Podcasts about boston bar association

The Office of the Bar Counsel, the Board of Bar Overseers, and the Boston Bar Association are co- sponsoring a free one-hour program on trust account record keeping.  The program will provide guidance for attorneys, paralegals, bookkeepers, or other law office support staff interested in receiving training on the requirements of Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15, as revised effective July 1, 2015. This program will provide participants with a detailed review of the records required to be maintained for IOLTA accounts and other trust accounts.   Questions? Inquiries about program materials? Contact Trenon Browne at tbrowne@bostonbar.org

In the face of our current housing crisis, community land trusts (CLTs) are emerging as a tool to develop and preserve affordable housing and land, and to stabilize neighborhoods. CLTs stand out from other models with their commitment to preserving affordable housing and land in perpetuity, and with a governance structure that ensures residents, neighbors, and other community members hold central decision-making roles. While CLTs acquire property through a variety of methods, many CLTs are developing pathways for local homeowners to transfer property through estate planning. Bequeathing property to a CLT is one impactful way homeowners may leave a legacy to their neighborhoods. This program will introduce CLTs as potential beneficiaries of estate plans, illustrate a Boston-based case study that offers some initial lessons-learned, and outline key considerations for working with homeowners who are interested in transferring property to CLTs. Panelists will include estate planning and elder law attorney Harry Margolis, who has worked with Dudley Neighbors, Inc. (DNI), one of the oldest and largest CLTs in the country; CLT practitioner and consultant Harry Smith, who has served as the executor of an estate that included a property transfer to DNI; and land use attorney David Linhart, who represents DNI. Participants can expect to leave the program with a deeper understanding of CLTs and why they matter, model documents for estate plans facilitating CLT property transfers, and crucial lessons and considerations for supporting homeowners who want to transfer their property to CLTs. This program is hosted by the Trust and Estates Section of the Boston Bar Association, in partnership with the Greater Boston Community Land Trust Network. Questions? Inquiries about program materials? Contact Trenon Browne at tbrowne@bostonbar.org

In this episode, I speak with my first “threepeat” guest, Lauren Rikleen.  This is Lauren's third appearance on Counsel to Counsel. She was actually one of my first guests when I launched the show in 2018.  In that episode, we spoke about success strategies for women and the work she has done on that issue.    In the Spring of 2022,I invited Lauren back to talk more about her legal career including working in the field of environmental law as it was just taking off. We also spoke about what inspired her to make a career shift away from the practice of law.  If you haven't already listened to it, I invite you to go back to episode 81.   I met Lauren in the early 1990s when I was at Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education and later had the privilege of sitting on her Standing Committee on Work/Life Balance when she was President of the Boston Bar Association.  I knew soon after I met her that Lauren is someone who is not afraid to speak up when she sees injustice.   She is also a person with a big heart who cares not only about making an impact but also about investing in the success of professionals who come from disadvantaged groups.   Most importantly, she laughs at most of my jokes and keeps me laughing as well.   I invited Lauren back because she is the editor of a new book entitled Her Honor. Her Honor is an inspiring compendium of the lives of 25 female judges including many judges of color.  Most of these  judges were women who overcame significant gender and racial discrimination to get to the bench and all of them are judges who felt a great sense of responsibility to continue the fight for racial and gender equity.   I also invited her back to talk about the important work that she is doing through Lawyers Defending American Democracy.   Lauren Rikleen is  President of the Rikleen Institute for Strategic Leadership.  She is also the Executive Director of Lawyers Defending American Democracy.    Additional Episodes   Episode 87-The Advancement of Women in Law with Elise Holtzman Episode 81-Lauren Rikleen-Rebel with Many Causes

Join the Boston Bar Association and Greater Boston Legal Services (GBLS) in learning the skills needed to volunteer at the virtual CORI Sealing Clinic. This volunteer opportunity is open to licensed attorneys.   This project was launched in partnership with GBLS to serve our low-income communities in Boston. As CORI records can present a significant barrier to housing, employment, and educational opportunities, assisting clients with sealing is an important way that volunteers can make a difference in someone's life.   Following the training, attendees will be able to volunteer with GBLS to accept referrals from the virtual CORI Sealing Clinic. We ask that in exchange for this free training by subject matter experts, Pauline Quirion and Ventura Dennis, attendees agree to accept at least one case in 2023-2024.    At this training you can expect to learn:   What is CORI CORI and the various levels of access to CORI by employers and others The waiting periods to seal records How to seal criminal and juvenile records through the administrative process How to seal criminal records in court How to expunge records and how expungement differs from sealing FBI provisions in the law related to CORI New provisions in the law for automatic sealing of "not guilty" dispositions  New case law and new statute on expungement Questions? Inquiries about program materials? Contact Trenon Browne at tbrowne@bostonbar.org

Renee Landers is a Professor of Law at Suffolk University Law School in Boston. She teaches Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Health Law, and Privacy Law, among other academic pursuits. She also has served in a number of other impressive positions, including a term as President of the Boston Bar Association and another as Chair of the American Bar Association's Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice. Among her many volunteer activities, Professor Landers has played and continues to play a significant role in the area of judicial ethics in her home state of Massachusetts. And, perhaps most important, she happens to be a great role model for aspiring lawyers. I've known Professor Landers for a number of years and could think of no one I'd rather talk with about some of the most significant decisions issued by the United States Supreme Court in the final weeks before its summer recess, and about the current controversy over whether the Justices should be bound by Congressionally-imposed rules of judicial conduct, as are all other federal judges. I learned a lot from the conversation and I hope you'll enjoy it as much as I did. 

Lauren Stiller Rikleen is a force of nature. An accomplished lawyer and author, past President of the Boston Bar Association, and holder of several leadership positions in the American Bar Association, she now has her own leadership institute and serves as Executive Director of an organization of lawyers devoted to defending American democracy. Lauren also recently served as editor of an inspiring book, presenting the stories of 25 women judges, all of whom, like her, have received the ABA's prestigious Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award. In this episode of Higher Callings, I talk with Lauren about some of her recent work, including the work of Lawyers Defending American Democracy and the publication of her new book.You can find the Rikleen Institute website here.You can find the website for Lawyers Defending American Democracy here.You can learn more about, and order a copy of, Lauren's latest book, Her Honor: Stories of Challenge and Triumph from Women Judges, here.

Please join the Boston Bar Association's Intellectual Property Section as we hear from leading industry professionals in a discussion on the Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc., v. VIP Products LLC case which was argued in front of the Supreme Court on March 22, 2023. Our panelists will provide an overview of the case and the Supreme Court oral arguments, discuss the possible effects and implications of the Supreme Court decision, and highlight other similar cases that have been decided in the past. (4/27/2023) Questions? Inquiries about program materials? Contact Alan I. Johnson at ajohnson@bostonbar.org

Episode 8 Attorney Wright saw an interesting question posted on an online legal forum recently: Will I look bad if I refuse mediation? Reasons not to go may be many, but there could be consequences in court if your refuse. What does that mean for your case? What will the judge think? Are you putting your case at risk? Do you run the risk of giving the family law judge the wrong impression if you refuse to try to settle your case through the conciliation process?Although the conciliator/mediator is impartial, has family court experience and is trustworthy, you still may not be able to see yourself sitting down with your ex at the same table. Maybe you suffered abuse and trauma and you don't feel safe, or maybe you still just have unresolved anger issues and it's just too much to deal with. In this episode, Ellen Wright is joined by Attorney David Eppley of the Wright Family Law Group to discussion mediaiton in Massachusetts.DAVID EPPLEY focuses his practice in all areas of family law including litigation, mediation, conciliation, and arbitration, including the niche area of LGBT family issues. Aside from his family law cases, David also maintains an active probate litigation practice. In this practice, David has been appointed by the Massachusetts Probate & Family Court in special fiduciary and/or neutral capacities as Commissioner for Sale of Real Estate, Guardian ad litem, Special Discovery Master, and Successor Administrator.For over twenty years, David has worked for highly respected domestic relations boutique firms and a mid-sized Boston firm where he has developed a reputation as an authority in family and divorce law. Following law school graduation from Boston University School of Law, David served two years as a law clerk to the Justices of the Massachusetts Probate & Family Court. David received his bachelors degree from Ball State University.David is a former member of the Joint Bar Alimony Task Force; former Boston Bar Association, Family Law Section, Co-Chair; former Massachusetts LGBTQ Bar Association, Co-Chair. He remains a member of those organizations and the Essex County Bar Association, where he volunteers as a certified conciliator. David has presented at various CLE programs regarding complex family law issues, including co-chairing for several years the annual MCLE Divorce Finance Summit. David is a co-author of Divorce Law Practice Manual, Chapter 8 Division of Estate, MCLE, 2nd Edition, 2008, and was recognized as a Massachusetts Super Lawyers Rising Star (2007-2011).David joined the Wright Family Law Group in 2023, helping augment the firm's presence in Essex County. David continues to practice in all of the Metro Boston area, spending time in both the Tewksbury and Danvers offices.When not at work, David enjoys watching classic films or streaming the latest Star Wars series. David is a recovering former politician having served as a Salem City Councillor for two terms a few years ago and now will occasionally advocate on local issues facing his hometown.Mediaiton Resources: https://wrightfamilylawgroup.com/divorce-mediation/www.exhaledivorcemediation.comDon't forget to download our complimentary infographic that helps explain the differences between mediation and conciliation here: http://bit.ly/3MqGYStWatch the Companion YouTube video here: https://youtu.be/YUV2AfPkzxg

In February, I interviewed Boston IP attorney Chinh Pham, a former colleague of mine and current President of the Boston Bar Association. At the beginning of the interview, Chinh told me the remarkable story of his family's rescue from Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City) in 1975 in the final days of the Vietnam War, and his recent renewed contact with the American naval personnel from the U.S.S. Duluth who rescued them. The February episode began in Chinh's adult years and explored his career as a lawyer and his work with the Boston Bar Association. I now present this bonus episode, in which Chinh recounts the story of how a 10-year-old boy and his family were rescued from a war-torn country in the South China Sea and their happy reunion 44 years later with some of the Americans who rescued them.

Join the Boston Bar Association and Greater Boston Legal Services in learning the skills needed to volunteer at the virtual CORI Sealing Clinic. This project was launched in partnership with GBLS to serve our low-income communities in Boston. As CORI records can present a significant barrier to housing, employment, and educational opportunities, assisting clients with sealing is an important way that volunteers can make a difference in someone's life. (2/2/23)   Questions? Inquiries about program materials? Contact Alan I. Johnson at ajohnson@bostonbar.org

When Chinh Pham was 10 years old, he and his family, like thousands of others, fled the chaotic capital of what was then South Vietnam on the final day of the Vietnam War. They were rescued by the 7th Fleet of the U.S. Navy, and eventually landed in the United States, where they began a new life. Today, Chinh is a successful intellectual property lawyer in a large international law firm, and is at the midpoint of his one-year term as President of the Boston Bar Association, the first Asian American ever to serve in that position. In this episode of Higher Callings, I spoke with Chinh about his decision to become a lawyer, his leadership positions in a number of nonprofits, his commitment to mentoring young professionals, and his work with the Boston Bar Association.  We began our conversation with Chinh recounting his family's rescue from the South China Sea, and that portion of Chinh's interview will be published in a later episode of the podcast. This episode focuses on Chinh's adult years, beginning with his decision to attend law school at the University of California San Francisco School of Law after graduating from Berkeley, years after his family's arrival in the United States.You can find Chinh's law firm bio here:  https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/p/pham-chinh-hYou can find the Boston Bar Association's news release profiling Chinh as he began his term as BBA President here: https://bostonbar.org/news/chinh-h-pham-begins-term-as-new-bba-president/

Have you always wondered about the legal issues unique to nonprofit and charitable organizations? What is the the public support test and fiscal sponsorship? If you want to find out answers to these questions, you must tune into this episode with Valerie Sussman.Valerie is a nonprofit lawyer specializing in advising 501(c)(3) public charities and private foundations. She assists clients in attaining their charitable goals while maximizing their ability to give through the use of tax-advantaged strategies. Her expertise in estate planning and administration enables her to work closely with clients on charitable planning, trusts, bequests, and on interpreting and revising charitable gift instruments. As a member of the Boston Bar Association, Valerie has presented seminars on topics related to tax updates and trusts and estates law. She is also a member of the Boston Estate Planning Council, where she served as chair of the Women's Initiative and Education committees and is the Co-Chair of the Member Involvement Committee.Note: Please note that the material in this interview is solely for informational purposes. It is not intended to provide, and should not be relied upon, for tax, legal, or accounting advice. You should consult a tax, legal, and/or accounting advisor before engaging in any transaction.➡️ Reach out to Valerie:Email: vsussman@hurwitassociates.com➡️ Resources for Non-Profits from Hurwit & Associates:https://www.hurwitassociates.com/➡️ Connect with Valerie on LinkedIn-----------------------------------LEAVE US A REVIEW:Did you enjoy the episode? You can rate and leave us a review here. It really helps the podcast especially since we're just getting startedLISTENER SURVEY:Share your thoughts on the podcast hereNON-PROFITS IN PUGET SOUND:Tell us about your Project Management needs. We will connect you with an experienced volunteer Project Manager: https://forms.office.com/r/uTKt9gRXXdPROJECT MANAGERS:Become a part of our Project Management community: https://forms.office.com/r/f7d14Zim3LFOLLOW & SUBSCRIBE:@Everything Non-Profit on Apple Podcasts/ Spotify/ Amazon Music/ Radio Public@PugetSoundProjectManagementVolunteers on LinkedInHOSTS:➡️ Connect with Carmen on LinkedIn➡️ Connect with Kayla on LinkedInEmail: puget.Info@pmv.org

Kim Napoli (MA State Cannabis Advisory Board) and Caroline Pineau (Owner of Stem Haverhill) are our guests. Kim Napoli is a licensed labor and employment attorney in Massachusetts, the co-founder of the Hempest, and a Massachusetts Cannabis Advisory Board member. She served as Director of Outreach for the Yes on 4 Campaign to Regulate and Tax Marijuana in Massachusetts in 2016. Napoli is a graduate of Suffolk University Law School and Suffolk University College of Arts & Sciences, and a member of the Boston Bar Association, Massachusetts Bar Association, American Bar Association, and the Women's Bar Association. Caroline Pineau is the owner of Stem Haverhill, a woman-owned adult-use dispensary. She's overcome lawsuits, bullying, and politics to open her store in downtown Haverhill. Caroline has stood up often for the cannabis industry mostly recently challenging the mayor of Haverhill over nonsense fees. She also recently hosted a Green Goddess golf Invitational that raised money for a charity in the city of Haverhill. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/theyoungjurks/support

SHOW NOTES: Based in Massachusetts, Tucker Merrigan serves as co-founder and co-managing partner of Sweeney Merrigan Law, LLP. Tucker specializes in plaintiff personal injury law, specifically mass torts relating to defective medical devices and opioids. Tucker has received national recognition for his litigation work. From 2018-2021, Super Lawyers recognized him as a Rising Star. The National Trial Lawyers also named Tucker to their Top 40 Under 40 Trial Attorney list for six years running (2015-2021). He is a member of the American Association for Justice, the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys, the Boston Bar Association, and Massachusetts Bar Association. Outside of running his law practice, Tucker enjoys volunteering as a “Big Brother” mentor at Boston's Big-Brother Big-Sister Foundation. Merrigan intro page: https://www.sweeneymerrigan.com/about-our-law-firm/attorneys/j-tucker-merrigan/  Tucker Personal Socials: Linkedin Sweeney Merrigan socials: Facebook Twitter Linkedin   Remember to subscribe and follow us on social media…   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/mass-tort-news Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/masstortnewsorg Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/masstortnews.org

I got to know Michael Bogdanow when we co-chaired the Litigation Section of the Boston Bar Association in the early 2000's. An alum of Harvard Law School and chair of the appellate practice at a small but powerful personal injury law firm, Michael also is an accomplished artist. His vivid paintings of themes from the Hebrew Bible and his more secular works of colorful skies and flying planets reveal an artist who has always viewed art as a calling, and one that has many parallels with his other calling of appellate law. We explore these topics and more in this art-themed episode of Higher Callings. You can find examples of Michael's artwork on his website, linked here.You can find Michael's LinkedIn bio here.

Tucker Merrigan is a partner at Sweeney Merrigan Law, LLP along with his brother, Peter M. Merrigan, and his father, Thomas T. Merrigan. He represents individual clients throughout Massachusetts and the U.S.    Merrigan's practice concentrates on cases involving personal injury, defective medical devices, dangerous drugs, wrongful death, premises liability, products liability, medical malpractice, and insurance law. In both 2015 and 2016, he was named a Top 40 Under 40 Trial Attorney by the National Trial Lawyers.    Merrigan earned his bachelor's degree in political science from Tufts University. As an undergraduate, Merrigan was captain of the Varsity Men's lacrosse team at Tufts, earning All-American and Scholar All-America honors.    He then went on to graduate with Dean's Honors from New England School of Law. As a law student, he served on the board of the Student Bar Association.    Merrigan is currently a member of the American Association for Justice, Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys, the Boston Bar Association, and Massachusetts Bar Association.  He serves as a Big-Brother in the Big-Brother Big-Sister foundation of Greater Boston.   On the show, Merrigan discusses the entrepreneurship required to manage a thriving law practice and positive developments he's seen in the plaintiffs' bar over the last year.    Remember to subscribe and follow us on social media. Enjoy the show.

On this episode of We Chat Divorce we welcomed Grace C. Roessler, Esq. Grace is an associate at Mirick O'Connell's Family Law and Divorce Group in Boston. She concentrates her practice in the areas of divorce and family litigation, including pursuing and defending the following actions: divorce, custody, child support, modification, contempt, request to permanently remove children out of the Commonwealth, paternity, restraining orders, department of children and family investigations, and elder divorce. In short, Grace is a busy person. She has experience serving as a third-party neutral including court-appointed discovery master and is a certified mediator. While she aims to settle cases amicably and efficiently, including attending voluntary mediation or conciliation, Grace is prepared to litigate the matter in the best interest of the client. She regularly appears before probate and family court judges, promotions, and trials to litigate on behalf of her clients. She volunteers for the Middlesex Probate and Family Court lawyer for the day program, is an active member and contributor to the Boston Bar Association, and serves as co-chair of the Boston Bar Association Family Newsletter. Grace was selected by her peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch© 2021 and The Best Lawyers in New England: Ones to Watch© 2021 in the field of Family Law.  In 2019 and 2020, Boston Magazine and Law & Politics named Grace a Massachusetts “Rising Star.” Prior to joining Mirick O’Connell, Grace was an associate at the firm of Brick, Sugarman, Jones & McBrien, LLP. Here are her Bar & Court Admissions: Massachusetts Wisconsin Certified Mediator Hosts, Karen, and Catherine sit down with Grace Roessler to discuss how to navigate life insurance during divorce. Learn More >> https://www.mirickoconnell.com/grace-c-roessler Connect with Grace on LinkedIn >> @Grace Roessler   ----more---- The We Chat Divorce podcast (hereinafter referred to as the “WCD”) represents the opinions of Catherine Shanahan, Karen Chellew, and their guests to the show. WCD should not be considered professional or legal advice. The content here is for informational purposes only. Views and opinions expressed on WCD are our own and do not represent that of our places of work. WCD should not be used in any legal capacity whatsoever.  Listeners should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No listener should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on WCD without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. No guarantee is given regarding the accuracy of any statements or opinions made on WCD. Unless specifically stated otherwise, Catherine Shanahan and Karen Chellew do not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned on WCD, and information from this podcast should not be referenced in any way to imply such approval or endorsement. The third-party materials or content of any third-party site referenced on WCD do not necessarily reflect the opinions, standards or policies of Catherine Shanahan or Karen Chellew. WCD, CATHERINE SHANAHAN, AND KAREN CHELLEW EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF, REFERENCE TO, RELIANCE ON, OR INABILITY TO USE, THIS PODCAST OR THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS PODCAST ----more---- Karen: Welcome to We Chat Divorce. [Catherine] and I are honored to welcome attorney Grace Roessler to our podcast. Hello, Grace. Grace Roessler: Hello. Karen: In this episode, we're going to discuss the different roles life insurance plays in a divorce. But first, let me take just a couple of minutes to introduce Grace. Grace is an associate at Mirick O'Connell's Family Law and Divorce Group in Boston. She concentrates her practice in the areas of divorce and family litigation, including pursuing and defending the following actions: divorce, custody, child support, modification, contempt, request to permanently remove children out of the Commonwealth, paternity, restraining orders, department of children and family investigations, and elder divorce. Grace is a busy person. She has experience serving as a third-party neutral including court-appointed discovery master and is a certified mediator. While she aims to settle cases amicably and efficiently, including attending voluntary mediation or conciliation, Grace is prepared to litigate the matter in the best interest of the client. Karen: Grace regularly appears before probate and family court judges, promotions, and trials to litigate on behalf of her clients. She volunteers for the Middlesex probate and family court lawyer for the day program, is an active member and contributor to the Boston Bar Association, and serves as co-chair of the Boston Bar Association Family Newsletter. Look for more of Grace's credentials and the bio attached to this podcast. It's quite impressive. Welcome, Grace. Grace Roessler: Thank you very much. Thank you for having me. Catherine: Holy cow. That's awesome. Well, life insurance and divorce. That's a topic rarely discussed, and I'm really excited to have you on today and talk to us about it. So let's start by discussing life insurance and why it's so important not to overlook it in divorce. And then let's end our conversation today and talk about what are some options available if life insurance is not accessible to people if they're in divorce, if they can't qualify for it. Grace Roessler: Absolutely. Absolutely. So the life insurance with respect to divorce, a lot of the time, it is essentially there or ordered to be in effect in order to make sure that a surviving spouse and any children are financially taken care of in the event that the family member who is currently paying child support or an alimony award predeceases the end of their obligation. And so that's probably one of the main reasons why life insurance becomes part of your separation agreement in a divorce. Catherine: Yeah. So a lot of people have whole life policies or they have term policies, and they don't understand the difference between the two. Grace Roessler: Right. And so the whole life policy carries with it... Obviously there is some kind of a cash benefit if the individual that's holding the policy were to die, but the whole life policy also carries with it a cash value that's associated with it. And that's something that we always ask people to put on their financial statements as well because it is actually a marital asset. The term policies do not, and the term policies end at certain periods of time. And so when you have a term policy, you might have to renew it as part of your divorce agreement or it's something to consider when you are crafting life insurance provisions, to make sure that if you know that a term policy is ending in say the next year or two, that part of the language that you have in your separation agreement is to ensure that that coverage continues or that it's renewed for another period of time. Karen: So I believe we come across a lot of agreements that say they're supposed to produce the policy to make sure it's in full force and effect. I doubt a lot of people do that, but are there other provisions or language that could be an agreement that would help to keep that policy in full force and effect without having to track down those statements? Grace Roessler: Yeah. I think there are a few ways that I usually deal with that in my separation agreements. The first is actually, yes, you can certainly put the person that's holding the policy in charge of pursuing or making sure that you're providing that information to the other parent at least once a year. Grace Roessler: But another good way to check in on that is actually to make sure that the other person contacts the provider every year or every quarter and makes sure that it is in effect. It's ironic that if you're the person that has the policy in your benefit, yes, once a year, you're supposed to go give it to the other side, but there's a good chance that the other side should be the person coming after you to make sure. I think it's really important for people to follow up on those provisions in their separation agreements. And I agree with you that doesn't always happen. And what you don't want to happen is for that life insurance policy to not be in existence when it should have been or in the event that someone untimely passes. Catherine: So let me clarify what you're saying. So if I'm receiving support from my ex-spouse and I'm the beneficiary on his life insurance policy, you're saying that it's my responsibility or I should take ownership in going to, let's say MetLife to get the proof that I'm still the beneficiary. So will MetLife really give me that proof just as the beneficiary or do I have to be listed as the owner on that policy, or do I have to bring my divorce decree stating that I'm entitled to get that information? Grace Roessler: Right. So I guess two answers to that. You certainly can be the listed owner of the policy and make sure that your ex-spouse is the one paying for the policy. That is one way to ensure that a policy will exist. In terms of getting that proof, generally speaking, no, MetLife would not necessarily give you the proof of the policy. But in that situation. And in my case, what I normally do is notify the carrier of the person that has the policy, give them some kind of letter that says, "As you know, per our separation agreement, you are supposed to carry this life insurance policy. Please give me a most recent copy of the policy existence and the beneficiary determination page so that I can confirm and keep it in my records." And if that person doesn't respond to you within a week or two, I always recommend to clients that we need to file a complaint for contempt because you don't want that policy to lapse. Grace Roessler: If it has lapsed, the other person might have to go back to the drawing board to obtain an entirely new policy, which does take a while, especially in COVID where the physicals that are associated with that life insurance policy are hard to schedule. There's just a backlog of people, since they weren't doing in-home visits for a period of months. So I always say you should file the contempt. You can always withdraw it once you are in receipt of proof of that insurance policy and the correct beneficiary designation, but it is totally worth it to make sure that you have that on the books, to make sure that it's there. Catherine: Can you put language in the agreements to read that if a policy lapsed that I would have the right to sue his estate? Grace Roessler: Yes, absolutely. And in those situations, it would be what we call a complaint in equity against the estate because technically, if the other person is deceased, you're not going to file that complaint under your divorce agreement docket number. It would get a new docket number with the probate and family court and you would be suing the estate. And as part of that... And I always put that language in there, that if you fail to have that life insurance policy at the time that you die, and if it was supposed to be intact, that your ex-spouse could come after your estate. Grace Roessler: The interesting part about that is sometimes there is an estate to be had, and that's when the parties will fight or their estate will fight with you about what is left and what you should have received. In some cases, there won't be much of an estate left, and that's where people are really left with not much. And again, that's why it's so important to make sure that that life insurance policy is intact, to do the check-in once a year because you could be very left with a situation where the estate is maybe only a vehicle and a few thousand dollars in cash, depending upon how the person lived their life. So you just never know what's going to be left over. Karen: So are there times when it's just better to pay that policy yourself or have that... It seems like that would just cut to the chase. And I know financial wherewithal would factor into that, but- Grace Roessler: Yeah. I think that sometimes it is better, especially if you've been married to them, you know what their habits are, if they're not really reliable, or if they haven't necessarily spent money wisely during the course of your marriage. You can bet that that person's probably going to continue those same bad habits. And so I agree. I think in some instances, if you have the financial capability to take the life insurance policy out on the person, you should. I think that there should still be some consideration for having to do that. Grace Roessler: So one way that I have done it in the past is we can calculate how much the premiums are on that policy every year for duration of the life insurance term or how long the policy is supposed to be in place and we can cut that out of the other person's share of the assets. So essentially, they have prepaid you for the premium cost for the entire amount of time that the policy is supposed to be in place, and that person has prepaid you from his or her assets that are being divided at the divorce. So it's a very clean break. Catherine: Yeah. So the best way to control the policy is to become the owner because the owner is the one who gets all the notifications and can change anything on the policy. The insured is just the insured. The owner is the one who has the control over it. So I always recommend you being the owner of the policy, but you also can buy paid-up policies. It's just we always hear a lot of attorneys say, "You can't make them get a policy if they don't already have a policy in place." So I like hearing this version of it, except that there's support for... Even with equitable distribution, sometimes it takes a while to get your assets divided. I mean, I don't see a lot of policies being put in place if they're not in place, Karen, do you know? Karen: No. As a matter of fact, when we ask about that, we usually get shut down. To your point, you can't force them to purchase a policy. You have to use the coverage already in existence. Grace Roessler: I think to some extent, it's true that if you are doing an agreement and it is agreed upon by the parties, I don't think that you can force people to do that. I think a judge has the authority to issue that kind of an order. And if you continue to bring this up at a pretrial conference or at a trial, I think that the judge certainly has the ability, and in my experience, has ordered individuals to either obtain life insurance and/or obtain additional life insurance to supplement whatever their employer-sponsored policy is or a temporary policy is, especially if we know that temporaries might expire in a year or two or three after a divorce. Grace Roessler: All of that information certainly would be presented to the judge at a trial for the judge to be able to order that because it is a form of security and the courts are certainly going to care about that security, especially if you have young children. If you have a five-year-old or a six-year-old or a seven-year-old, you've got 20-some years 19 years worth of support that you would be paying. And if you die three years or four years after that judgment, that is a whole lot of money that the surviving parent is short that you would have paid. You would have paid that as part of the child support order. Most of that money probably could have also gone to college. And so I think the judges are very... especially in light of COVID where we just don't know what's going to happen to people's health if they do get sick, I think the courts are very aware of the need for the security blanket, if you will, for the life insurance. Catherine: A lot of times, it should be pointed out, in insurance policies, if you don't change the beneficiary, they're irrevocable. So even though your divorce order might state that you're the beneficiary, if your actual policy states that somebody else is the beneficiary, what are the chances of it reverting back to you? Grace Roessler: I'll tell you that the answer is a court has to order it. And so I've been on all three sides of that equation. I have represented the insurance company, and I have to tell you, they are neutral in that. Most of the time, the insurance companies are able to get out of a case by simply being able to agree that whatever the court decides, we will implement, because the insurance company does not want to be involved in this battle. On its surface, though, they will do exactly what that beneficiary designation says. So unless it's altered by the court, you're right. They're going to just stick to their guns and say, "This is what it said." It really does. It takes a court to be able to alter that determination. Grace Roessler: And I've been successful in doing that by proving that someone had this obligation to their first spouse. They clearly willfully did not put their first spouse on as the designee. The second spouse received all 500-some million-some. And to show why that was inappropriate, and to show that there might be still minor children here, or the person had an alimony obligation that was still not fulfilled. Grace Roessler: And that is a contract. And so under contract law, that individual breached their own contract. And therefore, as a result, the court is able to come in and swipe that money for whatever was due for that ex-spouse at the time of death. But it takes an equity action. It takes a court action to do that, which can be expensive, which is another reason why in terms of avoiding these kinds of issues, that's why either, as you said, owning the policy yourself to make sure that it's intact, or regularly checking in with your ex-spouse every year to make sure it's intact because on the backend, it's a lot of work to try to get the money back once it's been either distributed or once the person dies. Karen: Yeah. Can you imagine being a spouse and not knowing that that other obligation existed? That would be insane. Grace Roessler: When people come to me for let's say a modification... maybe it's a child support modification; maybe it's a contempt... one of the first things I actually look at in their agreement is whether or not there's a life insurance obligation. I just did it yesterday. And I say before I take the client, before I file anything with this new action, I look at that and I ask them, "I see you have a life insurance policy you're obligated to have. Do you still have it? Let me see it. I want to see it." Because every time that you reentered the court system, you're going to be looked at again for everything that you're doing under this contract. And that life insurance policy, that's going to be raised no matter what you file. It will be raised. And it's very important to still have it in place. Karen: Yeah. Incredible. Catherine: I'm so glad that you're so upfront with everyone or with your client, and you set it out there. You set out there for them so there's no running around. There's no trying to get around it. It just sets out the intention so that if they want to try to get around it, they're the ones that are hurting themselves. Grace Roessler: That's right. Catherine: You have an obligation. I always say if people would just know you're getting married, if you get divorced, this is what it is, just bite the bullet and move on. Grace Roessler: Right. Yeah. And I think to that extent, the life insurance provisions, it's usually later in the separation agreement. It's exhibit E, it's D, it's F. It's somewhere in the back. And it really should be A. It should be right there in the front because it is your protection. It is the backup plan. And so much of what we do is what is the consequence of X, Y, Z? And the consequence of not having this life insurance policy in place is really disastrous for a child, for the ex-spouse. That's still left holding the bag, trying to either help themselves or raise a child. It's just the impact is so great that it really should be top-of-mind for anybody who is either thinking about going back into litigation, or as I said, on a yearly basis, doing that check-in to make sure it exists because you're going to need it. It's expensive to live, and there's a reason that you negotiated for it in the first place. Catherine: It's changed the dialogue, changed this from an emotional conversation to a factual one. And then is, "Why did we acquire this life insurance?" Even when we compile people's portraits and we bring up the life insurance, "Well, we're not keeping that because if anything happens to me, my ex's boyfriend or girlfriend is not getting that money. Or if anything happens to me, my kids are getting enough money that they don't need this money." And it's even when people are married and why they don't buy life insurance. "If anything happens to me, my kids will have enough insurance." But what they're not doing is really doing the number-crunching and realizing that they're buying pennies on the dollars when they're buying life insurance. And they're not [crosstalk] the real cost for what your estate's really going to be worth and why you have in place. And that's the conversation that needs to be had. Grace Roessler: Right. If I could just share, I had a case a couple of years back where I had represented a woman in her paternity suit, and then I represented her in a contempt. She had asked her ex for proof of the life insurance policy. And a few weeks went by. He hadn't responded. And so I told her, "We need to file a contempt just to make sure." At the time, they had a little daughter who was three and he was supposed to carry a $300,000 life insurance policy. We ended up taking him to court. He was found in contempt. The judge gave him 30 days to get a new life insurance policy because he had, in fact, allowed the other one to lapse. And we came back to court. He had the life insurance policy, 300,000. Everything was fine. Grace Roessler: A few months later, he died. He died of cancer. It was very quick. He was young. He was a professional. You never would have known, but it happened. And if it hadn't been for filing that initial contempt and following through and spending the $2,000 in legal fees to make sure that it existed, she would never have had the $300,000 that she received from the life insurance policy, which I can tell you has now grown to almost $500,000 in the last seven years, 10 years since we've had this action, and her little girl is going to be able to go to college with that money. And that's something you don't always think about at the time, but that's really what this is about, is planning ahead into the future so that you're not the only one that's financial responsible and that your ex-spouse in his or her own way continues to support your child or you depending upon what you negotiated. Catherine: Yeah. That's life-changing. Karen: Absolutely. So what about if a person's not insurable? Grace Roessler: There have been cases where people aren't insurable. If you've had certain types of cancer, some mental health diagnoses. The insurance companies shy away from depression, history of depression, that kind of thing. I think in years to come, there won't be as much of an issue with that. But for now, there is. And so one of the other things that we can bargain for is to be beneficiary of existing assets. So if you have a retirement account, that you still remain the beneficiary of the retirement account. If you have a home, you could put the home in trust and be the beneficiary of the trust on the home. Those are things that exist already. You don't have to pay for them per se, but it's an additional safety net, and sometimes it's easier for people to do that. And there's no premium associated with that particularly, so it's also a cheaper option for people that if you use your existing assets, you can figure out what's there and be able to save those for the ex-spouse. Catherine: That's a great idea. And also, if you're listening and you have current term renewable and convertible policies, we see them when they come in with our portrait, we look at the dates, and some of them are convertible to whole life policies without proving insurability. So even though you're going through a divorce, you might want to call your insurance agent and have that converted now to a permanent policy. Grace Roessler: That's a great idea. I just got the envelope for one of my own, actually. Yeah. But yeah, it happens, and it's a good thing. [crosstalk] good record with your current insurer, they'll do that for you. So you can always ask too. Divorce is hard to talk about sometimes, but it's better for more professional people in your life to know what you're going through so that if you have that conversation with your insurance broker, they also still might be able to help you. I think that it's time to get creative with your solutions, and that's one thing that I like to pride myself on is just trying to be creative with what we can do for someone. Catherine: Absolutely. Three minds are always better than one. Grace Roessler: Absolutely. Karen: So do you have any other final tips for people as it relates to life insurance before we conclude? Grace Roessler: Like I said, my only other tip is if it seems like you're not getting a response from your ex-spouse, that's usually not a good sign and you should not be afraid to take quick action to go to court to fix it, because generally, people do cure the issue before you have a hearing, and that's the entire point of filing anything. It's not to get even. It's not to spend a ton of money. It's to fix a problem and to make sure that everyone is doing what they're supposed to do. And so I guess my final tip is don't ever be afraid to make that first step of filing something about life insurance because if you're looking at trying to save a $300,000 policy or a $500,000 policy, in the long run, if you file a contempt and you spend a grand or two on that issue, it is still completely worth it to make sure that that policy exists. Karen: Yeah. I agree. Yeah. So all of you out there who've been divorced and you're still receiving some type of payments or whatever from your spouse, check your agreement. If there's life insurance obligations, make sure you have yourself protected. That's incredibly valuable. Well, Grace, thank you so much for being with us today. This concludes this episode on the many roles life insurance plays in the divorce process. Thank you for a great conversation. Grace Roessler: You're very welcome. Thank you very much for inviting me on. And I hope that everyone learned a little something this afternoon. Catherine: Thank you, Grace. Karen: [crosstalk] did. Grace Roessler: Thank you.

Heidi experienced her first migraine and drank a lot while in law school. She also had her first panic attack the morning before she sat for the bar. Sound familiar? This week on the Path to Well-Being in Law podcast, Bree and Chris continue their mission to highlight people doing important work in the space of lawyer well-being by welcoming Heidi Alexander. As the first Director of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s Standing Advisory Committee on Professionalism, and Director of Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers Practice Management Program, Heidi can make a better case than anyone for why management of a successful practice is directly tied to the wellbeing of the lawyers running that practice.Transcript:CHRIS NEWBOLD:                Hello and welcome to episode seven of the National Taskforce on Lawyer Well-Being podcast series, The Path to Well-Being in Law. I'm your co-host Chris Newbold, Executive Vice President of ALPS Malpractice Insurance. And our goal here is simple, to introduce you to cool people doing awesome work in the space of lawyer well-being, and in the process, build and nurture a national network of well-being advocates intent on creating a culture shift within the legal profession. I'm joined today by my friend and my fellow co-chair of the National Task Force, Bree Buchanan, Bree-BREE BUCHANAN:              Yeah, hello, everyone.CHRIS:                And today, we continue our march around the states who are leading the charge, I think in well-being, initiatives, commitment, and success. And as we all know, movements generally are driven by those at the grassroots level, living the day to day trying new ideas. In other words, serving as laboratories of new ideas. And in any movement, we need a few leaders to jump out front and that's exactly what we have seen out of our friends in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Across the country we've seen a swelling of task forces, workgroups, roundtables, and there are lessons to be learned from what's going on in states like Massachusetts and in their roadmap. And we're so excited today to welcome Heidi Alexander to the podcast. Heidi is Massachusetts' first director of Supreme Judicial Court, standing committee on Lawyer Well-Being. And Bree would you be so kind to introduce Heidi to our listeners?BREE:               Absolutely. And this is such a wonderful bio here Heidi. I just love it and would love to have been you. Heidi was formerly the deputy director of lawyers concern for lawyers in Massachusetts, and lead the Massachusetts Law Office Management Assistance Program. She is the author of Evernote as a Law Practice Tool. Past co-chair of ABA TECHSHOW, and founder of the ABA's Women of Legal Technology Initiative. She's a native Minnesotan, former collegiate ice hockey goaltender for the Amherst College Women's Ice Hockey Team, love it. CrossFit coach and power lifter, and most important of all, the mother of three young girls. So Heidi, thanks so much for being here with us today. And listen[crosstalk 00:02:34]HEIDI S. ALEXANDER:             Thanks for having me.BREE:                    Yeah, yeah. One of the things that we always ask our guests is just a little bit about what drives your passion and really wanting to hear from everyone what has brought you into the well-being movement? What experience in your life is the driver behind your passion for this one?HEIDI:     Yeah, thank you well, again, thank you again for having me on here. And I love it when someone calls me cool, because my kids certainly don't think so. And my wife certainly doesn't think. So I'm in a cool zone here. I appreciate it. I'm happy to talk about what brought me to this movement. I pursued somewhat of an alternative legal career path. I was that that kid who went to law school because I wanted to change the world. Super ambitious, driven. Didn't really think much about my own well-being other than exercise. I was a competitive athlete in college. But other than that, I wasn't really that aware. So I went to law school, a little bit older, because I worked and I started off as a clerk for a justice on the New Jersey Supreme Court, which, of course was a fantastic experience.And then moved back to Boston and worked as a litigation associate doing plaintiffs side employment loss, a lot of discrimination, lots of civil rights work. So it's kind of where I thought I should be, but I hated litigation. It was not for me, and I left. And I actually got to a point where I thought, hey, maybe I'll even start an organic farm. I was a little bit lost. Because I had just been so focused on, this is what I want to do. This is where I want to be and all of a sudden when it just wasn't working out, that was tough. So I ended up by... I actually wrote a business plan to start a farm and then apprenticed on a farm and said, oh, this isn't for me either. But all that time, I got really involved in the bar associations and ended up pursuing an interest of mine.Which was more along the lines of the management of the practice, and really focused on marketing and technology. And I started to consult with some firms. And so that's actually what led me to Lawyers Concern for Lawyers in Massachusetts. Because Lawyers Concerns for Lawyers actually has a program, which is a Law Office Management Assistance Program. So it's actually part of our state's lawyer assistance program where their practice advisors that consult with primarily solo and small firms on the business of law. And one of the things I realized when I was in that position, was that the two services, the clinical services, the focus on well-being, and the management of the practice, were intertwined.There's such a connection, right? Between the personal and the professional. And so I got much more interested in the well-being work, and then I shifted to this position that I'm currently in working for the court really focused on well-being. But in addition to the commitment that I have, that I've always had to working, or doing public service work, I do have some life experiences that have drawn me here to. And so for those listening, that some of this may ring true for you, when I was in law school, I actually got my first migraine with an aura. And it's a pretty scary experience.You see a bright light, and it's almost like you think you're having a stroke. And so that was pretty scary. I drank a lot in law school to deal with stress. I had my first panic attack before I sat for the Massachusetts and New York Bars. And then had a lot of anxiety when I was in practice. And so it wasn't really until then, did I really start to focus on my own well-being and kind of what that meant. So I do feel like I come from this, from a lot of different angles and perspectives.BREE:               Absolutely. I really identified a lot with what some of the things that you were saying. Yeah, yeah. And I remember having a lot of the same difficulties early in law school, and you just sort of persist, and then do the things that you think you're supposed to do, and you're told to do and it doesn't fit, and then you move on to finding something else. And so it sounds like you've got a really great balance and full life right now. That's wonderful.Heidi S. Alexan...:            I do. I do. Yeah.CHRIS:             Let's talk about your state. So the Supreme Judicial Court launches this standing committee on lawyer well-being and I'm just curious on how does that happen? Right? Who were the players? How did things start to form? Obviously, you're a result of that work. So give us the background on how the well-being committee launched their Massachusetts?Heidi S. Alexan...:            Yeah. So this was really a collaborative effort, I think, by many of the leaders here and the pioneers in Massachusetts, including leaders in our court, leaders from our state's lawyer systems program, folks in law firms, public agencies, bar associations, and other organizations. But I think it was really our late Chief Justice, Ralph Gantz, who was responsible for making this a reality. The chief justice who actually just passed away very suddenly, almost maybe a few weeks ago now, he was really dedicated to this work. And he was a huge advocate and proponent of the SJC steering committee. And so the steering committee was the first committee that formed and then transition to a permanent standing committee. And again, I mean, the Chief Justice, he was a leader in so many ways. This wasn't his only focus. So his death is a huge loss for the entire community here.CHRIS:             Do you know what drove his personal passion for this issue?HEIDI:            Yeah, that's actually an interesting question. And I actually don't think I could answer that question. I mean, he was the sort of guy that just was a really compassionate person, a really thoughtful person, someone who was always looking out for others, potentially to the detriment of himself. I mean, he was someone who was so driven. And I just can't imagine the stress that he had been under, especially starting in March with the pandemic. SO I think he comes at it from a number of different ways. Because he was also very, very, very much committed to racial injustices as well. Which I'll definitely would like to talk about later. There's such a tie to well-being there. So, yeah, I think he was just a fantastic person all around.CHRIS:               Yeah, I think I've shared with you, Heidi, that one of in my five years working on this, his quote, that I think he shared is one of my favorites in the well-being space. And it basically says, the health of our legal system depends on the health of the legal profession, and the health of the profession depends on the health of our lawyers. I just think that, that really encapsulates just what we're trying to do here and how it's all intertwined in terms of the well-being and functioning of the legal system, and how dependent it is on us to be thinking about those participants within the system and their particular health to drive the success of the system.HEIDI:           Yeah, I mean, he really was someone who is very wise and very good with his words.CHRIS:                Yeah. So what have been some of the obviously, you kind of had a interim committee now you have a standing committee. So what have been some of the outcomes of the process and where do we now find ourselves today?HEIDI:             Sure, sure. So we had this steering committee, which formed in 2018, and it met from 2018 to 2019, which was led by retired SJC Justice Margot Botsford, who also is another just tremendous leader and inspiration for this work. And so under her lead, they convened a number of subcommittees over the course of the year. And each of those subcommittees represented a different sector. And each wrote a report. And so upon review of the reports, a series of recommendations resulted. And so that steering committee then compiled its formal recommendations, and the reports from each of the subcommittees and into this 150 page report, which was then released in July of 2019. And so they didn't really want to stop there because the thought was, well, we have this great report, right? With all these recommendations. Now, what do we do?And so, in the report, one of the recommendations was to create a permanent standing committee. And so that happened in January of 2020. And a bunch of new members were added there. So they weren't necessarily the people who had worked on the steering committee report, they were new folks. And then in order to help guide implementation of the recommendations, that's when I was then hired as the one full time director of the committee in March about a day before the pandemic. So, but with my roots really in the lawyer assistance world, it made for a really easy transition. So that's sort of where we got to, and then I'm happy to later on tell you all the wonderful things we are working on.CHRIS:                Yeah.BREE:               Yeah. And so Heidi, I'm just wondering, there was just this really clear and tight regression of the work there in Massachusetts. How did that happen? I mean, I'm thinking about for this podcast, hoping that people can take away the success stories of some of our guests and think about how they can implement in the state. And so what do you see as the key components to getting you to this point? To getting that permanent steering committee? Did you see that to come together to make that [crosstalk 00:14:38] secret sauce?HEIDI:              Well, I mean, I do think that it was essential to have the Chief Justice and the court behind these efforts. And also in particular now, so we have justice Margot Botsford, who's the retired justice. She led this steering committee, and now is one of the co-chairs of the standing committee. And so she's very well known. She has fantastic ideas. So she's kind of a major player here. And so I think that that's really helpful. But I also think we have a number of different leaders that we are connected to who have really bought in and are passionate. And so I think it's really helpful to have people who represent all these different legal sectors. In particular, our committee, so our committee is comprised of people at public agencies.We have the number two person at the attorney general's office. We have a dean of, or the dean I should say, of Boston University Law School. We've got a medical advisor, we have someone from Greater Boston Legal Services. And then we have advisors on our committee, who are regulators and also the executive director of our State's Lawyer Assistance Program. So I think it's definitely helpful to have the buy in of those leaders. And then each of those people then sort of have their own, what we call kitchen cabinets. And so we have our tentacles everywhere. So I think one of the important pieces, and it's something that we work on is extending our reach, creating this awareness. And the more we can do that, kind of bring on those people and continue to extend the reach, I think that's really helpful to get that buy in.BREE:               Wonderful. Absolutely. And I'm just curious, real quick. One of the key players in some of the states or the state bar associations and did... Do you have them at the table in Massachusetts?HEIDI:          Yeah, absolutely. So we are a state, we do not have a mandatory bar. So we have, actually, I think we now have 3, I guess 33 bar associations by my last count. And one of them is the Massachusetts Bar Association, which is a huge Bar Association. Represents people from all there all over Massachusetts, and also the Boston Bar Association, which it typically represents a lot of the larger firms. But our other co-chair. So we have Margot Botsford. But we also have Denise Murphy, who is our other co-chair, who is the current president of the Massachusetts Bar Association.BREE:               Wow.[crosstalk 00:18:01]HEIDI:            So yeah. And her whole focus this year, with the Bar Association is well-being. So our work is so intertwined. And I really think that, for us, the bar associations are extremely important to our efforts, because they help us extend that reach. And there's a lot of work we can do with them, and help them and support them. And so we've actually started, we had our first bar leader meeting about a week ago, and we're going to have those on a regular basis. And we're talking about potentially figuring out some sort of mechanism to make sure they get our updates, and talk about ways we can collaborate. So we really want to make sure that we're supporting them, and we are working very, very closely with them.CHRIS:                And Heidi, does that extend to the totality of bar associations in your state? The specialty bars? County bars? Obviously, your state bars is a large and effective one. I'm just wondering about the scope of that kind of organizing effort.HEIDI:            Yes, absolutely. We think that's really important. Particularly, we've been doing a lot of work with our affinity bars, which are the bars that represent our diverse attorneys in Massachusetts. So we are very well connected to them. And then we have a lot of county bars that represent a lot of our lawyers across Massachusetts in different geographical areas, many of them solo and small firms. And a lot of the county bars don't have staff and they're volunteers. So they're volunteers who are doing all the work. So the more support that we can provide to them, I think that the more they can do. So we're talking about doing bench bar conferences, and mentorship programs, and loan assistance programs, lots of different ways in which we can work with them.CHRIS:             Excellent. Let's take us in to our first our break. And I do want to remind listeners that one of the things that we'll do in conjunction with Heidi's podcast is also post their steering committee report, obviously, 150 pages with the various sector subcommittee reports. And one of our goals in the podcast is to share this information through others who either may be along on a similar journey, or starting their journey, right? And so there should be information that will come along with the podcast for quick reference to their report there. So let's take a break.ADVERTISEMENT:                          Your law firm is worth protecting. And so is your time. Alex has the quickest online application for legal malpractice insurance out there. Apply, see rates and find coverage, all in about 20 minutes. Being a lawyer is hard. Our new online app is easy. Apply now at applyonline.alpsnet.com.BREE:               All right. Welcome back, everybody. And we have Heidi Alexander, who is the Director of the Massachusetts Well-Being Committee. And I'm sure that I did not get that name exactly right. But tell us what you guys are working on now. What are some of the really big items?Heidi S. Alexan...:            Yeah, sure. I'm happy to. And don't worry about the title. That's not actually not very important. I mean I think this is where things really become exciting, in my mind, because we have this 150 page report with many, many recommendations to implement. And a lot of the recommendations would really lead to a change in the legal culture. I mean, we have recommendations in there from our large firms subcommittee, that suggests a cap on billable hours.BREE:               Wow, none of these? Yeah?HEIDI:            I mean, none of these recommendations are easy, right? They're there not easy. And then you add the pandemic, and you add long standing inequalities that we have to address. And it becomes very complicated. And so when I first moved into this position, what we had to do was really take a step back and kind of reprioritize and figure out where could we realistically make progress? And be most effective? And these are the categories that I would say we are prioritizing. One is that of changing and influencing culture. And that is going to be something we will continue to kind of chip away at through these recommendations.Number two is increasing awareness and reducing stigma, which I know lots of people right across the nation are trying to do. Number three, increasing diversity, equity and inclusion, which we know is extremely important for well-being, particularly as a diverse attorney and feeling a sense of belonging in the profession.And also the ability to adequately represent clients. And we have a big problem here in Massachusetts, where attorneys don't necessarily look like the people they represent, and the judges making the decision don't look like the people, the litigants, right? And that causes a lot, a lot of problems. And I'm happy to definitely talk more about that. But the fourth is, in terms of the big picture, is improving life and career satisfaction and reducing burnout. And then the fifth is increasing civility. And we know that, we've seen sort of across the nation, there's decline in instability. And so we think that that is extremely important in terms of increasing well-being. So those are the big picture items, which are being held over our head. Yeah.CHRIS:                And those pillars, do you then... Have you developed working groups underneath that? what's your strategy in terms of an execution strategy?HEIDI:            Yeah. So we have, like I talked about, these kitchen cabinets. Each person on our committee has a kitchen cabinet. And sometimes we use that kitchen cabinet as sort of an advisory group. Sometimes they're working on something specific. So for example, we have a law school subcommittee. And the law school subcommittee is comprised of faculty, and administrators, and law students from each one of our law schools here in Massachusetts. And what they are working on specifically right now is a toolkit for Massachusetts law schools, a well-being toolkit. And this will be for law students, faculty, and administrators. And some of the issues they're going to address will be, how do you access mental health services? What sort of programs can you provide? How should faculty be attuned to well-being issues?And how can they integrate that into every single one of their courses? How do you address cultural competency? So they're doing a lot. And I think part of what I think is going to be so great about that is, if we can do it the right way, if we can take that toolkit and disseminate it to all these law schools and actually have them implement this, I think it's going to go a long way in terms of a long way in terms of making some real cultural changes in the law schools. Because we do have a lot of folks representing, again, representing all these different law schools.BREE:              That's amazing. And I just want to say Heidi how do you get that? we want to be able to post it on the task force's website and try to [crosstalk 00:27:27]HEIDI:            Of course yeah.BREE:               [crosstalk 00:27:30] wonderful. And that's just one, I'm sure of many projects that you're working on. Are there any others that you wanted to highlight?HEIDI:             And I want to say too, that they are using the national task force law school toolkit. Using aspects of that. So that has also been very helpful to them. Yeah, we have a lot of different projects that fit into the big picture categories. And I'll mention some of them that I think folks might be interested in. Our report talks a lot about the importance of mentorship, and that the impact on well-being. And so we've actually launched a bunch of mentorship programs. We just finished a pilot out in the western part of the state. And it was an interesting sort of unique mentorship model where we actually use software, a software program to connect mentors to mentees. And it was almost like a dating app, where the mentees got to sort of look at the bios of their potential mentors, and they got to select they, could say I'm interested in this person, I'm interested in this person.And they got to meet with multiple mentors. So they kind of got a variety of perspectives. And what we learned from them is that it wasn't a lot of substantive conversation. It was actually about like, how do you manage practice, how do you manage the caseload? How do you deal with adversaries? It was more issues related to well-being really than the substance of practice. So that's one of them. We also just launched a pilot loan Assistance Program, because we know that student loans create a huge amount of stress for attorneys. And so we created this program to work with an organization to provide education, coaching and resources. And so we actually have over 200 attorneys signed up for this pilot, which [crosstalk 00:29:57]BREE:            Wow how amazing.HEIDI:            And so we'll see. We will survey them after they finish it and see, did this have an impact on their stress. And we're also looking at how to create more accessible and affordable health care and benefits. So those are some of them. In terms of diversity, equity and inclusion, like I said, that's a big focus for us. A couple things that we're doing is we're actually changing some rules on SJC rule, to add a requirement to our bar registration process to collect demographic data, demographic data on our attorneys.We've never done this before. We don't know the makeup of the Massachusetts bar, we have no idea what it looks like. And so this is actually going to be required so that we can have a better understanding of the demographics of our bar and where are we falling short? Right? And then we can do things like what we recently did was held town halls with our affinity bars, again, who represent the diverse attorneys in Massachusetts and hear from them, and hear about their lived experiences, which by the way, were extremely, extremely distressing.BREE:             I'm sure. Must have been really powerful.HEIDI:             Yeah, yeah. There were sort of time and again, I mean, we heard over and over about the experiences, particularly in the courts, the treatment of diverse attorneys, people of color who would walk in and be confused with the defendant. Assumed that this person was the defendant, they'd have their bar card scrutinized as they walked through the door. And you can imagine what that does right? To someone's well-being? Their confidence, right? When that's happening to them right before they have to get up and argue in court, it takes a toll. So that's going to be a big part of our work, we're likely actually going to be hiring a consultant who's going to help us put together a strategic plan focused on increasing the diversity of our profession and helping us to better support our diverse attorneys.BREE:              And I wanted to... Follow up. One question on that. What I've heard also implicit in all of this, you guys are doing so much. I hear money. I hear funding behind that. So where do you guys get your funding to be able to pay your salary? And hire consultants do all of these things? Which I think for a lot of task forces would be just sort of really dreams.HEIDI:             Yeah, yeah. Yeah. I mean, I do wish that everyone was in the same situation as we are for sure. I think we are very, very fortunate. So mainly everything is funded through our bar assessments. So the fees that attorneys pay to be licensed here. We have a lot of attorneys in our state. So we have probably somewhere around 70,000 X active attorneys in our state, and they all pay. So basically, essentially, they are paying for this. So that is where it's coming to and the fact that we have the support of the SJC, again is essential because they're the ones who make the rules and can say, who gets what.BREE:                Yeah, just a follow... More follow up on that. In Virginia, they have the legislature imposed a specific dedicated assessment on basically membership dues that can transform the lawyers assistance program there. So do you guys is this just a specific line item on people's bar dues? Or is it allocated?HEIDI:           Yeah.BREE:              Okay.HEIDI:             Yup. It's a specific line item. So we actually don't have to go to the legislature. And the only reason we I think we'd have to legislators to increase the amount of funding but there are enough funds that we collect right now to actually make this possible. So we haven't had to increase bar dues.BREE:              Okay. Sorry to get in the weeds there, but that's when[crosstalk 00:34:48]HEIDI:             It's important.[crosstalk 00:34:50]CHRIS:                Yeah, no, it's a really important question because it certainly feels like Bree as we've teasing out and themes that we're seeing across states that are being extraordinarily successful in working on this issue. If there's not fuel to ignite the discussion and some resources available, I mean, we certainly can see instances where having a Heidi on the ground. We can see how one person can make a real significant difference in the both the leadership, and the orchestration of the activities. Right? And so certainly I know, other states are probably listening in on this, and maybe again, as Heidi, you said, maybe not in as fortunate of a position. And so that becomes I think, a major thing for us to be able to guide folks on, which is why having some dedicated resources to this can make such a huge difference.HEIDI:          Well I also think, and this is something that we've been trying to do as well, is to utilize, for example, some of the resources from the large firms, right? We have a bunch of large firms here. There, many of them have really fantastic, well-being programs that they're running. But are there ways in which we can help harness those resources, and maybe use them, for folks who don't have those resources? One of the things we've put together as we launched this local lawyer well-being network. And it started, was in our recommendations as a priority for the law firms to actually have this network of people who could talk about best practices, and share resources. But there was more interest.So we kind of opened it up to everyone. And we have people who are now involved who are sole solo practitioners, or small firms, who are in academia, who are in public agencies. And what we're trying to figure out is, is there some way that we could use the resources of the large firms almost in like this sort of pro bono charitable effort? Right? To help other people. Could maybe this the public agencies or the solo folks utilize some of the well-being resources that these firms have created? And so that's just something that we're... it's just sort of percolating at this moment, but maybe applicable to other folks and kind of thinking about how to access resources.CHRIS:                Yeah. Heidi, can I ask on the... It sounds like you had these kitchen cabinets, right? That really were formed around sectors that ultimately guided the recommendations within the steering committee report. Sounds like a couple of those sectors, were law schools and law firms. Can you share with us the other sectors that took shape in your state? Because again, a lot of states that do have task forces are kind of thinking about how they structure their work. And it sounds like you have progressed well, based upon the strategy that you've employed.HEIDI:             Yeah, so you're you're quizzing me now. Let's see if I can get them all. Yeah, so initially, for our steering committee, so we had public agencies, which would include district attorneys, they would include our committee for public counsel services, which are really our public defenders. We had our legal services. We had solo and small firms as a group, we had large firms as a group. We had in-house counsel. We also had, let's see, we already said what we said law school. What am I missing here? We also had individual bar associations. I talked about the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Boston Bar Association.We actually had each of them wrote their own reports, too. So they were players. And I do think that one particular voice or voices that were missing from the steering committee, subcommittees were our affinity bars. So we did not have a report from our women's bar association, or our mass black lawyers, or our South Asian attorneys. And I think that would have been really helpful. So if people are thinking about that, that's a perspective I would definitely add. I'm probably missing a group but I just can't think of it right now.CHRIS:             No, worries. A couple more questions as we close out the podcast. I'm curious on as we think about well-being, I think one of the things that's oftentimes hard for us to kind of put our hands around is how we measure success. Right? And I'm just curious as you're clearly working on five pillars, you're going to be moving forward multiple initiatives. I'm curious Heidi, on your perspective of, how do you know when we've crossed certain thresholds toward either improvement? Or are there waystations out there that you can visualize, that give you the confidence that we are making a difference?HEIDI:            That is a fantastic question. And it is something that we think about all the time. And I think about it, particularly in my household, because actually, my wife is a physician and researcher, and her focus is on implementation science and evaluation. So we talk about this all the time. What is the most effective way to evaluate? And so what we're doing right now is we're hoping to embark on this sort of bigger study of lawyer well-being in Massachusetts to somewhat create a baseline. But I think a lot of these efforts they're going to have to continue, they're going to have to adapt and change. And we're probably never going to get to the point of where we say, oh, we're done, everyone's great, everyone's fantastic, right? They're going to be different issues that arise.And so I think in terms of our individual programs that we have, and our pilot programs that we're running, we're going to evaluate those specific programs and see how they impact the well-being. Like, when I talked about this Loan Assistance Program. We will do a survey at the end of that, and we and we will try to measure whether the program had any impact, right? On the stress. And so if we can show that in the short term, and then maybe then take that to sort of a broader scale, and then again, evaluate that later on. It may be looking at these things, in sort of little pieces, but also keeping track of keeping our pulse on changes, sort of over the course of a number of years.Like are we seeing any differences in other changes in terms of substance use? And addiction? What are the different issues that are arising? So, I think we sort of use that, I mean, it's evaluation in some ways, but in other ways, it's also to figure out where we have to focus our efforts, right? Collect the data, and then make these data driven decisions about what programs we're going to have, and then just keep moving along and keep adapting to the changes. So that's sort of a long, non answer to your question. Because I don't think that there's one... I don't know exactly what the right way is to do that, but those are some of the ideas we have.CHRIS:               Good, good. Well, let me ask you to just as a final question. Obviously, a lot of our listeners are at different points of the journey. Lessons learned. What are some of the things that you've learned the hard way? Some of the any advice or recommendations that you would make to others out there as they think about igniting change and culture shifts in their respective states?HEIDI:            Yeah, I mean, like I said, said before, I think it's really helpful to have the buy in of as many people and definitely influential people in your state as possible. I do think that initially, when I started working on this, I was sort of a deer in headlights thinking about, how do we tackle this major culture shift that we would like to happen? And what I learned was having these big picture goals were good. And I think they help us focus our efforts. But we have to really work on the concrete and tangible actions, where we can also demonstrate milestones like we've done this program, it's done X, Y, and Z. It's helped people in this way, right? It's impossible to tackle every issue right away. And so a lot of what we've done is prioritize our efforts. And we have looked at attorneys who are really struggling, especially during this time.So a lot of the solo and small, firm attorneys. While we know that the large law firms need a massive culture change, and there's a lot of work to be done. Like I said before, there's a lot of great well being efforts that are already happening there. And so sometimes you have to step back and say, okay, let them do their thing, let them do their work, where we're really needed is over here. And I think there's a lot of things that we can do, I guess for the larger firms, like create these networks, and that sort of thing. But I don't really feel like there's a one size fits all model for them. So it's a little bit more difficult. But I do think kind of focusing in, you're not going to be able to tackle it all at once. It's a  incremental process.CHRIS:                Yeah, there's no doubt that big goals ultimately need to be broken down into small steps. And obviously, the creation of your role is a small success in our bigger picture story of well-being across the country. Heidi, again, I want to thank you for your time, your expertise. Interesting route to getting to where you are today, but as we all know, you are now a mover and shaker in our well-being movement. I would consider you a thought leader, we need folks who are thinking about this on the day to day and let's be honest, we need more Heidi Alexander's out there in the field, advancing this at the state level. So I thank you fo your time, your commitment, I'm sure that if others have questions of you, that you'd be willing to feel those questions. And we'll include Heidi's contact information associated with the podcast and on the National Task Force website, as well. Bree, any parting remarks?BREE:               Just Heidi, I'm so impressed with all that you're doing, and the energy, and the broad perspective that you're bringing to this and just really in being able to persist and get things done. It's so impressive. And thank you for all that you're doing.HEIDI:           Yeah-[crosstalk 00:48:01]BREE:             Yeah thanks again.HEIDI:           Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I really appreciate this. And I've been an avid listener of the podcast so you've had some just phenomenal guests on here. I feel like I'm not not worthy of this, but I do appreciate and I so appreciate all your work. So thank you.CHRIS:     [inaudible 00:48:20] And to our listeners we'll be back in a couple of weeks. We'll have on the podcast, Martha Knudson, who's spearheading well being efforts in the state of Utah, right? So we've went through from Virginia, to Massachusetts, will pick up with Utah. And again, some really interesting things happening at the state level that we're excited to share with our listeners. But for now.

About Don Frederico "I serve as Co-Chair of Pierce Atwood's nationally ranked class action defense practice. For more than twenty years, my class action practice has covered a wide variety of industries and substantive areas of law. I work closely with clients at every stage of a class action lawsuit, and have appeared on their behalf in federal and state courts across the country. I also am available as a class action mediator, bringing to bear my experience in mediating and settling class action lawsuits to help both sides arrive at settlements that will gain court approval." https://www.linkedin.com/in/dfrederico/ Episode Summary Joe is joined by Don, his long time friend and high school classmate. Don and Joe share a love for music and guitar dating back to those high school days. They went separate ways after graduation and pursued very different careers. They re-connected at a high school reunion several years ago and picked right up where they left off. In this episode Don unpacks his career and life transitions. He is a highly successful Boston litigator with a specialty in Class Action defense. He also counts pro-bono and non-profit leadership as some of his greatest successes including work with the Boston Bar Association and Chair of the Board of Trustees for The College of Wooster. Whether you are a lawyer, interested in law as a career or anyone seeking to understand and learn how to successfully navigate career and life transitions you will gain great insight from this episode!Watch Video Versionhttps://youtu.be/jPsXhGJyGRYResources and ReferencesA Paper Chase: https://amzn.to/32Mky6wA Civil Action: https://amzn.to/2KhnvpjThe College of Wooster: https://www.wooster.edu/Cornell Law https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/Support the show (https://www.buymeacoffee.com/titansot)

Presidents of the Massachusetts Black Lawyers Association and the Massachusetts Black Women Attorneys, along with a former chair of the Boston Bar Association's Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Section, discuss their experiences as Black attorneys and ways that minority attorneys can help and support each other in the ongoing struggle for justice and equal rights. Presented and moderated by the South Asian Bar Association of Greater Boston. (September 22, 2020).   Questions? Inquiries about program materials? Contact Alan Johnson at ajohnson@bostonbar.org

We have talked about Regulation BI and the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule before on the podcast, however, it has been a while. Reg BI is now live and the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule has been revamped after its prior version was vacated a while back. To share an overview of what each are, the impact on plan sponsors, participants and industry I am happy to welcome Chris Giorgi and Carrol Waddel, both with Empower Retirement to the podcast. Chris provides great background and perspective on the legal front as Associate General Counsel and Carrol offers her insights on how all of this will impact plan sponsors and workplace retirement plan participants. We also hit on the role of advice in the post COVID world and what that could mean for all involved.    That’s it for now, I hope you enjoy my conversation with Chris and Carrol!   Guest Bios   Chris Giorgi is Assistant General Counsel for Empower Retirement. Prior to joining Empower, he served as Senior Counsel in the legal and compliance department for Putnam Investments and as Director of the ERISA compliance team for The Hartford. He has 27 years of experience in ERISA legal and compliance matters.  Chris holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and a Juris Doctor degree, cum laude, from Suffolk University and is a member of the Massachusetts Bar. He is the co-chair of the Boston Bar Association’s ERISA Committee and a member of various industry groups, including the ICI Pension Committee. He also maintains FINRA Series 6, 26 and 63 securities registrations and holds FINRA Series 7 credentials.    Carol Waddell is Senior Vice President and Head of the Retirement Solutions Group for Empower Retirement. In her role, she oversees the teams that deliver guidance, advice, managed accounts, and financial wellness and planning across all corporate and government defined contribution segments for Empower and leads the consumer IRA, taxable and Empower Brokerage businesses.  Previously, Carol served as Head of Product and Marketing for J.P. Morgan Retirement Plan Services. At J.P. Morgan, she led product management and development, which included products, services, tools and websites for advisors, plan sponsors and participants, and oversaw the firm’s marketing strategy and communications, segment management and award-winning participant experience.  Carol has also worked for T. Rowe Price, where she served in various leadership roles. In addition to providing oversight for defined contribution, defined benefit and nonqualified plan product development and marketing — including customer digital channels; investment products; and services for intermediaries, plan sponsors and participants — she contributed significantly to the firm’s overall retirement income and target date product strategies. Carol has also served at Citibank in a variety of positions focused on marketing and customer experience.  Carol holds an MBA from Loyola University Maryland. She currently maintains the FINRA Series 6 securities registration and holds FINRA Series 7 and 24 credentials.    401(k) Fridays Podcast Overview Struggling with a fiduciary issue, looking for strategies to improve employee retirement outcomes or curious about the impact of current events on your retirement plan? We've had conversations with retirement industry leaders to address these and other relevant topics! You can easily explore over 200 prior on-demand audio interviews here. Don't forget to subscribe as we release a new episode each Friday!

In this episode, I speak with Lauren Stiller Rikleen. Lauren is a nationally recognized expert on developing a thriving, diverse and multi-generational workforce. For as long as I’ve been a member of the bar, lawyers have been talking about the role of women in the practice of law. Today, we are hearing a lot of discussion about sexual harassment through the #metoo movement. Prominent men in all walks of professional life, including the law, have been forced out of positions of power. At the same time, many state legislatures have been adopting pay equity statutes to prevent women from being being subjected to wage discrimination. But are women advancing into leadership roles in the legal profession? If 50% of law school graduates are women, why aren’t we getting close to seeing 50% women in the partnership ranks of top law firms? What are the barriers to women achieving partnership and if you are a young associate, what can you do to overcome some of those hurdles? My guest, Lauren Rikleen, has been thinking about these issues for three decades. In this episode, Lauren shares some great advice for women who are looking to advance into leadership ranks in the legal profession. While men can also benefit from her wisdom, today’s conversation is focused on helping women to find ways to move up in private practice as well as in corporate and government legal roles. As President of the Rikleen Institute for Strategic Leadership, Lauren Rikleen speaks at conferences, retreats, and professional events, consults, and provides training programs focusing on: strengthening intergenerational relationships in the workplace; women’s leadership and advancement; and strategies for minimizing the impact of unconscious bias. She is author of Ladder Down: Success Strategies For Lawyers From Women Who Will Be Hiring, Reviewing, And Promoting You; You Raised Us. Now Work With Us - Millennials, Career Success, and Building Strong Workplace Teams, and Ending the Gauntlet: Removing Barriers to Women’s Success in the Law. She has also authored more than 150 articles for publications around the country. Lauren holds leadership roles in the American Bar Association and served as President of the Boston Bar Association where she established the Task Force on Professional Challenges and Family needs which produced a nationally recognized report on the costs of work-life imbalance in the law. Lauren spent over 20 years as an environmental lawyer in private practice and when I first met her in the early 1990’s, she was an active speaker at Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education where I worked as a program attorney. I also had the privilege of serving with her on the Boston Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Work Life balance more than 15 years ago. She is someone who truly cares about workplace diversity and someone who has spent a tremendous amount of time thinking about ways to change the status quo in the law. Please visit Lauren's website for more information about how to obtain her books and other publications.

Launching your own law practice can be both exhilarating and terrifying. For lawyers who are accustomed to the structure of a law firm and a steady paycheck, hanging a shingle means saying goodbye to security. Leaving a large firm means that there is no one between you and the client. You need to figure out how to advise your clients without the help of partners who are just down the hall. You also need to develop your own infrastructure. At the same time, leaving a law firm also means having tremendous flexibility and a chance to really build something of your own. But it is not for everyone. In this episode, I am joined by Matt Yospin. Matt is an IP attorney who graduated from law school in 2009 at the end of the Great Recession, not a great time to be starting a legal career. But Matt was one of the lucky ones. While the economy was reeling, he was still able to start practice at one of the top law firms in Boston. He stayed with the firm a little over two years. Eventually, there was not enough work to keep him busy and he was laid off. Since that time, Matt has been building a successful law practice of his own. Matt is a patent and intellectual property attorney who has been in solo practice since 2012. He began his career at the Boston firm Bingham McCutchen (which has since been acquired by Morgan Lewis & Bockius). Prior to law school, he ran his own computer software consulting business. Matt works with businesses, entrepreneurs, non-profits, government agencies and inventors on a range of intellectual property and transactional work. He speaks regularly at bar association events and events for other professional groups, publishes a blog on developments in IP, writes on technology and practice management for others’ blogs, and co-hosts a TV show on issues in the news from a legal perspective. He enjoys working with entrepreneurs and creative people, helping them to build or grow a business, to protect their ideas and inventions with IP and business strategies that make sense for them. He also is on the Boards of two local non-profits. Matt is very effective at marketing and his ability to keep his visibility high in the bar is one of the reasons I invited Matt to be a guest this week. What I mean is that not only does Matt really understand marketing, but his own marketing efforts kept Matt on my radar when I was thinking about a good solo to invite on as a guest. Additional Resources to Help You Build a Solo Practice For practice management and mentoring, find other solos in your area and ask them for help.  Matt Yospin is happy to field your questions.  Find him  at www.yospinlaw.com , 617-340-9295, or email him via his Contact Me form. If you are in Massachusetts and looking for some general support around starting a law practice, try the Massachusetts Law Office Management Assistance Program  (a free resource). Most states have similar organizations. Check with your state bar association or board of bar overseers. In Massachusetts, join the Solo and Small Firm Section of the Boston Bar Association or the Law Practice Management Section of the Massachusetts Bar Association. Most state bar associations have similar committees where you can meet other solos who are happy to share their experience (and possibly referrals). Jared Correia of Red Cave Law Firm Consulting writes and speaks frequently on law practice management and technology. He also does a great podcast called the Legal Toolkit. Jared offers low cost consulting services that are targeted at solo and small firms looking for help with law office technology and general law practice management systems. He is a fountain of knowledge on the full range of issues that you need to consider in going solo. Hanging Your Shingle, offered periodically by Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, is a great program which you can purchase for replay.  MCLE has also published a book by the same name.  I originally set this program up 20 years ago and happy to see that it is still alive and well. Starting Out Solo is an organization to consider (particularly if you are in Massachusetts). For Information on Law Office Hardware and Law Office Ergonomics consider Matt Yospin's article in Law Technology Today Get a multi-function laser printer, so you can photocopy and scan books. Matt Yospin recommends a dedicated two-sided fast scanner; most attorneys like the Fujitsu ScanSnap line. You can get great scanner software for your phone or tablet, too.  Matt Yospin recommends Readdle’s Scanner Pro. Matt suggests you consider practice management software, to tie together your contacts, calendar, tasks, project flow, and notes.  There are many attorney-specific platforms, or you could make your own system work.  Matt likes Daylite but there are also Clio, Rocket Matter, MyCase, Practice Panther, Smokeball, and too many more to name. Every attorney (and everyone else) should use a password manager.  Matt likes 1Password.  I use LastPass. Matt recommends using some keystroke expansion or macro software (to save a lot of time typing.)  He wrote about this category of software here. Matt uses TextExpander, and there are many others. Local and remote backups, with encryption, are a must.  If you hire someone, be sure they are doing this for you.  If you prefer DIY, consider FileVault and Time Machine (on a Mac), and services like Dropbox, Box, and Boxcryptor (and there are many others).

http://USImmigrationPodcast.com/2  Roy J. Watson, Jr. is a graduate of Brandies University (B.A. Economics), Boston College School of Law (J.D.), and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government (M.P.A). Roy has been assisting businesses and individuals solve complex business immigration questions for almost 40 years. He focuses on employment-based non-immigrant and immigrant visa petitions for companies of all sizes, including hospitals, high tech / bio tech, architects, CPAs and Attorneys. Roy is an active member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), the Massachusetts Bar Association, the Boston Bar Association, and the American Bar Association. In this episode you will hear: What the immigration landscape was like almost 40 years ago Roy’s passion and how puts that to use for his clients L-1As Visa requirements (and what is not required) L-1A Request for Evidence rate (hint: it is more than you think) ‘Matter of Z’, setting a precedent to standardize what Immigration needs for an L-1A visa petition  The double edged sword of premium processing  Roy shares with us: His involvement with the Cambridge Innovation Center Business Advice: Never be afraid to buy file cabinets.   His personal habits that attributes to his success: Thorough Preparation Parting Thoughts: Immigration Reform needs to happen and it will happen.

How to grow a successful family law practice and be proud of your own work. Interview with David Lee, Family Lawyer Click the play button, wait a few seconds and start listening to this Podcast. David is a partner in the Boston family law firm of Lee, Rivers and Corr.  He has been a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers since 1978, and a past president of the Massachusetts chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.  David is also a former member of the National Board of Governors and a director of the American Academy Charitable Foundation.  Among numerous other accolades, almost too many too count, he has been a top super lawyer in Massachusetts, and recognized by both Boston Magazine and Lawdragon.  It is my pleasure to introduce a frequent speaker and author of articles in the area of family law on a variety of topics including divorce, tax law, business evaluation, stock options, retirement interests, and more, David Lee.  Welcome, and thank you for taking a few minutes to speak to me. To start things off, how did you become interested in doing family law?  I guess beginning with studying and then moving on to actually being in practice. Well, interestingly enough I never took a course in family law in law school. Oh, really? I had no intention of involving myself in the practice of family law.  My intention was, and I was hired by a firm out of law school for this, to do First Amendment appellate work.  I did this with the top lawyer in that field in Boston and within about a month of being at that firm a large divorce case came to one of the partners of that firm.  The person whom he had hired to begin as a new young associate was still on vacation before starting his job after law school and he asked whether or not I could be loaned for his use in the divorce case until the new associate was available. So unbeknownst to me I was traded, and found it very interesting.  I then found out that because of the rapport that I had with this other lawyer I wasn’t traded back. I see.  So he stole you. (laughs) So early on I said I had better learn something about this stuff since it was what I was going to be doing, and I put my head down and tried to learn what I could about this area of law. The point in time when I began to practice in this area of law was one where it wasn’t terribly intellectually focused.  Its principal focus was who could threaten the other more, who could yell louder, and who could intimidate the other side more.  I decided that wasn’t really the style that I wanted to have, and I wanted to learn about this area of law and bring it to a new dimension where it could be thought of with higher regard.  So I approached it that way and then decided that any time I did research and any time that I was asked to do any type of legal memorandum by the person for whom I worked I would write an article about it.  Within a short period of time, within about five years of my being in practice, I had written more articles about the area of family law in Massachusetts than almost anyone; the one person in the Boston area who had written more was about 20-25 years my senior. So were you writing from the point of view of educating yourself about the subject or did you feel like you wanted to get the word out about how you thought the process could be better-handled? Initially when I had the assignment given me to write something it was to educate myself and educate the judge or whoever the assignment was for.  But then later I saw that it was useful to share with the rest of the legal community a unique area of investigation that might be used by them as they pursued cases that might touch upon the same issues. So I assume that back when you started it was fault divorce and that’s why you were talking about people basically bashing each other? Yes.  No-fault divorce came into play later.  But nonetheless for a period of years, even when equitable distribution came to Massachusetts, people were still trying to intimidate as a means of getting an outcome rather than creatively using legal theories to effect a resolution which made sense to both parties. How did you resist that acrimonious way of handling divorce, or did you have to play that game as well when you started? Well, I had to show two things.  First I had to show that I was thoughtful and second I had to show that I was capable of doing some of that if necessary.  But generally through my demeanor and through my development of relationships with people I earned the respect of other lawyers to the point that they understood that they didn’t have to go through that type of act in order to get an effective result. You also probably saw the progression, as family law and divorce became more common, that there has been a transition in terms of the way lawyers deal with each other as well as the way society deals with divorce. I think that is certainly the case.  No-fault divorce has brought about a change like that.  Even if in Massachusetts conduct is still a factor of consideration in a contested no-fault divorce.  There are still conduct elements that enter into the legal approach to that sort of thing. Are you saying that if there has been infidelity in a case that it could weigh in terms of one party getting more than another party? Yes, it can. And I wouldn’t say that it’s a major consideration, but it certainly is something that can be taken into consideration along with inappropriate physical behaviour, verbal behaviour, and other acts that might have had an adverse impact upon the family. Going back to where you started in family law, or maybe where you started in law in general, did you have a mentor in the early years?  Was there anybody who influenced you positively or negatively as to how you would practice in the future? Well, both.  It’s the same person but they had both a positive and negative impact on me. The partner who did divorce work, the one I went to work with after law school, was charismatic, smart, and somebody who knew how to try a case.  I was able to recognize the value of all of those positive things and pick up on them.  At the same time that person was also somebody who had a mercurial personality; he was somebody who wasn’t necessarily well-mannered when dealing with clients.  Thankfully I was able to identify what was positive about what he did and what was, in my view, not beneficial to clients. The benefit that I had in working with this particular person was that he gave me a huge amount of responsibility from the very beginning and he had the quality of cases that allowed me not only to be challenged intellectually but also interested in the subjects.  This enabled me to have experience before the court and experience in substantial negotiations that I might not otherwise have had. I have the feeling, from having talked with you a little bit as well as others, that one of your absolute core qualities is integrity.  I think I saw a little bit of that when you were describing this other person’s negative quality, that they had a little bit less integrity for you in the way that they dealt with their clients or the opposing counsel. Well, integrity I think is the most important quality that one can have in being a lawyer regardless of whether it’s family law or any other area.  But particularly in family law I think there’s such a suggestion or impression in general society that lawyers who do this type of work are not necessarily to be admired or trusted, so it’s that much more critical that you maintain that integrity in your practice in this field. When you started in the area of family law did you have any particular goals at that time?  Did you think that you’d like to be out on your own, doing your own thing?  Or was that not even in your mind at that time, did you just think you wanted to get better at being a family lawyer? Well, I think that my principle or mantra has always been that you only go around once.  It’s not acceptable to just begood at what it is you do, you have to strive to be the best at what it is you do.  Mediocrity is not something that was of any interest to me at the beginning and it never has been of interest to me in the course of my practice.  That was certainly a goal that drove me.  I was fortunate in that the success that I exhibited early in my career caused me to become a partner very early in the law firm that I had worked with. I had remained in that partnership for a period of about ten years before I broke off into a different partnership which is essentially the same one I’ve been a part of since 1984 up to the present. Where do you think not wanting to be mediocre came from?  Is that from your parents or teachers? I think that at its core it came from my parents and was just a general principle going through my education.  Don’t just try to get passing grades; try to get the best grades. And it wasn’t the pressure it was just an accepted form of thinking.  I took that with me into my general practice and I’d say that it was also contributed to by others both in who I came in contact with at work as well as my father-in-law and my wife, who had the same attitude herself in her own profession. Like my father used to say, if you’re going to do the job, do it right.  It sounds like you had the same sort of upbringing that there’s no sense in doing a bad job. The only thing that’s difficult about having that standard is that you never are satisfied with what it is that you think you know. I already summed you up as having a bit of a Type A personality, and I kind of fall into that same category myself.  When you’re driven to do the best you can it’s a challenge.  I’m wondering how you can cope with always expecting the best and how other people in your firm interact with you and react to that. Well, over the course of years people have reacted in different ways.  Certain people have not continued working with me because they found it too much pressure on them to meet that standard.  For others I think that it’s wonderful to see them take on the same type of attitude and have become excellent lawyers themselves. I like to think that somehow I am driven and drive others; that I don’t do it in a way that people find oppressive.  Instead they sense that they want to strive to both satisfy me and satisfy themselves in being the best that they can. You have to hold it in the right context, which I believe you do, and that is really an opportunity for everybody to thrive within a firm that really has high standards.  It’s a lot more fun and a lot more beneficial to your clients if everybody’s playing the same game, and it sounds like from the interaction I’ve had with your firm that everybody, at least that I’ve spoken to, is doing that.  It makes life and work a lot more fun from my point of view and it sounds like it does for you as well. Yeah.  I do think that most of the people who work with me enjoy coming to work. I’m not saying that they’re thrilled to be here every day (laughs), but I’m saying that I think that they enjoy the workplace. So how did your current firm start out?  Were some of these people partners in the previous firms you were with? I was with the firm that I was initially with for ten years up until about 1984, and then that firm broke apart and one of the partners I had from that firm and I formed our own firm.  About four, maybe five, years afterwards he became a judge.  Then one of the firm’s younger associates, who I was impressed with, became my partner in about 1989.  Later the partner who became a judge left the bench and came back to the firm and we continued working together. The three of us were partners over a period of time until about 2004.  Then the younger associate who had become a partner stayed on until the end of 2012 when he chose to leave litigation and focus solely on arbitration and mediation work, which is what he does now.  Two of our younger partners became name partners upon his leaving in 2012. That’s very quick. It’s been basically the same core of people for a period of time.  My partner William Levine, who left in 2012 to do mediation, is somebody who had been working with me either as an associate or a partner for a period of about 30 years.  Continuity is something that is very valuable and important. So what keeps you interested in the practice of family law?  Is there anything in particular that drives you now to keep on wanting to do family law? I find that every day you walk into the office is an exciting day, and I’m very serious about that.  You don’t know what’s going to be thrown at you. You don’t know who the new people are that you’re going to meet and what their story is and how it is you’re going to be able to be of help to them.  You don’t know what sort of quick decisions you’ll have to make to deal with what comes out of the court. The area of family law is one that has never been stagnant through the entire period of time that I’ve been doing it, which is 39 years.  That makes it very interesting.  Plus it’s evolving, and you can play a role in its evolution and you can play a role in making new law by taking the cases that have unique issues that you know will find their way up to the appellate courts.  All of those reasons make it a fascinating and exciting area of practice for me every day. Have you found that it’s more or less predictable for what you can expect out of a trial or decision that’s being made now than ten, twenty years ago, or is it the same?  Are you ever 75% certain that something will happen, or is it closer to 50% or 99%? That’s very difficult to turn into percentages because of the fact that there are so many different judges within each of our counties and there are so many different counties in which we practice. I would say to you that the degree of reliability and predictability might be in the 75% range with respect to major issues.  But there’s so much discretion that remains with a family court judge that precision is never able to be a standard that you can apply in advising a client in this area. I know this is a bit of a political question I’m going to ask, but are the family law judges in the Boston area well-trained and suited for the jobs, or is it more the kind of thing that depends on who the judge is and how long they’ve been there? I think it depends upon who the judges are and how long they’ve been there.  Different judges develop themselves in different ways from when they first take the bench, both in terms of how they relate to the lawyers and parties as well as the degree of additional education. The pool of judges comes from a wide source of the legal community.  Some have practiced in family law, and some have been clerks in the court system in the family law area.  Some have had clientele that have a broad range of economic difference and others have had a focus on certain areas of the economic population.  Some have had experience dealing with clients who may be pro se clients which now seem to be flooding the courts. Still others have had very little experience in dealing with pro se litigants.  They have a wide range experiences, and my experience with them is that the longer they’re on the bench the more they evolve in different ways. What have you done, or what have you put in place to help you achieve the work-life balance that you’re looking for?  How do you separate your work life from your other life? That’s a very difficult question to answer, and I think there’s a whole variety of people that would give different answers to it. My answer is that I try to do the best I can by recognizing the responsibility I have to my clients and likewise recognizing the responsibility I have to my family and to myself.  If someone were measuring it I’m not sure that they would give me an A+ in how I do that. I have a very busy work life in that I’m generally in the office, and it’s rare that I don’t do work at home, whether it be preparing for court the next day or reviewing a file for a meeting.  Or even catching up on the reading of the new case decisions or some family law publications At the same time I’m an avid sportsman.  I like to travel and my wife and I are fortunate that we have three wonderful grandchildren who live not far from us.  We make them and our daughter and son-in-law a regular part of our lives.  I also have a wonderful son out in California who I get to see every now and then. I also get to go to the American Academy meetings and the International Academy meetings, and they’re a way of getting out and around as well.  I have found that I am getting better at not thinking about work when I’m away, especially when compared to when I was developing my practice in the earlier years. To give an example, in my earlier years I wrote a lot of articles, and I wrote many of them while I was on vacation with a dictating machine or pocket recorder, dictating sometimes by the side of a swimming pool or lying on a beach.  I don’t do that anymore (laughs) but I did that then and still had wonderful times on vacation. You just mentioned using a dictation machine.  Have you embraced technology, maybe going into court now with iPad in hand, or is that something that you don’t rely on that much? I do rely upon technology.  I’m learning more about it every day, but I have my smartphone and I’ve got my iPad and I’ve got my laptop and I’ve got my PC.  So I’ve got technology all around me. I just continue to try to learn more and more about that all the time.  How I use it depends upon who the judge is that I’m before.  If I’m before a judge who I know uses an iPad and has it right there I might have my iPad with me.  If I have another judge who I know doesn’t recognize the use and the value of that, or maybe doesn’t have the skill yet to make use of it, then I’m maybe less dependent upon my technology on that occasion. I know you’ve made significant contributions in the area of family law and that you’ve worked with a lot of the local Massachusetts associations as well as the International and the American Academy.  Is there any particular contribution that you have made or been a part of that you’re particularly proud about of? Well, there are a lot of things that I am proud of, the most recent being  the years that I’ve spent working on alimony reform in Massachusetts leading to new legislation which went into effect in March of 2012.  I chaired and co-chaired a Massachusetts Bar Association and Boston Bar Association committee on making recommendations and then was chosen to participate with the legislature in drawing up legislation which was signed by the governor in September of 2011.  So I’m proud of that. But I’m also proud of my involvement in the child support guidelines when they first went into effect in 1987; I was significantly involved in questioning the thought processes that went into drafting them.  I’ve also been involved in some major decisions at the appellate court level.  We have two appellate courts here, the appeals court and the Supreme Judicial Court, which is our highest court.  I have argued many cases at both levels of court, and some of them have been really important to me in moving the law in a positive direction or clarifying the law.  I really enjoyed that work as well. Is there anything that people don’t know about David Lee, either about your work or how you keep balance in your life?  Are you a fly fisherman or anything that we don’t know about?  (laughs) I’ve done fly fishing.  I think most people know that I’m an avid golfer and enjoy golfing.  But— Does avid mean you’re a good golfer? I never said that, did I?  I enjoy being a golfer. The thing that I like about golfing, what hooked me after having been a tennis player for most of my life, was that I couldn’t understand why I couldn’t really be good at it right away; I thought I was a very good athlete.  So I’ve been always striving to get better at that.  It’s similar to my approach to my law practice. I think that what people don’t know much about is my family life.  You know, I’ve been married to my wife, who’s a psychotherapist, for 42 years. Wow. And that’s certainly been a help as well, the common perspectives of our work. I’m also an avid reader of history and other more general novels.  I have a background playing nine different musical instruments.  They don’t generally know that.  I don’t keep up with them any longer but that was something that I think was very important as well in my development.  Both in learning how to read music of three different clefs and also being able to quickly adapt to picking up a new instrument and learning how to play it. I dealt with my professional career the same way by recognizing that when I don’t know something I have to pick up whatever it is to try to figure it out and adapt it to what I do know. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ David Lee is a top-rated super lawyer in the state of Massachusetts, and is an expert on family law topics ranging from divorce to retirement interests and more. He is also a partner at the Boston family law firm of Lee, Rivers, and Corr, and you can visit their website at www.leeriversandcorr.com.

On this edition of The Legal ToolKit, brought to you by Catuogno Court Reporting, host Jared Correia, Law Practice Management Advisor with Mass. LOMAP, welcomes Attorney Christopher Strang from Desmond, Strang & Scott, LLP and Attorney Alexandra Gorman from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, to discuss their roles as co-chairs of the Boston Bar Association's New Lawyers Section. Jared, Chris and Alex talk about the importance of networking, effective networking techniques, some common mistakes new lawyers make when it comes to networking efforts and the perks of getting involved in your bar association.