Did you know there are lawyers in Massachusetts who are qualified for offering services in certain Probate and Family Courts on a limited basis? This allows you to hire a lawyer to help you with some things but not others. For instance, a lawyer could help you draft a complaint for divorce, a probate petition, a license to sell real estate, or coach you on evidence matters. Some could even be hired for a day or part of day to attend a motion, deposition, conference, mediation, hearing, or trial.
The goal of this program is to find ways for people to gain access to qualified attorneys on an as needed basis. The philosophy is, some representation is better than no representation. You can read more about this program at the Massachusetts Bar Association site or visit here for various orders from the SJC extending the program in certain counties through 2008.
Auto accident laws (in Massachusetts or anywhere for that matter) should exist to protect consumers involved in auto accident claims and settlements, but the victims of car accident injuries will likely tell you the process can be confusing and daunting. For many, it appears, the laws protect the insurers more than the injured.
Massachusetts personal injury attorneys help balance the equation against the powerful insurance companies as well as keep in check the unfair or deceptive practices that can be employed. Without a MA lawyer to help assess a Mass. personal injury case (property damage, lost wages, car accident injuries, insurance, medical bills, out of pocket costs, prescriptions, …), how does the average consumer know if a settlement of their car accident claim is in their best interests? The insurance company/industry wants you to believe they can help you with this and you don't need a lawyer.
This post is the first of five that addresses some of the themes to be on the lookout for when settling your car accident case or questioning whether you need a lawyer at the start of your Massachusetts personal injury case. In the posts to follow, I'll touch on a few general themes such as: lowball offers, "friendly" adjusters (who aren't your friend), delay tactics, blaming the victim, and fear of trials. While having an attorney won't necessarily prevent these tactics from arising, your lawyer can deal with these head on and refocus the discussion back on obtaining the highest value for your case. In sum, the theory behind these posts is: "forewarned is forearmed."
A license to sell real estate in Massachusetts probate cases is obtained by bringing a completed petition to the county Probate and Family Court where the probate case is pending (i.e., Norfolk, Plymouth, Suffolk, Barnstable, Bristol, ....). A local MA probate or estates lawyer can help an executor or administrator accomplish this in a Massachusetts probate estate case.
While a license to sell real estate is not always required to sell real estate following the death of a property owner, it is often required by the buyer or the buyer's lender in order to write a mortgage for the property. Under a license to sell approach, the sale is free of debts and costs and provides added security for the buyer or potential lender (as well as certainty about the seller's legal power or authority to sell the property).
There are many times, however, when a license to sell real estate is not required to transfer real estate in probate matters (i.e., power contained in will, join tenancy...). Each case depends on evaluating the circumstances, timing, and parties involved to determine the best course of action to suit all the interested parties' needs in a timely and cost effective manner. In cooperative probate real estate transfer cases, the process can be relatively straightforward with only a few twists and turns. In hostile probate sale cases, however, the process can be difficult, lengthy, and full of obstacles.
It's not uncommon for death and probate cases in Mass to involve people who are suffering a loss and experiencing grief. As their lawyer in a wrongful death case or in a Massachusetts probate estate matter, I'm often directly discussing what caused the death of their loved one or the final wishes of a spouse, parent, child, or friend. Some of our discussions can be difficult and quite emotional
It seems whenever someone begins to cry or need a moment, they almost instinctively need to apologize afterward and then offer a reason for why they shouldn't be getting emotional. I've heard person after person explain how they "should" be experiencing their grief. I've never quite understood this -- many times their loss moves me too.
While I'm no psychologist, I've never found there to be any set rules here. While it's somewhat slanted in its origin (and in a couple of places maybe), I came across this article discussing the Ten Common Myths and Realities About Grief. I'm listing an excerpt of some of the myths below to give you the general idea.
"It has been a year since your spouse died. Don't you think you should be dating by now?"
"You look so well!"
"The best thing we can do (for the griever) is to avoid discussing the loss."
"It has been six (or nine or 12) months now.
"Don't you think you should be over it?"
"You need to be more active and get out more!"
"You are young, and you can get married again."
"Your loved one is no longer in pain now. Be thankful for that."
"She cries a lot. I'm concerned she is going to have a nervous breakdown."
"Grief support groups are too depressing and not helpful."
Again, I'm no psychologist, but I'm guessing the list (on myths about grieving) could be expanded quite a bit and, like me, many lawyers in Mass and elsewhere have seen it firsthand.
Some bereavement support resources (these may change but a search for "bereavement support group" and then your area may offer some local results) are below. Also check with your local hospice, hospital, funeral home, city/town hall, or attorney for local options if you are interested.
Blogs, social networks, and the web extend well beyond Massachusetts borders thus it's often instructive to look around the country and consider how laws are developing elsewhere as they relate to blogging and cyberspace ingeneral.Trial lawyers of both today and of the future will need to be well versed in the law and understand this evolving interactive arena that changes day-by-day. Blogger and California law professor Eric Goldman recently mentions a case involving blog postings being introduced as evidence in a trademark infringement lawsuit. He quotes the court's holding which excluded the blog's comments from evidence.
The Court declines to consider these postings in reaching its decision. The Court is concerned, on this record, that the blog entries lack sufficient indicia of reliability.FN4
Nothing is known about the persons who made the entries, about whether they are related in any way to either party or whether they are describing true events and impressions. Moreover, the authors' meaning and the import of the blog entries are far from clear.
FN4. This should not be construed as a ruling by the Court that entries on Internet blogs could not, on a different record, be reliable and admissible.
(The case was as consumer confusion case on whether "Mooo Tracks" ice cream infringes upon "Moose Track" ice cream. Blue Bell Creameries, L.P. v. Denali Co., LLC, 2008 WL 2965655 (S.D. Tex. July 31, 2008)).
You can look at this from two perspectives, the blog comments were kept out. On the other hand, there were some criteria listed for their exclusion. If these were met, would the comments be allowed into evidence here? It would seem so, why shouldn't they be? Look to the next round of cases to have greater foundations laid down concerning the inclusion of blog comments as evidence.
Like many attorneys I talk with, I'm already seeing more of my clients who are relying on blogs or websites for much of their news. The constantly dwindling size of my newspaper backs this up too. Some do believe, "If I read it, then it's true," but as we know, that's often not the case.
Reliability, validity, authenticity are continuing concerns of justice and in the short term, it seems the web won't make things easier in these areas. Here the law still has much to work out regarding how it's going to keep pace with the web, social media, web 2.0 or whatever name or thing is next. Smart trial lawyers will need to keep pace with these evidentiary possibilities as more and more communications and events are recorded somewhere someplace electronically. Appellate courts and lawyers should see interesting and intellectually stimulaing times ahead in this area of law. While some of the tools of proof may be new, the principles remain the same -- it may just take a little time to connect the two.
I just returned from a real estate closing involving a probate estate in Weymouth, Mass. It was a nice transaction where the buyers sold a property in South Weymouth (in the morning) and then turned around and bought a property from my sellers in North Weymouth. We had to scramble to pull it all together and obtain a temporary executor appointment and a license to sell real estate from the probate court, but that's another story -- it all worked out perfectly. During the closing, one of the sellers asked, "How long should I keep all these documents." Generally, the more important something is, the longer you should keep it. With today's technology I suggest keeping electronic copies of documents even beyond the times recommended. Depending on the documents, typical retention peiods range from 7-10 years for some items to 1-3 years for others. Nonetheless, from experience there are several probate and real estate documents I don't think you should destroy unless you are sure you won't need them:
An interesting article on law.com recently discussed the issue of lawyers asking jurors about their medication use. With so much of the population on medication, is drug use something that should be questioned of potential jurors? If so, how far should questioning go? Do we ask a general question? Whether the use of medication will interfere with a juror's duties, or do we delve deeper into more specific questions about the person, their conditions, and their treatments? The article, by Julie Kay, offers pros and cons while raising issues likely to continue making headlines(juror falling asleep in murder trial, someone goes off their medications during trial...).
As an attorney-advocate there may be times when seeking this information makes sense for my client. As the lawyer for my client I have the duty the pursue what's in my clients best interests. Personally, however, I think when we start asking jurors to divulge what medication they're taking, we're crossing a finer line. We have to wonder if the jurors' themselves aren't thinking, "Who is actually on trial, here?" Of course there are going to be exceptions to every rule, but speaking from a policy perspective, I'd rather have privacy rights' invasions remain the limited exceptions and not become the standard rule.
Did you know there are lawyers in Massachusetts who are qualified for offering services in certain Probate and Family Courts on a limited basis? This allows you to hire a lawyer to help you with some things but not others. For instance, a lawyer could help you draft a complaint for divorce, a probate petition, a license to sell real estate, or coach you on evidence matters. Some could even be hired for a day or part of day to attend a motion, deposition, conference, mediation, hearing, or trial. 
Auto accident laws (in Massachusetts or anywhere for that matter) should exist to protect consumers involved in auto accident claims and settlements, but the victims of car accident injuries will likely tell you the process can be confusing and daunting. For many, it appears, the laws protect the insurers more than the injured.
A license to sell 
