Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  1611-1617 displayed

1  231 232 233 234 235  3627

---

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Drinker Biddle Partner Robyn S. Shapiro Installed as Chair of American Bar Association’s Section on Individual Rights & Responsibilities
Robyn S. Shapiro, a partner at Drinker Biddle Gardner Carton and a highly regarded bioethicist, was installed as chair of the Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section at the conclusion of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Annual Meeting this August in San Francisco. Shapiro has been a council member of the section since 1998, serving as vice-chair in 2005-06 then chair-elect this past year.“Robyn has truly distinguished herself in the areas of health law and bioethics,” said Alfred W. Putnam, Jr., chairman of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, which does business as Drinker Biddle Gardner Carton in Milwaukee. “As a dedicated member of the governing council of the Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section for almost a decade, Robyn brings a uniquely informed perspective to her role as chair. We are honored to be her colleagues and congratulate her on this significant achievement.” The mission of the ABA’s Individual Rights and Responsibilities (IRR) Section is to advance civil rights, social justice and civil liberties. It accomplishes this role through publications, educational programs and the development of policy resolutions to be presented to the ABA’s House of Delegates. The section in recent years has addressed, for example, a death penalty moratorium, indefinite confinement of enemy combatants, and the intersection of medical and legal issues faced by low-income individuals with AIDS, in addition to preparing amicus curiae briefs for submission to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the ABA on issues such as habeas corpus and affirmative action.

Become a chair of IPR particularly satisfying because the The section serves as the conscience of the “ABA, addressing represents issues that “Becoming chair of IRR is said Shapiro the ideals and issues that were my reason . for attending law school in the first place,” are sometimes difficult and controversial but relevant and extremely important to our profession and society as a whole.”

Shapiro notes that she’ll be leading the section during an election year, and one of her goals is to educate both the electorate and candidates on positions of importance to the ABA. Other goals include a focus on health care issues “at the intersection of individual rights and public health, including maintaining the privacy of health and genetic information, and balancing the right of free travel versus the need to contain infectious agents.”

Shapiro represents clients in bioethics issues and health law matters including health information privacy, informed consent, regulatory and licensing challenges, human subjects research compliance and medical staff matters. She also serves as the Ursula Von der Ruhr Professor of Bioethics and Director of the Bioethics Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

Shapiro earned her B.A., summa cum laude, with highest distinction, from the University of Michigan in 1974 and her J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1977. She currently serves as a member or chair of several professional groups. Since 1990, Shapiro has been chair of the International Association of Bioethics, Hospital Ethics Committee Network. She also has been a member of the American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics since 1983 and has been an ABA Advisor to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws Committee on Misuse of Genetic Information since 2002. In 2003, she was appointed as a member of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee, and in 2005, she was appointed as a member of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee

08-15-2007

---

Clausen Miller PC

Partner Jim Smith Contributes to Research and Market's Report on IP
Clausen Miller Partner, Jim Smith, was invited to contribute to Research and Market's Report, "Maximizing Intellectual Property Value: Leading Lawyers On Leveraging Your IP Portfolio, Negotiating IP Transactions, and Creating Intellectual Capital (Inside The Minds)."

08-15-2007

---

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Tripp Haston Co-Presenter of CLE Program Titled "Anatomy Of A Drug Trial"
Tripp Haston, a partner in the Birmingham office, will serve as co-presenter of a Web CLE program sponsored by the IADC’s Drug, Device and Biotechnology Committee on August 29 from noon-1:30 p.m. CDT. The program is titled "Anatomy Of A Drug Trial" and will include a discussion of the recent pharmaceutical mass tort trials. Topics discussed during the CLE will have broad application to anyone who represents pharmaceutical and device manufacturers. The presenters will discuss jury selection (including juror research), opening and closing statements, witness examination, expert witnesses, and post trial briefing.

In addition to being a partner at Bradley Arant, Mr. Haston is Chair of the firm's Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Practice Group. In that capacity, Mr. Haston's practice focuses on pharmaceutical mass tort litigation and individual cases. His responsibilities include coordinating national counsel, national trial counsel, and being a member of various trial teams throughout the county for a number of Fortune 500 pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers.

08-15-2007

---

Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell & Hippel, L.L.P.

Supplemental-Needs Trust Is Considered Income in Child-Support Case
In the recent case of Mencer v. Ruch, the Superior Court held that the income from a supplemental needs trust created pursuant to New York state law from the proceeds of a personal injury action should be considered income for child support purposes.

Mencer, mother of Elizabeth (born Feb. 18, 2003), filed a support action on April 3, 2003, against putative father, Gary Ruch. Genetic testing established that Ruch was Elizabeth'

At the time of the support conference on Mencer's support action against Ruch, he was on public assistance in New York and had applied for Social Security disability. Because Mencer had no knowledge of any other sources of income for Ruch other than his public assistance in New York, on July 11, 2005, the parties reached an agreement that Mr. Ruch's support obligation would remain at zero unless he became eligible for Social Security disability, "in which case a support order would be entered and made retroactive to April 3, 2003."

On May 19, 2006, a review conference was held regarding Mencer's support action. Both parties were present and represented by counsel at the conference. At that time, Ruch remained on public assistance, and his claim for Social Security disability benefits was still unresolved. At the conference, Mencer established Ruch was the beneficiary of the supplemental needs trust created for him in New York. Ruch claimed at the conference that the amounts that he received from the trust should not be considered income for purposes of child support.

On May 31, 2006, the hearing officer entered "another nonmonetary award that could be modified retroactively if Mr. Ruch's claim for Social Security disability benefits was eventually approved." Mencer appealed the hearing officer's recommendation and requested a hearing before the trial court "based upon her position that the income and principal of the trust should be included in [Mr. Ruch's] income available for Elizabeth's support."

At the Aug. 16, 2006, hearing before the trial court, Ruch presented telephone testimony of a New York attorney who indicated that the trust was a "supplemental-needs trust" created pursuant to New York state law from the proceeds of the personal injury action that allows a disabled person to keep trust distributions without disqualifying a beneficiary from receiving governmental benefits. The trustee of a supplement-needs trust is not permitted to make distributions "that do not benefit the beneficiary directly but will pay for housing and other items that enhance the beneficiary's life."

Interestingly, when Ruch's supplemental- needs trust was set up, child support arrearages had accrued prior to 2001 for another child born to another woman were paid from Ruch's personal injury proceeds and that mother received child support payments of $208 per month from the trust for one year until the child reached age 18. As of the date of the hearing, after the purchase of an annuity that provides monthly income to the special needs trust in the amount of $678.82, the trust had a principal balance of approximately $55,000.

At the hearing before the trial court, the following evidence was produced:

Ruch receives public assistance from the state of New York of approximately $350 per month. He had been denied Social Security disability benefits but had appealed that decision. During the prior school year, Ruch worked as a crossing guard for $25 a day. He decided to cease that employment because it reduced the amount of public assistance that he received.

From July 2004 to July 2005, the special-needs trust distributed $19,145.80 to Ruch, and from July 2005 to July 2006, it distributed $16,729.12 to him. Among other items, the special-needs trust has paid for Ruch's cellular telephone and cable television service. Mencer testified that she earns $8 per hour and qualifies for subsidized daycare of $30 per week for Elizabeth. Due to her meager earnings, she experiences difficulty feeding and clothing her child.

After the hearing, the trial court entered and order on Sept. 1, 2006, adopting the hearing officer's order. Mencer filed a timely appeal of that order presenting three issues for review:

Whether the trial court erred in failing to assess income to Ruch for purposes of child support from distributions that he receives from his supplemental needs trust;

Whether the trial court erred in failing to assess income to Ruch for purposes of child support in the amount of the principal of Ruch's supplemental-needs trust; and

Whether the trial court erred in failing to assess an earning capacity to Mr. Ruch.

The Superior Court held that the trial court misapplied the law by failing to consider as income the distributions made by the trust for Ruch's benefit and neglecting to calculate Ruch's child support obligation based on his earning capacity. The Superior Court reiterated: "[e]ach parent has an absolute obligation to support a child, and that obligation 'must be discharged by the parents even if it causes some hardship.' . . . The principal goal in child-support matters is to serve the best interest of the children through the provision of reasonable expenses."

In determining each party's income available for support, "[t]he court must consider all forms of income." The Superior Court cited the very broad definition of "income" as it is applied in support cases. Ruch contended that any payments made from the trust for his benefit "are not income for child support purposes because he has no ability to control the payments."

The Superior Court rejected his position because the definition of income is "simply not dependent upon whether the recipient has the ability to control receipt of that income." The Superior Court further highlighted that other forms of income, such as employer-provided perquisites "are considered income, yet the recipient has no control over his receipt of the sums paid on his behalf."

The Superior Court further stated: "Section 4302 expressly provides that income from an interest in an estate or trust is income for child support purposes. . . . The fact that the instant trust was created under state law rather than a private trust instrument is irrelevant.

Simply put, the fact that [Ruch] has no ability to control his receipt of funds is not pertinent to whether the payments made for his benefit are income." The Superior Court stressed that there is no "limiting phrasing" in the statutory language that requires a person to have control over his or her receipt of money in order for it to be included in the definition of income. "The definition is expansive rather than restrictive." Therefore, the Superior Court found the distributions that Ruch receives from the trust to be income since it falls within the legal definition of income under Pennsylvania law.

Interestingly, Ruch also claimed that the distributions could not be used in calculating child support because the trustee is not permitted to pay child support from the trust under applicable New York law, "which allows distributions from a special-needs trust only for the benefit of the beneficiary." However, the Superior Court held that the actual distributions from the trust to Ruch are income for purposes of calculating Ruch's support obligation and that Ruch, rather than the trustee, is obligated to pay the child support.

Because the Superior Court agreed with Mencer's first issue on appeal it found that her second issue became moot. The Superior Court held that though Mencer's second issue on appeal that the proceeds of a personal injury action should be considered income available for support "is in accordance with prevailing law," because the distributions from the trust are being considered income for support purposes, "the same money can not be included twice in [Ruch's] child-support obligation; the actual trust distributions on [Ruch's] behalf are more than the result of the calculation achieved by annualizing the settlement over the life of [Ruch's] support obligation."

Lastly, with regard to Mencer's third issue on appeal, regarding earning capacity, the Superior Court found that Ruch's admission that he was actually working as a crossing guard and voluntarily terminated his employment because it would result in a reduction in welfare benefits established his capacity to work as a crossing guard and earn some "modicum of money to support the child he has fathered." Therefore, the Superior Court held that the distributions pursuant to the trust were income for support purposes and that Ruch should be attributed an earning capacity in line with his prior job as a crossing guard.

At the conclusion of its opinion, the Superior Court stated: "[w]e feel compelled to make a closing observation. While we sympathize that [Ruch] may have a limited capacity to earn money, he acknowledged an ability to work at least a few hours a day as a crossing guard. Instead, he chose to do nothing, while enjoying the benefits of cable television and a cellular telephone, yet [Mencer] struggles to feed and clothe their child. This is a child he fathered after he suffered his head injury, which evidences an ability to perform at least some physical functions." The Superior Court then reversed the trial court's order and remanded the proceedings consistent with their opinion.

This case is a reminder that the definition of income for support purposes is very broad. Further, this case reminds the practitioner that though a party may be disabled, his or her obligation to provide some form of support to his or her child will remain. Because the courts will regularly look to the past to predict the future with regard to uncertain and inconsistent income, obligors, such as Ruch (who cannot predict what his trust income/distributions will be each year), may petition to modify the support order at the end of a year if a substantial fluctuation to his/her income occurred in that year.

MICHAEL E. BERTIN is an associate in the Philadelphia law firm of Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel. Bertin is co-chairman of the custody committee and a member of the executive committee of the family law section of the Philadelphia Bar Association.

08-14-2007

---

Groom Law Group, Chartered

Bill Sweetnam quoted in Congress Daily
Bill Sweetnam was quoted regarding hedge funds, pension plans, and carried interest in the August 14, 2007 edition of Congress Daily.

08-14-2007

---

Groom Law Group, Chartered

Bill Sweetnam to participate on Knowlegde Congress Conference call regarding the final regulations for Section 409A
The final regulations for Section 409A has been issued and companies are given a compliance deadline before December 31, 2007. The new law covers public and private companies from single to multiple employees and contractors. Now is a time to review all equity based compensation plans and arrangements as there may be significant penalties for noncompliance.

The Knowledge Congress has assembled a panel of experts to help companies understand the new regulations. A live teleconference on equity based compensation regulations is scheduled for September 6, 2007.

Bill Sweetnam will present a session on severence plans. Topics will include:

* How severance plans will comply or be exempt from 409A

* Can a severance plan be amended to provide for a "good reason"
termination?

* How to structure and document post-termination benefits

* Change in control agreements and 409A

08-14-2007

---

Groom Law Group, Chartered

Andrée St. Martin and Bill Sweetnam to participate in conference on pension, profit-sharing, welfare, and other compensation plans
Andrée St. Martin and Bill Sweetnam will participate in an ALI-ABA sponsored conference in Washington, D.C. on October 4-6, 2007. Examine the most important aspects of pension, profit-sharing, welfare, and other compensation plans, including recent developments in legislation and federal regulations and guidelines at this annual advanced course of study!

This year’s topics include:

* Recent developments in legislation and federal regulations and guidelines
* IRC § 409A update and how it relates to severance plans, employment agreements, excess plans, and medical reimbursement plans
* Overview of recent ERISA litigation
* Qualified default investment alternative
* Performing self-audits of retirement plans, including ethics issues
* Latest developments on the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS)
* IRS Determination Letter issues
* Benefit concerns for tax exempt organizations
* And much more!

08-14-2007

---

25383 matches |  1611-1617 displayed

1  231 232 233 234 235  3627