Seminar 2010 update Wills and Estate Planning
WHEN: Wednesday January 13, 2010 12:15-1:00 PM
also Thursday, January 14 5:45-7pm
WHERE: Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen, 2053 Woodbridge Ave, 2nd floor, Edison, NJ 08817
Invited: Clients, CPA's, Financial Planners, Insurance Producers, Nursing Home Administrators, Hospital and Nursing Home Social Workers, Medicaid Workers, Office on Aging Personnel, Senior Club Presidents, and Accountants
Estate Planning Ideas for Professionals and People who advise Seniors
The cost for this program previously at Middlesex County College was $29.00. If you email back prior to December 31 you can attend for free.
COST: Free if you pre-register. This program is limited to 15 people
Complimentary Sandwiches to pre-registered persons at 12:10 at Jan 13 program
SPEAKER: Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.
(Author- Answers to Questions About Probate)
The new NJ Probate Law made a number of substantial changes in Probate and the administration of estates and trusts in New Jersey.
Main Topics:
1. The New Probate Law and preparation of Wills
2. 2010 increases in Federal Estate and Gift Tax exemption
3. NJ Inheritance tax $675,000
4. Power of Attorney
5. Living Will
6. Administering the Estate/ Probate/Surrogate
7. Question and Answer
COMPLIMENTARY MATERIAL: Brochures on Wills, "Answers to Questions about Probate" and Administration of an Estate, Power of Attorney, Living Wills, Real Estate Sales for Seniors, and Trusts.
Co-Sponsor: Middlesex County Estate Planning Council
To attend or for Information: Mike McDonald 732-572-0500
or email kenvnjlaws@verizon.net
Can’t attend? We can email you materials
Send email to kenvnjlaws@verizon.net
Our Summer 2009 NJ Probate Email Newsletter discussed increased duties of the Executor or Administrator. The email newsletter also discussed how the revised NJ Probate Law makes a number of substantial changes in Probate and the administration of estates and trusts in New Jersey. If you send us your e-mail address we can provide you with a Free report on the changes in the law which may affect you. We also recently established the NJ Elder Law blog at http://elder-law.blogspot.com.
Website www.njlaws.com now provides Legal Information on Probate and Elder Law.
Very truly yours,
KENNETH VERCAMMEN
Chair ABA Elder Law Committee, Solo & Small Firm Division
To receive the njlaws Free Legal newsletter via email with Estate Administration & Probate information, email us at kenvnjlaws@verizon.net or fax us your email address.
Fax 732-572-0030
We send the newsletter via email only.
Email address: __________________________
"Exploding Offers"
Complaints about offers with deadlines perceived as short often ignore the realities facing non-top-tier schools and candidates.
Early in the hiring season, top-tier candidates begin getting offers from mid- to upper-level schools. Often, such schools have a ranked list of candidates to whom their deans are authorized to make offers. If a school's faculty has authorized the dean to make offers to, say, eight candidates to fill two slots, two offers will generally go out -- three if the dean has some financial flexibility and could live with the unexpected good luck of three acceptances.
Those slots are then out of play for the rest of the candidate field until the initial offerees make up their minds. The other six candidates the faculty has approved must sit around wondering what will happen next and when. They may face pressures from other schools lower on their preference list. They may need to begin planning to move their families. Too bad. They must wait until the initial offerees run the clock out -- as often happens.
Much of the commentary I've read about deadlines focuses on the needs of initial offerees -- typically the most highly credentialed candidates. But such candidates constitute only a small part of the entry-level pool.
Two practices create the problem to which expiring offers are a solution.
First, highly credentialed candidates commonly stockpile offers. Second, top law schools often expect candidates to wait around until mid- to late spring. Both practices inconvenience everyone else. The rest of us need the stockpiled slots released as quickly as possible so everyone else can get on with the process of finding an academic home. Short deadlines unclog the system.
Focusing solely on the "evil" of short deadlines assumes that stockpiling by highly credentialed candidates and mid- to late spring offers from top schools are themselves unproblematic. Even the language commonly used is loaded. Calling offers with short deadlines "exploding offers" is a lot like calling the estate tax the "death tax" -- it presupposes a particular normative outcome.
The simplest solution is already within candidates' control. Candidates who are concerned about short deadlines should ask about the offer policies of the back-up schools at which they are interviewing. They shouldn't interview at back-up schools to whose policies they object, take up offer slots that other candidates really want, and then complain about the deadlines. If enough top-tier candidates were to use as back-ups only schools willing to leave offers open for extended periods, such schools would presumably get more and better candidates. Schools that wanted to finish their entry-level hiring expeditiously wouldn't find their offer slots clogged by candidates who don't really want to teach there anyhow. Ultimately, the complaint about short deadlines is an assertion that all schools should be willing to serve as back-ups -- a premise with which one can reasonably disagree.
I agree that hardball tactics for the purpose of putting a candidate in an awkward position are reprehensible and counterproductive. But the issue of hardball tactics is analytically distinct from that of offer deadlines. The fact that some deans misuse offer deadlines does not mean that such deadlines -- even if short -- are themselves illegitimate. The contrary is in fact true: deadlines make the system work.
Early in the hiring season, top-tier candidates begin getting offers from mid- to upper-level schools. Often, such schools have a ranked list of candidates to whom their deans are authorized to make offers. If a school's faculty has authorized the dean to make offers to, say, eight candidates to fill two slots, two offers will generally go out -- three if the dean has some financial flexibility and could live with the unexpected good luck of three acceptances.
Those slots are then out of play for the rest of the candidate field until the initial offerees make up their minds. The other six candidates the faculty has approved must sit around wondering what will happen next and when. They may face pressures from other schools lower on their preference list. They may need to begin planning to move their families. Too bad. They must wait until the initial offerees run the clock out -- as often happens.
Much of the commentary I've read about deadlines focuses on the needs of initial offerees -- typically the most highly credentialed candidates. But such candidates constitute only a small part of the entry-level pool.
Two practices create the problem to which expiring offers are a solution.
First, highly credentialed candidates commonly stockpile offers. Second, top law schools often expect candidates to wait around until mid- to late spring. Both practices inconvenience everyone else. The rest of us need the stockpiled slots released as quickly as possible so everyone else can get on with the process of finding an academic home. Short deadlines unclog the system.
Focusing solely on the "evil" of short deadlines assumes that stockpiling by highly credentialed candidates and mid- to late spring offers from top schools are themselves unproblematic. Even the language commonly used is loaded. Calling offers with short deadlines "exploding offers" is a lot like calling the estate tax the "death tax" -- it presupposes a particular normative outcome.
The simplest solution is already within candidates' control. Candidates who are concerned about short deadlines should ask about the offer policies of the back-up schools at which they are interviewing. They shouldn't interview at back-up schools to whose policies they object, take up offer slots that other candidates really want, and then complain about the deadlines. If enough top-tier candidates were to use as back-ups only schools willing to leave offers open for extended periods, such schools would presumably get more and better candidates. Schools that wanted to finish their entry-level hiring expeditiously wouldn't find their offer slots clogged by candidates who don't really want to teach there anyhow. Ultimately, the complaint about short deadlines is an assertion that all schools should be willing to serve as back-ups -- a premise with which one can reasonably disagree.
I agree that hardball tactics for the purpose of putting a candidate in an awkward position are reprehensible and counterproductive. But the issue of hardball tactics is analytically distinct from that of offer deadlines. The fact that some deans misuse offer deadlines does not mean that such deadlines -- even if short -- are themselves illegitimate. The contrary is in fact true: deadlines make the system work.
Hey Harvard
I read that Harvard has abandoned its program that waived tuition in the third year for students committing to five years of public interest work.
I appears that economic hardship required the change but the Harvard President is also quoted as saying they did not know how easy it would be to get Harvard students to go into public interest work.
On the other hand the Harvard Crimson reports:
"This year, 58 third-year students signed up for the initiative, which has a budget of $3 million per year for a five-year period ending in 2012, . . . About 50 to 60 students entered public service after graduation in previous years before the start of the tuition waiver."
If I am reading the numbers correctly it was a program that had little or no impact on the number Harvard grads opting for public interest work. So, what amounted to a $40,000 payment or an $8,000 a year bump to the public service salary appears to have been unpersuasive. Even by putting a $40,000 thumb on the scale, Harvard evidently could not compete with the big firms and the starting salaries for its grads.
I have and idea for every school that receives applications for qualified candidates in excess the spots available and wants students to "explore" (in the words of Harvard's President) the possibility of public interest work. But be careful what you wish for and do this only if you are serious. Don't reduce tuition. In fact, you might raise it for those with well-heeled moms and dads and even for those so desperate to go to to your school that for them no debt is too great. Just make 5 years of public interest work a condition of admission.
I appears that economic hardship required the change but the Harvard President is also quoted as saying they did not know how easy it would be to get Harvard students to go into public interest work.
On the other hand the Harvard Crimson reports:
"This year, 58 third-year students signed up for the initiative, which has a budget of $3 million per year for a five-year period ending in 2012, . . . About 50 to 60 students entered public service after graduation in previous years before the start of the tuition waiver."
If I am reading the numbers correctly it was a program that had little or no impact on the number Harvard grads opting for public interest work. So, what amounted to a $40,000 payment or an $8,000 a year bump to the public service salary appears to have been unpersuasive. Even by putting a $40,000 thumb on the scale, Harvard evidently could not compete with the big firms and the starting salaries for its grads.
I have and idea for every school that receives applications for qualified candidates in excess the spots available and wants students to "explore" (in the words of Harvard's President) the possibility of public interest work. But be careful what you wish for and do this only if you are serious. Don't reduce tuition. In fact, you might raise it for those with well-heeled moms and dads and even for those so desperate to go to to your school that for them no debt is too great. Just make 5 years of public interest work a condition of admission.
Big Law in Los Angeles
Top 20 Suppliers of Partners to the
Ten Largest Law Firms in Los Angeles
Over the Most Recent 25 and 10 Year Periods
Most Recent 25 Years Most Recent 10 Years
Loyola-L.A. 51 9
UCLA 51 7
Harvard 48 8
USC 38 6
Boalt 31 5
Southwestern 26 6
Stanford 19 1
Hastings 18 2
Columbia 16 1
Georgetown 15 1
NYU 15 3
Yale 12 1
Chicago 10 1
San Diego 10 1
BU 8 0
Pepperdine 8 0
Santa Clara 8 0
Boston College 7 2
Michigan 7 0
Virginia 7 1
Methodology
Number of partners in the 10 largest law firms in Los Angeles (Los Angeles County
offices only) admitted to the bar in 1984 or thereafter or 1999 or thereafter,
respectively. Year of admission to the bar is used as a proxy for year of
graduation. 10 largest law firms ranked by number of attorneys in L.A. County
offices per 2009 Los Angeles Business Journal Book of Lists. Search performed in
Martindale Hubbell on-line 11/27-30/2009. [I apologize for the ragged appearance
of the table. Tables are very difficult to create on this platform.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Blog Archive
- February (72)
- January (143)
- December (136)
- November (176)
- October (99)
- September (32)
- August (31)
- July (27)
- June (27)
- May (27)
- April (33)
- March (31)
- February (28)
- January (33)
- December (28)
- November (30)
- October (36)
- September (35)
- August (32)
- July (33)
- June (9)
- May (7)
- April (4)
- March (2)
- February (2)
- January (9)
- December (7)
- November (15)
- October (19)
- September (10)
- August (14)
- July (86)
- June (9)
- May (11)
- April (18)
- March (16)
- February (41)
- January (17)
- December (25)
- November (19)
- October (32)
- September (29)
- August (33)
- July (48)
- June (35)
- May (28)
- April (48)
- March (55)
- February (50)
- January (62)
- December (41)
- November (84)
- October (88)
- September (79)
- August (63)
- July (72)
- June (64)
- May (39)
- April (55)
- March (81)
- February (54)
- January (56)
- December (49)
- November (57)
- October (50)
- September (38)
- August (24)