Rogers & Tartaro Business Litigation Blog : New York and Connecticut Business Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : Rogers & Tartaro Law Firm : Commercial Litigation : Westchester County NY, Fairfield County CT

A recent Law.com post reported on a survey indicating that news reporters who cover litigation say that lawyers are not particularly helpful when it comes to helping reporters understand the core issues in a case.

Before continuing, I have to confess to a pet peeve about over-reliance on surveys of dubious value. Cable news shows, for example, get me going when they cite their “informal” viewer polls, and admit to a lack of “scientific” validity but go on to discuss the conclusions as if they are entirely valid. Grrrr.

Nonetheless, my hunch is there is some validity to the notion that lawyers and reporters may not speak the same language when identifying or talking about “core” issues in a case.

But, here’s my problem: the second paragraph of the Law.com post says outright that the survey may not be “bankable,” which I interpret to mean “reliable.” Then, by training, I have to think like a lawyer. If the only evidence - - the survey - - is not reliable, there is no reliable evidence to support the proposition that lawyers are unhelpful to reporters in identifying core issue in litigation. If there is no reliable evidence supporting that proposition, then why is there an article discussing it?

Here’s another problem. Long ago I learned that in sampling, the problem is not the size (or lack of size) of the sample but the representative nature (or lack thereof) of the sample. Thus, if the only problem is that the sample is small, the survey may be reliable after all. But, we may never know because all we know is that the response rate was low.

I suspect that we’re left with the intuitive notion that some lawyers may not be helpful to reporters. I also suspect that there’s an easy solution; it’s just a matter of finding the right lawyer to ask.

In this blog, we try to be helpful to all our readers, especially if they are not lawyers, in understanding a variety of legal issues within our primary areas of practice. Reporters (or all readers) are invited to comment to let us know how we’re doing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

According to the Tax, Trusts and Estates Law Monitor, it appears increasingly likely that the imminent federal estate tax legislation this year will be a one-year “patch,” or a one-year freeze of the 2009 rules (a 45% estate tax rate and a $3.5 million exemption).

The Monitor states that the Association for Advanced Life Underwriting (“AALU”), an important trade and public affairs group, believes that permanent reform is less likely this year and that enactment of a one-year patch is the most likely outcome. The AALU predicts that the Senate debate on the estate tax will extend to mid or late December.

What this means: Under current law, estates of $3.5 million or more are subject to a federal estate tax which is scheduled to be repealed in 2010 but brought back in 2011 for estates of $1 million or more.  The "one year patch" extends the tax for estates of $3.5 million or more through 2010 while Congress decides what to do for 2011 and beyond.

We will continue to post updates regarding this legislation as they arise.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last week we enjoyed a wonderful evening at the Ridgefield Community Center with our friends, family and clients celebrating my 8th anniversary in business, and the simultaneous third anniversary of my partnership with Angelo.  This is our annual way of conveying our gratitude and appreciation for the wonderful people in our lives, and for the privilege of doing business in this community.

Thank you all again - same time next year!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Connecticut pets can rest easy now.

The Ridgefield Press reports that Governor Jodi Rell signed a law ensuring that animals will be properly cared for if their owners die.

The new pet law, An Act Concerning the Creation of a Trust for the Care of an Animal, requires that the owner designate a “trust protector;” someone whose sole duty is to act on behalf of the animal, ensuring that the pet receives the proper care. In other words, when you’re making arrangements for your children, make them for Fido and Fluffy, too.

Prior to the new law, which went into effect October 1, pet owners could set up trusts for their animals but those arrangements were considered honorary since animal beneficiaries could not enforce them.

The new law complements a standing Connecticut law which states that pets are personal property. This particular legislation actually created a bit of an issue for a divorcing Connecticut couple, according to A Connecticut Law Blog. The couple encountered substantial veterinary bills after seeking treatments for their ill pets. The court ordered that the husband and the wife equally divide the costs of medical treatment for dogs. After all, they were just part of the marital debt.

As pet owners ourselves, Bev and I support the new legislation. Providing for a pet is a matter of personal preference and values and there should be some comfort in knowing such provisions are enforceable and not academic exercises or empty words in a will. But, the more important issue is whether one has gotten around to having an estate plan at all to provide for the objects of one’s affection and bounty, human or not.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks