As attorneys, we are in a fiduciary role and must be honest and fair with our clients. Our clients trust us with their lives, their families, and their savings. Hopefully, you don’t need to be told to not steal money from your clients because it is obviously egregious. But when a case comes out about an attorney who lost his way, it can serve as a reminder to keep us on our ethical toes.

An attorney out of Salt Lake City, Mr. Curtis, was just sentenced to 97 months in federal prison and assessed with almost $13 million dollars in restitution. The prosecuting team initially had reached a plea deal with Mr. Curtis for 6 years in prison, but the judge rejected those terms as unreasonable. Mr. Curtis plead guilty to wire fraud and money laundering. The clients he was charged with committing these crimes against were elderly or disabled folks.

A big part of elder law is helping clients get eligible for Medicaid since that government program has strict rules about an applicant’s assets, income, and prior transfers. There are a variety of legal strategies to employ to meet the eligibility rules and obtain long-term care benefits. However, is submitting a seemingly one-sided consent judgment a viable strategy? Can the judge reject the consent judgment because Medicaid qualification might be a motivating factor for the parties? This issue was recently litigated in Michigan.

While there are many ways to change the terms of an irrevocable trust, decanting proves to be one of the most effective methods. An irrevocable trust does not necessarily mean that it is unchangeable, as the terms can be altered after it is poured (decanted like a bottle of wine) into a new trust. Trust decanting is a useful tool for estate planning attorneys who are striving to make a trust better fit the needs of the client. The authority to decant a trust can be included in the original trust, or it can stem from the decanting statutes in more than thirty states.