Features

In last month's issue, we looked at a hypothetical case in which Lynne and her soon-to-be ex-husband David have drafted a child custody agreement giving Lynne primary legal and physical custody of their daughter, Jane. Neither had raised the issue of what would happen if the primary custodial parent wanted to relocate. Under the governing law of their state, unless the settlement agreement specifically states otherwise, the primary custodial parent is presumed to be able to move to another state for a promotion or unique job opportunity. Lynne informed her attorney that she had accepted a unique job opportunity that would require her to move to another state shortly after the settlement agreement's signing. Our dilemma was: What could, or should, the attorney do to protect Jane's interests? This month, we conclude the discussion.

The election of Eliot Spitzer to the office of Governor may signal a sea change in the progress of attempts to make gay marriage a reality in New York. Before voters went to the polls on Nov. 7, Spitzer made national headlines when, in an October speech at a dinner, he declared his intention to support passage of a same-sex marriage law, if elected. The speech was delivered at a dinner hosted by the Empire State Pride Agenda, a New York nonpartisan lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered civil rights organization.

Trust is a cornerstone of every successful marriage. Thus, it is ironic that the term that we lawyers use to describe the vehicle by which many of our wealthier clients protect and preserve their assets from their divorcing spouse is 'trust.' Today, in an era in which billionaires dominate the Forbes 400 list, when freshly minted MBAs just a year or two out of B-Schools garner seven-figure bonuses before the age of 30, the trust is becoming more and more the device of choice to shield assets from the grip of those who the creator of the trust deems undeserving of a share of those assets.

Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.

Features

A federal appeals court is weighing whether to review a controversial tax decision in which a unanimous three-judge panel struck down as unconstitutional the federal income tax on nonphysical, compensatory damages awards. (<i>See</i> 'Court Tosses Federal Tax Statute Covering Emotional Damages,' <i>Medical Malpractice Law &amp; Strategy</i>, Nov. 2006). Claiming the case is one of 'exceptional importance' to the execution of the nation's tax laws, the Bush administration recently asked the full U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to rehear <i>Murphy v. U.S.</i>, No. 05-5139. In October, the court, on its own motion, ordered lawyers for Marrita Murphy to respond to the government's rehearing petition, a signal that the court is interested, according to some circuit watchers.

Recent news you need to know.

Features

The latest information from the pharmaceutical world.

Living victims of medical malpractice are almost always, by definition, not in the best of health. Some have lingering problems, such as scars or recurring pain, but others will have sustained injuries that will eventually lead to their demise. Some may not have suffered life-threatening injuries at the hands of their medical providers, but they are expected to die soon anyway from an unrelated terminal illness, or merely old age. In these situations, the necessity of a speedy resolution to the plaintiff's claim is evident; without it, any benefit the victim might have gained from an award will go to his or her heirs rather than to claimant. In addition, the loss of the claimant's personal testimony at trial may prejudice the outcome of the case.