your legal advisor, not as a therapist or a friend, and if it is a matter of venting emotion, dealing with psychological problems or getting moral support, turn to family, friends or professional counselors.

Because clients are billed for time the attorney spends on the matter, whenever the client can do his or her own negotiating it saves money. In a divorce or custody matter, for example, if the parties can discuss and come to agreement between themselves on any issues, each item worked out by the parties saves attorney time spent preparing for and dealing with the opposing attorney, the Friend of the Court, and other family court departments. Any item which would make up part of a divorce agreement (such as who keeps specific personal property, who pays insurance costs, division of parenting time and holidays, who pays credit card bills, etc.), will quickly build cost savings if worked out by the partners themselves. Thus, use of the professional negotiating skills of the attorney can be saved for issues on which agreement cannot be reached.

Trying to hold on to the family home, while tempting for many people, may not be a good financial choice in a divorce. Spousal support can help cover mortgage payments, but clients need to look at the total cost of maintaining the property, repairs and upkeep, taxes, and mortgage payments to determine if it really is feasible for one person to afford. Whoever keeps the house will also have to buy out the other spouse’s financial interest in the property.

If spouses make a clean and complete separation of their finances when they part, it protects each from having their credit hurt by payment defaults of the other. For example, if the couple continue to hold credit cards in common, one partner can drive up the debt and seriously hurt the other’s credit score. If one spouse promises in the divorce agreement to pay off certain creditors or a mortgage, then defaults on that promise, the creditor or bank can sue both partners if their names are both still on that asset.

It is very important to understand the different tax treatment of alimony versus child support. Alimony generally is taxed as income to the person receiving it, while child support generally is not taxable. Each type of payment has different rules for how long it will continue, as well, and the circumstances which can increase or decrease payments. The experienced family law attorney, like those at Sterling Law Office, will make certain you thoroughly understand the rules governing these two types of payment.

Finally, to save yourself and your heirs substantial costs in probate, taxes and the distress of conflict over inheritance, every client who completes a divorce must review and revise their estate plan, or create one if they haven’t yet done so. Wills, trusts and beneficiaries can all be impacted by a divorce. To ensure that assets are protected for the intended heirs, and that a client’s final wishes are carried out regarding health care, financial control, and other matters, an up-to-date estate plan is necessary.

By implementing the above cost-savings and planning, Sterling Law Office family law clients can remain on stable, solvent financial ground through the course of a marital dissolution. We help our clients disprove the infamous bumper sticker of a Chicago divorce attorney, which reads “Love is grand, divorce is $40 grand!”
Posted by Mary Wreford; Approved by Lea Ann Sterling, Esq., April 18, 2008

The information presented in this article is for general information only and should not be construed to be legal advice.

LOCAL CITIZENS SPUR MSC ELECTION REFORM

Tuesday, April 1st, 2008

On February 19, 2008, just ahead of twelve inches of new snow, twenty-four area residents, including GTLA Bar Association members, returned to Traverse City from a twelve-hour bus trip to Lansing to present to Senator Michelle McManus 1,200 petition signatures. McManus, (R), Lake Leelanau, chairs the Michigan Senate Campaign and Election Oversight Committee. Earlier in the day, the Traverse area delegation had asked the Senator to hold hearings on public financing of Michigan Supreme Court elections and public disclosure of all campaign expenditures.

The petition drive and the bus trip grew out of an event last fall organized by a coalition of citizens, myself among them, concerned about the integrity of the Michigan Supreme Court. “Judicial elections are becoming political prize fights where partisans and special interests seek to install judges who will answer to them instead of the law and the Constitution,” read the banner quoting retired U. S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner at an October 25, 2007 forum, “Courting Trouble, Threats to a Fair and Independent Michigan Supreme Court.” Guest speakers Detroit Free Press columnist Brian Dickerson, Rich Robinson of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, and Michigan Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Weaver addressed the overflow crowd of mostly non-lawyers.

“How many of you have been a party to a case before the Michigan Supreme Court?” Mr. Dickerson asked. No one raised a hand. However, after hearing about court decisions affecting a range of subjects from no fault auto insurance to the environment, attendees concluded that each of them had indeed been involved in one form or another and that there exists the appearance that justices deciding these cases may have been answering to their campaign contributors instead of to the law.

$23 million has been spent since 2000 to elect Michigan Supreme Court justices. Nearly half of that sum has gone into unidentified, unreported candidate-focused issue ads disparaging the other candidate. After what some call “justice for sale,” 86% of cases before the MSC involve a campaign contributor as a party. Public financing, full disclosure of campaign funding, and an improved system for conflict of interest recusals are required to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Supreme Court Justice Weaver is also calling for Senate confirmation of Supreme Court appointments and one eight-year term.

To take action on our concerns and to build on the energy created by the forum, the forum organizing coalition established the Michigan Independent Supreme Court Campaign (MISCC). Volunteers from MISCC coordinated the petition drive and arranged the bus trip to deliver the results. From the efforts begun in Traverse City, grass roots groups in other areas of Michigan are planning similar educational events. Senator McManus pledged to move forward on the issue, but the results remain to be seen. While the delegation was at the Capitol, House Democrats did introduce a new judicial candidate public financing bill to join a Senate version already on the table. The efforts may eventually restore public confidence in the Court but it is too late to stop the ugly process for 2008.

While the public is distracted by the upcoming presidential election, special interests will be as focused on this year’s most expensive judicial race in Michigan history. Incumbent Republican Clifford Taylor is expected to wage a high stakes battle against a candidate chosen by the Democratic Party. While the ballot will not indicate their parties’ sponsorship, it will designate Justice Taylor as the incumbent. Always an advantage in the past, in this election year, the incumbency designation could remain an unfair advantage or become a liability, depending on the perception of the electorate and its disgust for the secretly-sponsored offensive campaign that is expected. Visit www.miscc.org for more information.
Posted by Mary Wreford; Approved by Lea Ann Sterling, Esq., April 1, 2008

Lea Ann Sterling received her J.D. from The Ohio State University College of Law in 1980 and got to Michigan as soon as she could where she established Sterling Law Office in Empire. Her practice with associate attorney Wendy K. Bailey includes Family Law, Social Security Disability, and Personal Injury. Sterling Law Office appears to be the only firm north of Grand Rapids specializing in Immigration Law where they counsel businesses on worksite compliance and assist families with this complex area. Lea Ann is married to Lanny Sterling and has three children. Among other activities leading some to call her a “renaissance woman,” Lea Ann enjoys writing about history and is the author of Historic Homes of Olde Towne and Historic Cottages of Mackinac Island. She appeared as an expert on the 1788 settlement of Marietta, Ohio in the 2003 documentary “Opening the Door West.” Googling “Lea Ann Sterling” would lead you to believe the name applies to at least five different people, but it’s all her. In addition to GTLA Bar, she is also a member of the Michigan Association for Justice and the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

The information presented in this article is for general information only and should not be construed to be legal advice.

« Back