All these decisions have to be made in the living years.   
 
As famously sang, it’s too late when we die to admit we don’t see eye to eye.  Well, it’s also too late when we die, or even when we become incapacitated, to write our will. 
 
Oftentimes procrastination leads to a permanent lost chance.  Sure, people who get diagnosed with a terminal medical condition have the warning and the time to complete a will and get their affairs in order.  But, things unfortunately often do occur very suddenly.  If you think about your life experiences, this probably accounts for most deaths you know of for people under the age of 80.  You probably have heard and said “it was so sudden” or “you’re never really expecting it” a whole lot more than “we saw that coming” or “this really wasn’t a surprise.”  For everyone below the age of 45, the leading cause of death is by accident (often a car accident).  For those 65 and older, heart disease is the leading cause, which includes heart attacks and strokes. 
 
The point here is that if you wait to do your will until the time when you really need it, you are probably too late.  You need to have a will in place before the sudden accident or heart attack occurs.  So when is the best time to complete a will?  If you live in Louisiana and if you are married and/or have children, you should consider doing a will right now no matter what your age.  If your situation or your preference change down the line, you can always replace your will with a new one.    
 
Our firm can provide you with a worksheet to help guide you through the major choices and provide an initial consultation for free.  Completing the worksheet is relatively simple, but there may be some areas requiring thought, discussion and deliberations, such as who you would want to be the guardian of your minor children.  The will worksheet is designed to assist you in thinking through some of those issues, but you only complete as much as you feel comfortable doing on your own – our attorneys will discuss every topic at length during the initial consult.  We take care of all the details – you just need to know what you generally want in your will.

​Want to read more on this topic?  Click here!

* The content of this page is for informational purposes only.  It does not serve as legal advice and should not be taken as such.  There is nothing published on this website that is intended to create an attorney-client relationship.  If you have a legal issue, you should consult with a licensed attorney directly.

​This is a really thought-provoking piece about military justice.   It explains the longstanding issue of relaxing military entry standards as a war drags on and the need for bodies to fill boots increases.  As standards decrease, people less fit (or unfit) are nevertheless accepted into the military.  There should be no surprise that crime and misconduct then rise.  As season 2 of Serial pointed out, Bowe Bergdahl may be such an example - he washed out of Coast Guard basic training for a mental health breakdown only to be later let into the Army when they were desperate for soldiers in Afghanistan.  Not much of a surprise that he goes off and does something crazy.  And the military justice system then has to sort things out. 

During the time of the draft, the results could be wildly unfair.  The government relaxed its standards and forced unfit people into the military, then proceeded to court-martial them when they fail.  With our post-draft era, the fairness factor has eased a bit because at least now unfit folks are agreeing to the arrangement. 

But how should a court-martial panel, or the military in general, or even the United States population in general, treat a person who commits a crime under the UCMJ - perhaps even a heinous crime - when you factor in not only circumstances such as combat fatigue and post traumatic stress disorder, but also a pre-existing mental health issue that should have barred the person's entry into service?  Especially if the military knew when they accepted this person into their ranks that he or she had a mental health condition and that the condition increased the risk that this person would not be able to handle combat stresses? 

Where does blame really fall here?  Isn't there a lot of it to go around?  How harshly do we treat this type of criminal?  That's a really tough call.  And while this problem has been around forever, it is an important issue to consider - and consider very carefully - with all the proposed changes to the UCMJ in the works.  Taking sentencing power away from a military jury and vesting it solely in the hands of a military judge, for instance, could be devastating in these types of cases because juries in general will be more likely to look at the entire picture and give a fair result than a hardened, government-appointed judge.  Even worse, sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences imposed by law that give neither judge nor jury the ability to use discretion in a case could result in massively unfair results.  Especially now that Congress has already cut out the convening authority's ability to grant clemency (reduce a sentence) after most courts-martial. 

Bright lines and generalizations make for good politics but oftentimes bad results.  Considering the amounts of rights and liberties waived by a service member when they choose to go into the military and subject themselves to the UCMJ, our country should at least give those empowered with doling out justice in a court-martial the ability to use their discretion in determining a fair sentence.  No one other than those in the court-martial will see, hear or fully understand all the circumstances in any one individual case.

Do you want to make sure you minimize potential taxes owed so that your heirs take as much as possible?
 
For most people, estate taxes are not an issue.  Your estate in 2016 would have to be worth more than $5,450,000 for this to come into play.  If you are far below this amount, you probably do not have to worry about it.  But for questions and for legal advice on this issue, you should visit with an attorney.
 
If your estate (including your real estate value and your life insurance) may even come close to this amount, you definitely should speak to an attorney to at least make a basic estate plan.  There are a number of things an attorney can do to help ensure any potential estate taxes are minimized.

Want to read more of our blogs on this topic?  Click here!

* The content of this page is for informational purposes only.  It does not serve as legal advice and should not be taken as such.  There is nothing published on this website that is intended to create an attorney-client relationship.  If you have a legal issue, you should consult with a licensed attorney directly.

​Good for the ABA to advise Congress to tone down the rhetoric and put down the pitchforks before finalizing changes to the UCMJ. 

The imposition of mandatory minimum sentences is dangerous to the rights of our service members.  So is withholding a service member's right to request a military panel (jury) to decide a sentence rather than a military judge. 

The dangers of statutory mandatory minimum sentences have been well-documented, especially in recent years.  Every case is different, and to legislate otherwise to take away judgment calls in an individual court is not justice.  At any given court, the judge and the jury are far, far more able to fairly judge what the outcome of the case should be - for Congress to brazenly institute mandatory minimums serves only to tip the scales. 

Regarding the issue of a service member's choice to have the judge or jury impose a sentence - this right is as old as the UCMJ itself.  And it exists for a reason.  Sure, in civilian court the judge almost always imposes the sentence.  It is also correct that the judge may have a better grasp of the "going rate" for typical offenses.  But, giving the military accused the choice allows for more fairness - for instance, if you were facing a court-martial and drew the "killing judge" known for imposing unusually harsh sentences compared to other judges, wouldn't you want to be able to opt out? 

Moreover, the entire UCMJ is arranged in a different fashion than a civilian justice system.  Part of its purpose is to move cases through to the end with speed - the military has a great interest in finishing cases quickly both because of resources, because military justice works better when imposed swiftly, and because frankly they have bigger things to focus on than carry a case along forever.  To achieve this speed, juries can be small and jury verdicts need not be unanimous.  Even for the most serious crimes, a panel may consist of only five members.  And no matter the size of the panel, a guilty verdict is achieved if 2/3 of the members vote guilty - in civilian court the prosecution usually needs a unanimous verdict or else it is a hung jury and the trial starts over with a new jury.  No such unanimous protection exists for the military accused - the UCMJ wants a final verdict the first time, so 1/3 of the panel may vote not guilty but the result is still a guilty verdict.  Allowing the accused to choose between a judge or a jury to decide the sentence is a smart way to offset this issue, and brings more fairness and equity to the process. 

If Congress wants to re-work the UCMJ, they need to re-work it all.  If they take the protections of the accused away, they should add in the protections that exist in the civilian system as well. 

Do you want to leave anything to a non-family member, like a caregiver or a charity?
 
Without a will, as we said in Answer 1, your property goes to a specific family member or members.  Everything goes to your children if you have children.  If you do not have children, then it goes to the next of kin as designated by law.  There are no options for anyone to deviate from those rules. 
 
As stated previously, your will can be used to itemize gifts to your children to avoid fighting.  You can designate that one gets your wedding ring and the other gets the silverware.  You can also generally leave disproportionate gifts to your children – like 70 percent of your estate to one and 30 percent to the other.  That may be a rare case, but sometimes children are in different positions either because of relative wealth, age or even how close they are with a parent. 
 
Beyond this, however, is the fact that in your will you can also generally bequest property to anyone.  Even if you have children, you may want to leave a certain piece of jewelry to your sister or a set of golf clubs to your nephew.  You may want to leave some money to a charity or leave some real estate to your church.  You cannot do these things without a will.

Want to read more of our blogs on this topic?  Click here! 

* The content of this page is for informational purposes only.  It does not serve as legal advice and should not be taken as such.  There is nothing published on this website that is intended to create an attorney-client relationship.  If you have a legal issue, you should consult with a licensed attorney directly.

Do you want to try to avert your estate falling into chaos?
 
We all like to believe that after we die, the process of divvying up our property will resemble a calm, polite and orderly board meeting as opposed to looting a liquor store.  Total chaos and everyone grabbing whatever they can find in the house is probably quite far from the norm.  But this can and does play out, often to a lesser degree.  And when there are not instances of bad faith – family members trying to take advantage of the situation – there can still be very awkward situations and conflicts of interest that pop up that can cause strains on family members.  Who gets the family silverware?  Who gets the antique table?  Who gets the wedding ring?  A will can minimize these issues.
 
With a will, you will appoint someone to be the executor of your estate.  That means that the person you designate will be empowered by the will and the court to take charge of everything and turn the right property over to the right heirs.  Putting someone you trust clearly in charge will go a long way to keeping the process orderly and fair. 
 
Further, in your will you can itemize personal property and direct who will inherit what.  You can say that your daughter gets the silverware and your son gets your wedding ring and your niece gets the antique table.  Sure, by designating who gets what, there is still the chance at jealousy and disappointment.  But, your designation means you gave thought to who should get what, and there should be nothing to fight about. This again helps ensure that there is order and fairness to the process. 
 
Does a will guarantee that no one will fight or steal or cheat or be upset?  Of course not.  People are people.  But by doing a will where you appoint a specific person as executor and you itemize your gifts will go a long way to minimizing conflict.  When you minimize conflict, you minimize the chances of relationships being damaged, people being cheated, and legal expenses being incurred. 
 
Coming in to an attorney’s office can also help enormously with getting things prepared for your executor.  If you (and, if married, your spouse) died tomorrow, would your next of kin know what bank you use?  What insurance you have?  When your mortgage payments are due?  Whether you have a safety deposit box or not?  Someone trying to figure all this out on their own is faced with a monumental and frustrating task.  At our office, for example, we give our clients a personal affairs organizer – it is one booklet kept with your will that summarizes all the things your executor would need.  They will only need to go to one place to get everything.  This might literally save your executor months of work and frustration.

​Want to read more of our blogs on this topic?  Click here!

* The content of this page is for informational purposes only.  It does not serve as legal advice and should not be taken as such.  There is nothing published on this website that is intended to create an attorney-client relationship.  If you have a legal issue, you should consult with a licensed attorney directly.

​A fundamental ideal of American criminal justice is that you are innocent until proven guilty.  With that, a defendant may not be punished until after he has his day in court. 

Of course, defendants are routinely placed in jail before their court date.  This is done generally to ensure their presence at trial.  In most civilian jurisdictions, a bail/bond system exists so that the defendant (or their family...or a bail bondsman) will pay the court a sum of money which the court keeps as a bond until the defendant's trial date.  If the defendant shows for trial, the money is returned to the defendant.  If the defendant skips trial, the money is kept by the court.  It is a system that generally works. 

Assuming you can pay your bail, this gets you out of jail prior to your trial.  This allows you to continue using your self-evident, fundamental right of liberty prior to your trial - to include preparing your defense. 

But, under the UCMJ and its related rules, no bail/bond system exists.   Instead, a military defendant may remain in pretrial confinement under the discretion of the chain of command or a military judge.  Several laws and rules were enacted to try to protect against abuses of this scheme, including Article 10 of the UCMJ.  That statute is an enhanced speedy trial right, which basically states that the prosecution must move diligently in taking a case to court-martial if the accused is in pretrial confinement. 

Up until 1984, it was a statute that was used routinely by military courts to dismiss charges where the prosecution failed to give an accused a speedy trial.  However, that year a new Rule for Court-Martial was created that codified certain speedy trial rules, which were more friendly to the prosecution, and with that the courts slowly stopped granting relief under Article 10. 

Until last week with United States v. Cooley.  The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces dismissed several charges for an Article 10 violation by the Coast Guard.  The discussion and the dismissal of charges most certainly indicates that Article 10 still has meaning.  And with that, military defendants should know they still have a remedy if kept in pretrial confinement if the prosecution fails to bring him to trial in reasonably speedy fashion. 

Don’t you want to protect the money you leave to your young children?
 
When you were 18 years old, did you know everything you needed to know about how to manage your financial affairs?  Well, Louisiana law presumes exactly that!   If you die without a will and your child inherits your estate, he or she gets full access and control over everything at 18.  Sound like a good idea?
 
In your will, you can raise that age to any age you choose.  In the will, your attorney can create a basic trust that protects your child’s inheritance by placing it under the control of someone else – a trustee.  The trustee doesn’t own the inheritance.  He or she can’t use it to buy a summer house or go on vacation.  Rather, the trustee manages the money in prudent investments and is authorized to use the money for the benefit of your child.  Maybe you want a bank to be the trustee and are willing to pay for this service.  More likely, you may have an Uncle Bob who is an accountant that could be suited for the job.  Or maybe your sister is just good with money.  Family members can serve as trustees and often do it for free. 
 
Your trustee can manage the inheritance properly and ensure your child doesn’t blow it on cars, vacations and video games.  The trustee can, however, buy a car or a video game if the trustee believes it is the right thing to do.  The trustee can (or in some cases must) pay an allowance to the child.  And the trustee certainly can use the money in the trust for things like college expenses and clothes.  Depending on how you feel about the subject, especially considering the relative maturity of your child, you get to write into the trust at what age the trust will close and thus at what age your child can take over complete control.  With a Louisiana will, you have the ability to appoint a more seasoned adult to manage the investments until the child reaches, for example, the age of 25.  Doesn’t this sound like a better idea?  Perhaps not to your child.  But who knows your child better than you?
 
In addition to extending the period of mandatory management of a child’s inheritance from 18 to whatever older age you prefer, your will can also create a check and balance system over the guardian of your minor children.  This is not always or even usually necessary, and may not be the right choice for you.  But depending on your situation, it might be a big deal.  If you recall, the court will appoint a guardian if your minor children are orphaned.  That person takes personal care of the children – houses them, feeds them, makes medical decisions for them, and ensures they go to school.  In your will, you may also make that same person the trustee of the children’s inheritance, meaning that guardian calls all the shots with the children’s life and money.  If the guardian is a responsible person and good with money, that may be the best decision. 
 
However, if the guardian is a great caregiver but terrible with money, or if you want to make sure someone else is involved and watching over the situation, you can appoint another person to be the trustee.  In this situation, the guardian has to go to the trustee for permission to buy things using the inheritance fund.  That could be a major protection for your children if the guardian is not so experienced with investments or if you want a check and balance system.  Your attorney can draft your will with these issues in mind.  It offers you great flexibility to craft what makes the most sense for your unique family situation.

Want to read more of our blogs on this topic?  Click here!

* The content of this page is for informational purposes only.  It does not serve as legal advice and should not be taken as such.  There is nothing published on this website that is intended to create an attorney-client relationship.  If you have a legal issue, you should consult with a licensed attorney directly.

​Last year, there was a terrible tragedy in Afghanistan when US forces mistakenly hit a Doctors without Borders facility.  But in war, as in other places, tragedies occur.  And when there are a million factors leading up to the end result, with small bits of negligence or carelessness by lots of people involved, it's sometimes hard to lay the blame on someone.  But for some reason, society just loves to find a scapegoat.   

The NY Times ran an op-ed yesterday, that honestly has so much wrong with it we could discuss the faults for days.  In the fine print at the end we see the author is also counsel for Doctors without Borders.  With a dog in the fight, it appears the content is far from unbiased. 

One of the more striking comments was "Given the loss of life and damage to a hospital which, by definition, is a protected site under the law of armed conflict, it is hardly surprising that many view these [administrative actions, not criminal] actions are inadequate."  Wow...that is pretty Old Testament.  But to an author who so flippantly accuses the military of not using western standards of justice, shouldn't we ideally require a showing of criminal conduct that caused the loss of life (and property damage) before anyone thinks about picking up the pitchforks and torches to go after an individual personally in a criminal court?  

Fighting a war is an inherently dangerous task.  Practicing medicine, even in US hospitals, can be as well.  Would the medical community really prefer a strict liability standard when it comes to their profession?  If there is a loss of life in the hospital or clinic, should we go ahead and gin up a grand jury to investigate to make sure the dozen people involved in the matter are handled adequately, from a criminal perspective?  And if that process isn't open to the public and press to comment review and comment on, then someone must be hiding something? 

To say "the Pentagon is compounding the tragedy by treating the case as less grave than it is" is quite absurd.  As if the military does not routinely court-martial servicemembers for substantiated cases of negligent derelictions of duty up to and including homicide courts.  To suggest the Army must court-martial one or more soldiers just to deliver a sufficient public scapegoat is quite the opposite from a western ideal. 

Well, the Navy case of Lieutenant Commander Edward Lin is obviously shaping up to be super interesting in a number of ways.  Espionage charges tend to be.  With Lin's family setting up a webpage to have their say in the public arena, it may be tough to pick out their legitimate points from their bogus ones. 

For instance, they state "[t]he government immediately imprisoned Eddy for more than two months before even preferring court-martial charges."  They then state he has stayed in confinement for months after charges were preferred.  Implied in the original statement is that two months is a long time to wait for preferral after an accused military member is placed into pretrial confinement.  Reality, unfortunately, is that two months is lightning quick in the glacially paced military justice system, especially in a high visibility and likely complex case such as this one. 

The Navy Times just wrote about this family website, and offered a response to the issue of pretrial confinement.  Citing the Marine's official website as the source, they state "a military member can be confined pretrial so long as the member is considered a flight risk or is likely to commit a serious offense if he or she is released."  That is quite an inaccurate assertion (I did not see the source material to see if this was just a bad translation by the Navy Times or whether the Marines actually posted such a statement).  Either way...pretty rough.  There are a number of other pieces to the pretrial confinement process, including the fact that if any lesser degree of restraint (such as house arrest) is adequate to contain the flight risk and/or the likelihood of additional serious misconduct, then pretrial confinement is illegal. 

More importantly to Lin's family website implication that he has been confined too long, the Navy cannot just hold him indefinitely in confinement.  Under Article 10 of the UCMJ the Navy must act to move the case forward to trial with reasonably diligence (especially if Lin has demanded a speedy trial).  And of course the Sixth Amendment's right to a speedy trial exists as well.  At some point, if the Navy cannot show they are working hard at getting this case prosecuted while the accused sits in jail waiting for his day in court, Lin could be ordered out of confinement or the case could even get dismissed.