On April 12, 2006, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ('Commonwealth') enacted legislation requiring most state residents to carry health insurance either through their employers or individually. The goal of the legislation is to 'provide access to affordable, quality, accountable healthcare' to everyone in the state, while reducing the percentage of uninsured residents to as close to 0% as possible. The reform law maintains employer-sponsored health insurance as the primary source of coverage for Commonwealth residents. While beneficial to employees, employers are faced with new obligations and the financial burdens of providing health benefits to employees. Employers that fail to provide health insurance to their employees may be subject to a surcharge of $295 annually per employee plus additional penalties.

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

In a short and succinct amended final judgment in the Massachusetts case of <i>Cote-Whitacre v. Dept. of Public Health</i>, Civ Action No. 04-2656-G (Superior Court, Suffolk Cty.), Justice Thomas E. Connolly clarified for New York same-sex couples married in Massachusetts that those whose nuptials took place before July 6, 2006 are still married in the eyes of the State of Massachusetts.

A Manhattan appeals panel has reversed a trial court's grant of divorce, holding that the wife's allegations did not satisfy New York's 'cruel and inhuman treatment' standard, notwithstanding her claim that her husband 'physically force[d] himself on [her] sexually.'

An associate recruitment and retention crisis is looming for which there are no easy solutions. Law schools continue to graduate roughly 40,000 students a year, as they have over the last 20 years. The AmLaw 200 law firms have been steadily hiring an average of 4%+ more associates each year, resulting last year in a typical incoming associate class of 50. That means that AmLaw 200 firms now hire about 10,000 new associates a year, or about 50% of the graduates from the top 100 (hardly the Ivy League elite) of the nation's 200 law schools.

When a client wants to modify a child support or maintenance order, the matrimonial law practitioner must generally start by reviewing the standard applicable to the type of modification involved in the case. An occasional review of these standards can be helpful in keeping the practitioner focused. In addition, a concise discourse on these principles can be an invaluable tool for educating the newer attorney to the field.

Features

Under New York's Family Court Act of 1994, parties may obtain protective orders through Family Court and Integrated Domestic Violence Court only if they are married to or divorced from their alleged abuser, they are blood relatives of their abuser, or are single adults with children in common with their abuser. This means that a lot of people who want to get orders of protection must go to the criminal courts. That might seem fine, except for the fact that the standard of proof for permanent protective orders thus becomes 'beyond a reasonable doubt' rather than 'by a preponderance of the evidence.' In addition, the individual victim loses control of the process by having to involve the police and rely on overworked prosecutors to vigorously pursue the abuser.

&#133;