Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Republican chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Finance Committee recently wrote to the head of Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), demanding explanation for why 22 states and D,C. are "failing" to implement federal laws about Medicaid eligibility and asset transfer rules for Long Term Services and Supports (LTSS) benefits. They write:
"We are troubled to learn that many states have not implemented all of the eligibility and asset transfer requirements enacted by OBRA and DRA. Information provided to us by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General (OIG) shows that, as of November 2013, only 28 states reported they implemented all of the relevant provisions from these two laws. Thus, although it has been over 20 years since enactment of OBRA and nearly 10 years since DRA, the remaining 22 states and the District of Columbia have yet to comply with federal law. California, which accounts for 12 percent of Medicaid LTSS spending, reported that it has not implemented the majority of the relevant provisions. As a result, federal Medicaid dollars may be paying for care for individuals who are not eligible for coverage under federal law, which puts a strain on resources for those individuals who are eligible and in need."
The Chairmen ask for answers to a list of questions (by February 27), focusing on what action CMS is taking or will take to bring states "into compliance." For example, they ask "How is CMS ensuring that federal Medicaid dollars are not being used to support coverage for individuals ineligible for LTSS under federal law?"
Here is the full letter, addressed to Marilyn Tavenner at CMS, dated January 23, 2015.
For another perspective on potential disparities among the states in administering Medicaid eligibility rules for LTSS, see AARP's Public Policy Institute Report on "Access to Long-Term Services and Supports: A 50-State Survey of Medicaid Financial Eligibility Standards" released in September 2010.
This letter presents an interesting juxtaposition with the Armstrong case now pending in the Supreme Court. On the one hand, federal and state governments are arguing in court that there is no private standing to challenge "underfunding" of federally mandated Medicaid programs; on the other hand Congress seems to be demanding that CMS stop any potential for overfunding Medicaid beneficiaries.
The Importance of Checks & Balances in Law Firm Management, Including Handling Of Elder Client Funds
A news release from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Western Virginia provides an important reminder of the importance for every lawyer of having a system of checks and balances for law office management, to prevent any single employee from having unsupervised access or exclusive control over client trust funds. On December 15, 2014, a 34-year-old legal assistant at a law firm in Virginia was sentenced to 24 months in federal prison for stealing more than $183k from an elderly client of the law firm. The lawyer who employed that assistant had been named by the county to serve as the conservator for the elderly woman who became the victim. According to the news release, the attorney "allowed [the legal assistant] to access the elderly woman's bank accounts,...but [the assistant] did not have signature authority on the accounts."
According to the news release, the employer "to date... has repaid $104,990.15." One suspects the law firm (or, its insurer) will have to pay the whole tab, even though the sentencing order imposes an obligation of restitution for the full sum on the legal assistant.
Friday, January 23, 2015
As outlined in the Bar Counsel column of the January issue of the Oregon State Bar Bulletin, on January 1, 2015, lawyers became mandated reporters of suspected elder abuse, including physical abuse, neglect, verbal abuse, sexual abuse, and financial exploitation. Deputy General Counsel Amber Hollister for the Oregon State Bar explains:
"Lawyers across Oregon are talking about elder abuse reporting. On Jan. 1, 2015, legislation took effect making all Oregon lawyers mandatory reporters of elder abuse. HB 2205 (2013). As with any new law, there are still many questions about how the new requirements will apply and impact lawyers' day-to-day practice....
The new reporting requirement was enacted at the recommendation of the Oregon Elder Abuse Prevention Work Group, which was tasked with studying how to better protect older Oregonians. As state Rep. Val Hoyle notes, 'for four years, the work group has focused on protecting some of Oregon's most vulnerable citizens. Integrating lawyers into Oregon's elder abuse safety net as mandatory reporters will provide our state with 19,000 additional advocates.'"
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Thinking More Deeply About Treating Nonlawyers Who Offer Medicaid and Estate Planning as Engaging in UPL
Earlier this week, we reported on the Florida Supreme Court's recent Advisory Opinion regarding activities by nonlawyers in "Medicaid Planning" that will be treated as Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL).
That piece triggered several discussions with colleagues, and thus we have more information to share.
Stanford Law Professor Deborah Rhode, working with Lucy Buford Ricca, the Executive Director of Stanford's Center on the Legal Profession, has a relatively new article in Fordham Law Review's annual colloquium issue that deepens Rhodes' long-standing concerns about the potential impact of treating certain "nonlawyer" conduct as sanctionable under state UPL rules. In "Protecting the Professor or the Public? Rethinking Unauthorized-Practice Enforcement," Professor Rhode begins with the history behind her earliest examination of the utility of "do it yourself kits" in areas of underserved legal needs, such as divorce. In her most recent Fordham piece, she also builds upon her 1981 survey of UPL enforcement procedures across the 50 states, by making a close examination of over 100 reported UPL decisions issued in the last decade. Rhode and Ricca conclude that UPL enforcement needs to be more consumer-oriented and less driven by narrow interests of lawyers in protection of specialized practice. They advocate that a "more consumer-oriented approach would also vest enforcement authority in a more disinterested body than the organized bar." Their article is a must read for any Bar group considering UPL issues, including those arising in the elder law or estate planning context.
Along that same line, the American Bar Association is hosting its second "UPL School" in Chicago on April 17-18. The purpose is to provide "a central forum for volunteer members of state and local bar UPL committees and commissions, and those charged with the prevention and prosecution of UPL violations to discuss current UPL challenges." (The first such "ABA UPL School" was held in 2013, focusing on several areas including immigration, "notario" fraud, and mortgage relief or loan modification vendors.)
Monday, January 19, 2015
If you were retiring, would you want marketers of insurance products and funeral services -- or similar products -- obtaining your name and address from your former employer? Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law could be permitting just such access to information on a large number of state retirees.
In a decision issued January 9, 2015, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate court, ruled the Pennsylvania State Retirement System (SERS) failed to satisfy its burden to prove "a substantial and demonstrable risk" arising from a request for 15 years' worth of records containing the "names and addresses of all retirees" from the state. Therefore, the names and contact information of more than 1,000 retirees, or if deceased, the information on their beneficiaries, must be disclosed by SERS. And if SERS "failed" in carrying the burden of proving why this should not happen, as the opinion demonstrates, it was not for lack of trying.
The Court recognized an exception from disclosure for retired judges and law enforcement officers on the grounds of specific "personal safety and security" language tied to those positions, contained in Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law.
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Following extensive hearings and related proceedings, including revision of an earlier proposed advisory opinion by the Florida Bar's Standing Committee, the Florida Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion on January 15, 2015, addressing certain Medicaid planning activities, concluding that when performed by nonlawyers, they constitute the "unlicensed practice of law" (UPL), thereby leading to potential sanctions.
The ruling focuses on actions by nonlawyers who assist with one or more of the following activities leading up to an application for Medicaid: (1) drafting of personal service contracts, (2) preparation and execution of Qualified Income Trusts; or (3) rendering legal advice on implementation of Florida law to obtain Medicaid benefits. The Court expressly distinguished the "preparation of the application for Medicaid benefits" as being outside of its opinion, pointing to federal law as authorizing nonlawyer assistance in the application process.
The Elder Law Section of the Florida Bar was the petitioner seeking the advisory ruling.
In the detailed conclusion, the "harm and potential harm" from "unregulated" nonlawyers selling trust packages was outlined:
Monday, January 12, 2015
We have written often recently (see here and here) about problems with Powers of Attorney (POAs), and a pending case in Minnesota appears at first to be another sad tale of an agent's alleged self-dealing. The Minnesota Court of Appeals set up the fact pattern as follows:
"The attorney is asked to draft a power of attorney for his elderly client. The document is drafted by a secretary. The lawyer never meets the client. Neither the lawyer nor the secretary ever discusses the ramifications of signing the document with the client. The document allows the attorney-in-fact to transfer all of the client's assets to himself. Days after the [elderly uncle] signs the document, that is precisely what happens."
The nephew used the POA to drain the uncle's accounts of more than $227,000.
Was the nephew liable for conversion? By the time that question was answered by the courts in the affirmative, the nephew was in bankruptcy -- and the money was apparently gone.
The uncle's estate looked for deeper pockets, and focused on the law firm that provided the broadly worded POA "form." The Minnesota Court of Appeal's split decision -- focusing on whether summary judgment for the defendant law firm was proper -- outlines several points that should be considered by any law firm that has drafted a POA, including whether such "forms" should ever be provided to individuals without accompanying legal advice.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
We recently heard from Emily Crim, a Public Interest Fellow working in Boston with the "Elder Abuse Prevention Project" under the auspices of Greater Boston Legal Services. The project's important mission, now more than a year in development, is to "offer legal advice and representation of victims, provide training to care providers, community members, and seniors, as well as to advocate for systemic reform and build local networks that can prevent and intervene in cases of abuse." As part of this Project, they have recently launched a great new "Project Blog" to help get the word out.
Here's a link to their most recent post on "LGBT Elder Abuse: An Invisible Problem within an Invisible Community." Here's a link to the Project website too. Certainly the topics addressed here are relevant beyond the Greater Boston area!
Thanks, Emily, for reading our Elder Law Prof Blog and for sharing your latest news!
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
With the 2015 AALS Annual Meeting in our rear-view mirror, we can begin thinking about programming for January 6-9, 2016 in New York City! Whew! No rest... no rest....
The new officers for the Aging and the Law Section include Chair-Elect Nina Kohn, Syracuse Law, Secretary Roberta Flowers, Stetson Law, and Treasurer Jack Sahl, University of Akron Law. Mark Bauer, Stetson, as outgoing chair will continue on the executive committee. If other law professors reading this blog would like to volunteer to be on the planning committee for January 2016, that would be great too. Just email one of us to let us know!
The preliminary plans are to work on a joint program with a professional responsibility focus, looking at emerging potential roles for attorneys to protect older adults from abuse or neglect, including consideration of whether attorneys are -- or should be -- "mandated" reporters of suspected abuse of adults. A mandatory reporting obligation, already a fact of life for some professionals, including social workers in certain contexts and attorneys in some states, raises important questions of client identity, autonomy, confidentiality, and conflicts of interest, just to name a few concerns. Let us know if you have a work in progress -- or additional thoughts -- along this line.
Monday, January 5, 2015
Health Care Decisions for the "Unbefriended" -- a Report from "Aging and Law" Program at 2015 AALS in D.C.
My thanks to Becky Morgan for her words of support regarding the task ahead of me as the incoming chair of the Aging and the Law Section of the American Associations of Law Schools (AALS). AND, more importantly, our thanks to Mark Bauer, from Stetson Law, the outgoing chair on Aging, and Thaddeus Pope, Hamline Law, the chair of the Law, Medicine and Healthcare Section, who worked together to present a great program.
The focus of the 2015 joint program was examination of how health care providers approach the question of medical decisions -- and not just end-of-life treatment decisions -- for a unique, but not rare, group of individuals. We were asked to consider whether current law and practice adequately serve those who have not expressed their views in advance (such as by a written "living will" or other care directive), have not appointed a surrogate decision maker (such as by naming an agent in a written directive, whether in the form of a Power of Attorney or specialized health-care directive), are not able personally to communicate with a doctor or care provider to give direction and consent to treatment, and for whom there is no family member or close individual recognized by formal law or informal practice as having decision-making authority. Sometime this individual is simply someone who has outlived her family and close friends.
The discussion was good, especially with the help of the 50-state legal review from the wonderful Erica Wood of the American Bar Association's Commission on Law and Aging, and key practical perspectives and experiences from Ellen Fox, M.D., who was Chief Officer, Ethics in Health Care, for the Department of Veterans Affairs for 15 years, and who now is the CEO for Integrated Ethics Consulting LLC.
David Orentlicher. J.D., M.D., and the co-director of the Center for Law and Health at Indiana University School of Law provided an intriguing examination of "clear and convincing evidence" standards as used in health-care decision making for "unbefriended" patients. Sharona Hoffman, from Case Western Reserve Law also added good food for thought, including talking about "precedent autonomy," which for me was a new label to consider. This latter concept resonated with me on a personal level, as for many years my father made it very clear how he did not want to live under certain circumstances if he developed certain disabling conditions, but who now seems to have quite a different view -- acceptance of life, perhaps --"with" dementia.
Great discussion, including wise observations from members of the audience about the number of years that society has struggled with these issues of treatment decisions for those who cannot express their personal wishes, and the incremental (and sometimes frustrating) nature of change.
I always hope to come away from AALS programs with new things to read and study, both for myself and my students. So, along that line, here are two takeaways:
- Ellen Fox is a co-author for "Ten Myths About Decision-Making Capacity," including the first "myth that decision-making capacity and competency are the same."
- A paper on "The Concept of Precedent Autonomy" by John K. Davis.
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
On November 14, 2014, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's decision in a deceptively simple contract dispute. The question was whether a son, who was his mother's agent under a power of attorney, could be held personally liable for $8,700 incurred by his mother in nursing home costs. The ruling in Andover Village Retirement Community v. Cole confirmed the son's contractual liability.
When I first read about the case, I thought I would find another example of the often confusing use of "responsible party" labels for agents in a nursing home admission agreement, a topic I've written about at length before. However, the Ohio case was a new spin on that troublesome topic. According to the opinion, Andover Village actually presented two separate documents to the son at the time of his mother's admission. One document was an admission agreement that the son signed, pledging:
“When Resident's Responsible Person signs this Agreement on behalf of Resident, Resident's Responsible Person is responsible for payment to [Andover] to the extent Resident's Responsible Person has access and control of Resident's income and/or resources. By signing this Agreement the Resident's Responsible Person does not incur personal financial liability.”
The second document, titled "Voluntary Assumption of Personal Responsibility," was also signed by the son, but this time it stated, “I, Richard Cole, voluntarily assume personal financial responsibility for the care of Resident in the preceding Agreement.”
The court viewed the second document as the son's personal guarantee, and it was this document that triggered the court to find the son personally liable for his "voluntary" assumption of the obligation to pay costs not covered by Medicare or Medicaid.
The Ohio court leaves me with another question, not directly addressed in the decision. Did the son really make a knowing and voluntary decision to assume personal liability for costs, especially costs that can break most individual's piggy banks? Or, did the son sign a stack of papers he was told were routine and necessary for his mother to be admitted? Admissions to nursing homes are often made when everyone, the resident and the family members, is under stress.
At a minimum, I would like to think that a family's consultation with an experienced elder law attorney at the time of admission would have made a difference.
For facilities that are Medicare or Medicaid eligible -- and that is most nursing homes -- key federal laws, set forth at 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395i-3(c)(5)(A)(ii), 1396r(c)(5)(A)(ii) provide: “With respect to admissions practices, a skilled nursing facility must . . . not require a third party guarantee of payment to the facility as a condition of admission (or expedited admission) to, or continued stay in, the facility.”
I expect that an experienced elder law attorney would be familiar with this restriction on "mandatory" guarantees and would help the son see that for the nursing home to be compliant with federal law, any guarantee must be truly voluntary. Advice from an experienced elder law attorney would help to guard against the not-so-voluntary signing of a stack of papers that are presented as "necessary" to admit the resident. Perhaps a facility would refuse to admit the mother unless the son signs the "voluntary" agreement, but if that happens, it would be clear that the facility is violating the intention of federal law to protect individuals -- and families -- from waiving certain rights as a condition of admission or continued residence.
With that experienced lawyer's advice, a son could make a knowing and intentional decision to serve as his mother's contractual guarantor, and thus would be alert in advance to the ways that even small gaps can occur that are not covered by Medicare, Medicaid or private insurance. (Those small gaps can add up!) Alternatively, if the son is not willing or able to serve as his parent's guarantor, another facility might be the better choice.
In law school classes about elder law, we do teach Medicaid planning approaches, but frankly, that is usually a small part of any course. The majority of our time is spent on the abundant ways that individuals and families can be helped by an attorney who understands the full panoply of rights and obligations that attend growing older in the U.S. and beyond.
Hat tips to Pennsylvania attorney Jeffrey Marshall and Florida attorney Joseph Karp for alerts to the Ohio case.
On December 23, 2014, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued a detailed opinion explaining the disbarment of Attorney Michael C. Hodes, in proceedings initiated by the state's Attorney Grievance Commission. Hodes, an attorney with 39 years of experience, reportedly held himself out as concentrating his practice in estate planning and elder law. At the core of the charges against Hodes was "self-dealing," by improperly using money from a specific decedent's account and over $270,00 from a related trust account for his own needs. He attempted to avoid disbarment, arguing that the sums should be characterized as a loan, that he had made restitution and his alleged misconduct was not in his role as an "attorney."
The Court concluded, however, that an attorney can be disciplined for violations of Rules of Professional Conduct, including conflict of interest, arising from conduct as an agent and trustee for an irrevocable trust created from assets from a decedent's estate, even if the attorney had been acting in a personal or non-legal capacity.
Hodes argued as mitigation that he had an established reputation as a trustworthy and knowledgeable attorney, with no prior history of disciplinary sanctions, and pointed to his roles as an adjunct professor at two area law schools and his role as a regular commentator on "elder law" for the radio. The court was unpersuaded, observing, "Yet, with all of his knowledge and experience in the practice areas of elder law and estates and trusts, Respondent displayed a remarkable lack of insight into his professional responsibility as an attorney and fiduciary. He continued to insist that he had taken a 'loan' of $270,000.00 from the Trust in order to pay personal bills, as if this form of self-dealing was acceptable."
The Maryland Court of Appeals also rejected Hodes' argument that the sanction of disbarment was excessive, as compared to prior disciplinary cases. The Court noted that to the extent the cases could be cited as permitting leniency for intentional misconduct, they "are no longer part of our modern attorney discipline jurisprudence."
For more, see here (Baltimore Business Journal), describing Michael Hodes' future plans.
Friday, December 26, 2014
I have written before about allegations of "bust out schemes" in long-term care companies. The theory is that operators of businesses facing huge obligations, especially obligations arising from court judgments based on negligent care in nursing homes, try to transfer and hide assets to avoid paying the legal damages. Allegations of this form of fraud are at the heart of a complicated case, In re Fundamental Long-Term Care Inc., pending in the bankruptcy courts of Florida, focused on operations in that state, but also in Illinois and Maryland. The allegations are wild, with alleged manipulation of an elderly graphic artist, now himself a resident of a nursing home, to "buy" the shell company that was saddled with $119 million in default judgments arising out of two wrongful death cases dating back to 2003, plus perhaps as many as 150 additional, pending claims.
The presiding U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge, Michael Williamson in Tampa, Florida, has announced a "tentative ruling" that owners of the multistate chain of nursing homes have committed fraud by transferring liabilities to an asset-less shell company, in order to isolate responsibility for more than $2 billion in jury verdicts. At the same time, the judge apparently indicated he sees no evidence to hold a private equity firm -- and probably the defendant with the deepest pockets -- liable for the fraud commited by the nursing home companies it provided with financing. Apparently the judge's "tentative ruling" is intended to encourage the parties remaining on both sides of the case to be realistic during mediation sessions ordered by the court to take place in January.
In addition to the extraordinary dollars involved in the alleged fraud, media sources have covered the case closely because Illinois Governor Elect Bruce Rauner was once a manager of an investment firm involved in financing for the nursing home chain. Governor-to-Be Rauner has not been a defendant in the liability cases, and has strongly denied any knowledge or responsibility for the alleged fraud.
The case is In re Fundamental Long-Term Care Inc., 11-bk-22258, 13-ap-00893, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Middle District of Florida.
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
Okay, I will admit to being one of the addicts for the podcast "Serial" episodes. If you haven't listened yet, the first season tracked an investigaton of a criminal case, posing the question of whether a young man who was convicted as a teenager of murdering his former girlfriend might be entitled to post-conviction relief. Listening to the well-crafted episodes and compelling voices of the defendant and other individuals connected the Baltimore events has been a great way to rest my semester-weary eyes, while still considering important questions of law, ethics, justice, professional obligations of attorneys, race, and ethnicity.
But the last episode for 2014 is now behind us. What to listen to now? Especially while we actually have some down time between semesters-- and might need a break from our own families!?
Well, here is another interesting option -- Life of the Law, a bi-weekly "sound rich" podcast series exploring cutting edge topics. The episode on "New Frontiers of Family Law" immediately gave me a new term - polyamorous relationships -- and surprising new things to think about for my course on Wills, Trusts & Estates. The episodes vary in length, some nicely as short as 15 minutes.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Here is a link to a podcast for a Smart Talk program from WITF Public Radio, where Zygmont Pines, Esq., Court Administrator for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and I were invited to talk about quite a few "hot" topics from Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Elder Law Task Force. The Task Force released its big Report and Recommendations last month.
The topics strike me as quite universal, not Pennsylvania specific. If you make it to the last few minutes (or skip ahead), there is an especially poignant moment with a family caregiver, who tells a real life story that will strike a chord with many.
December 20, 2014 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Mark Friedman, an elder law and special needs attorney from New Jersey, recently wrote to comment on the important series offered by National Public Radio on use and misuse of certain medications in long-term care settings. Here is what Mark said:
"NPR ran a story on 'chemical restraints,' - nursing homes using anti-psychotic drugs to make unruly residents more pliable. According to the article, the residents are usually Alzheimer’s or dementia patients, and anti-psychotics can make the residents easier for staff to manage. But the drugs can be dangerous, increasing a resident’s risk of falls and exacerbating health problems. At high doses, anti-psychotics can also sap away emotions and personality and put the resident into a 'stupor.'
Administering drugs in this manner, any drugs, including anti-psychotics, without medical need and for the convenience of staff, is contrary to federal regulations. Unfortunately, it may also be widespread.
The NPR story includes a tool drawn from CMS data that shows the rate of residents on anti-psychotics at nursing homes across the country. You can look up the facility in which your loved one resides.
The news coverage shows that this issue is getting increased attention, and that’s a good thing. I think that as Americans age and more people have spouses and parents in nursing homes, the use of anti-psychotics as chemical restraints will have to diminish or end. People won’t stand for their loved ones being drugged into a stupor."
Thanks, Mark, for making sure we included this topic and the latest links for more coverage and your additional commentary. Along the same lines, I listened to an interesting follow-up conversation on AirTalk, a Los Angeles public radio affiliate's program, discussing "How California is Doing in the National Fight to Curb Over-Medication of Nursing Home Patients." That program, now available as a 23-minute podcast, included an articulate medical professional, Dr. Karl Steinberg, who described how he sees medication practices changing in long-term care, including better use of behavior health techniques, rather than medication, to help residents.
December 16, 2014 in Cognitive Impairment, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Ethical Issues, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Science | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Saturday, December 13, 2014
AirTalk, a program aired daily by Public Radio affilliate KPCC in Southern California, hosted a discussion about the issues identified in news articles about the Iowa criminal case, where a husband faces "statutory rape" charges for having sexual relations with his wife after she was diagnosed with advanced dementia and began residing in a nursing home.
Here's the link to a podcast of the December 12, 2014 segment.
December 13, 2014 in Cognitive Impairment, Crimes, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, December 1, 2014
In the November 2014 issue of the Oregon State Bar Bulletin, an attorney-counselor at the Oregon Attorney Assistance Program, Douglas Querin, reports that he has had more calls over the past two to three years involving questions of age-related cognitive decline than in all the previous years he has worked in his position.
One factor potentially contributing to an increase is the number of lawyers who may be staying in practice longer, as a result of the economic downturn's effect on their retirement savings. In Oregon, more than a quarter of all lawyers are age 60 or over, and nearly half of the active members in the Oregon bar are age 50 or over.
"'The most heartbreaking situations are where a lawyer may have had a stellar reputation for 30 to 50 years of practicing, then changes with cognitive issues, in part because no one raises the problem, and he keeps practicing and gets into trouble, which raises the attention of the bar,' [Assistance Program Attorney Querin] says. 'Then you have a senior lawyer with a great reputation whose legacy ends up being under an ethical cloud.'
By the time such discussions take place, the impaired lawyer's reaction may be denial, because part of the cognitive changes may include the inability to recognize that a problem exists, says [Oregon neuropsychologist Michael R. Villaneuva]. 'An inability to know there are difficulties is part of the nature of what's happening to them.'"
In "Ready or Not: When Colleagues Experience Cognitive Decline," author Cliff Collins details signs and symptoms of potential cognitive impairment, drawing upon the ABA Senior Lawyer Assistance Committee's 2014 Working Paper on Cognitive Impairment and Cognitive Decline Worksheet. The article further suggests approaches to take with colleagues and urges members of the profession not to "ignore" any problems.
A companion article in the issue further addresses "Ethical Implications of Aging - The Graying of the Profession," including specific guidance in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and relevant formal ethics opinions.
"Thank you" to Dickinson Law Professor Laurel Terry for sharing her copy of the Oregon State Bar Bulletin.
Friday, November 28, 2014
In Wagner v. State of Maryland, decided October 30, 2014, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the conviction of a daughter on charges of theft and misappropriation as a fiduciary, arising from her withdrawal of funds from her father's bank account which she used for her own purposes. The daughter had been added as a "joint owner" on the account by her 80+ year old father following the death of his wife.
The issue as framed on appeal was whether a person can be guilty of theft from a joint account on which that person is named as a joint owner.
The amount in controversy was more than $120,000 withdrawn by the daughter over 3 years. The appellate court concluded that "even though [the daughter] was named as a 'joint owner' in the parties' agreement with the bank, and not a convenience person, it does not determine conclusively that [she] was an [owner] for the purpose of the criminal statute."
Several key facts supporting the conviction are described in the decision, including:
- Testimony by the father at trial that the only reason he added his daughter's name to the account was to permit her to get money for him, if he was unable to get it for himself.
- The father retained control over the checkbook for the account.
- Evidence that thousands of dollars were withdrawn from the father's account by the daughter using a cash card, which the father said he was unaware existed.
- The daughter had failed to make payments on a $85k mortgage taken out by her father on his home, which the father testified was a loan to his daughter to help her business, and not a gift as the daughter claimed. Notice of foreclosure on the home was apparently what tipped the father to ask questions about his finances.
Maryland has not, apparently, adopted the Uniform Multiple Person Accounts Act, (UMPAA, first approved 1989) which is intended to clarify the rights of depositors and other parties in jointly titled bank accounts.
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Recently I have encountered several thoughtful articles about the language we use, and the approaches taken, when talking with older persons. This seems to be an especially appropriate topic for the holiday season, when families often come together, sometimes from great distances. Whether we are talking with clients or family members, some of the same dynamics may be in play, especially when the question is about planning for the future.
From the ABA Commission on Law and Aging's Bifocal publication, comes David Solie's "The Wrong Signals: Shutting Down the Planning Conversation Before It Starts." He encourages us to "consider the psychological landscape of older clients -- it is a world embedded with two dominant agendas posing significant resistance to change. Together, these psychological currents create a deep inertia to disrupting the status quo." He labels these barriers to change as:
- Ambivalence and the "Righting Reflex," and
- The Need for Control
He suggests approaches, including the use of open-ended questions, reflective listening, and making a conscious decision about what words to use. For example, he suggests that when we start to discussion options, we explain more clearly that advance planning helps to "preserve choice" and avoids "loss of control."
Another potential problem may arise from "Elderspeak," a label social scientists use to refer to a tendency to use "patronizing" tones or words when speaking to anyone who is older. One recent article in McKnight's News made me chuckle, as it points to the well-meaning but potentially misguided use of words such as ""honey" by professionals when working with elders.
My father, a federal judge for more than 30 years, at age 89 may have forgotten many things -- but he does not take kindly to being called "honey" by strangers. He now has an entire assisted living campus, even a few of the other residents, calling him "Judge" or "Your Honor." I bet you might know a judge or two like that? When it comes to control, I'm not sure who is teaching whom about holding court.
Here's to more humor in all of our holidays -- and more opportunities for effective communication -- both within the family and beyond. Happy Thanksgiving!