How to Prevent Estate Disputes

By

Robert E. Fravel Jr., Esq.

 Most of have seen a movie scene where an elder family member passes away, and the remaining family members gather at the lawyer’s office for the reading of the decedent’s Will.  In Hollywood, this scene is often followed by one depicting family members fighting with each other over their inheritance.  While this is not exactly how it plays out in the real world, the underlying message does hold some truth – estate disputes among family members do occur.  How can you prevent your loved ones from escalating an already difficult situation?  Follow these four easy steps:

1. Keep your estate plan current: Life forces us to make many changes along the way, both financially and in our personal life.  Your relationship and financial status will undoubtedly change multiple times over the course of your life, make sure these changes are reflected in your estate plan.  Regularly updating your Will allows you to keep pace with these changes and adapt your estate plan to your current lifestyle.  Don’t forget to regularly revisit your Power of Attorney and Healthcare Directive either.
2. Don’t forget the details: Make sure you have every little detail outlined in your estate plan documents.  The more detail there is, the less opportunity there is for confusion and misinterpretation.
3. Chose the right Executor/Executrix: Being an effective Executor or Executrix requires good organizational skills and a strong set of morals.  An Executor/Executrix needs to be able to keep tabs on every single assets in the decedent’s estate (which could become a very daunting task) and they need to be an honest individual (so they don’t abuse the powers granted to them in the decedent’s Will).  Don’t simply choose your first born child out of default.  If there is no one close to you who possesses these qualities, choose a qualified professional, like your attorney.
4. Talk about it: While it may be uncomfortable to discuss your future death and distribution of assets with family members, it can go a long way to prevent surprise and confusion when the time comes.

 

Robert E. Fravel Jr., Esq. is a licensed Pennsylvania attorney at Timby Hunt law firm in Doylestown, Bucks County. For more information on visit www.timbyhunt.com or call at (215) 230-7626.

Avoid These Estate Planning Mistakes

By

Robert E. Fravel Jr., Esq.

People often assume estate plans are only for the wealthy.  That could not be further from the truth.  Even if you only own one item of substantial value, such as a bank account, vehicle, or real estate, you could greatly benefit from an estate plan.  Setting up an estate plan will allow you to make informed decisions about how your assets will be handled (while you are still alive!) and it also enables you to maximize the value you pass along to your beneficiaries.  Here are some common estate planning mistakes to avoid:

1. Failing to have an estate plan in place

Unfortunately death is unavoidable.  It is always a very emotional time whenever a friend or family member passes away, and when these emotions are combined with money – stress, tension and animosity are almost certain by-products.  Having an estate plan in place will not help ease the pain of those who lost a loved one, but it can go a long way to alleviate some of that stress, tension and animosity.  We all work hard to acquire our assets over the course of our life, and we all deserve the right to pass on those assets to whomever we see fit.  Having an estate plan in place allows you to determine how your affairs will be handled once you pass on.

2. Ignoring the possibility of becoming disabled or incapacitated

Estate planning can also be used to manage situations in which a person becomes disabled or incapacitated (even temporarily).   If you become disabled or incapacitated for any extended period of time, who will take care of your children, handle your finances and make healthcare decisions on your behalf?  Having a durable power of attorney, healthcare directive and/or living trust in place will help solve these problems.

3. Not updating your Will periodically

Families and businesses frequently undergo changes ranging from births, deaths, divorces, marriages and/or subsequent property purchases.  If you want to ensure that your assets are being left to those you intend, update your Will periodically.

4. Not meeting with an experienced professional

Not meeting with an experienced estate planning attorney or other related professional is a huge mistake, especially if you have diverse and/or complex assets.  An experienced attorney can help to spot and remedy potential issues before they become a problem and they can also provide you with a tax planning/savings estate plan.

 

Robert E. Fravel Jr., Esq. is a licensed Pennsylvania attorney at Timby Hunt law firm in Doylestown, Bucks County.  Send him an email at ref@timbyhunt.com or call him at (215) 230-7626.

FREE SPEECH AT WORK?

By Robert E. Fravel Jr., Esq.

How many of us have ever watched the T.V. show Cops and seen a less than sober individual reference his Constitutional right of free speech (among other bleeped-out vulgarities) while being place under arrest?  I know I have.  Although the above mentioned Cops star is correct in stating the existence of this Constitutional right, he or she may be surprised to learn that this First Amendment protection does not cover all speech…especially in the workplace.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution sets forth the protected principles of freedom of religion and freedom of expression.  The cornerstone of freedom of expression is the protected right of free speech.  To put simply, the right of free speech prohibits the government from interfering with individuals who use speech as a form of expression (with some exceptions of course).  The key aspect of the right to free speech is that this protection is only triggered when the speech is interfered with or constrained by the government.  In other words, in order for a valid free speech claim to exist under the First Amendment, there must be government action.  Given this crucial aspect, let’s examine how free speech protection is applied in the employment context.  First, employees must be classified into two separate categories:  public sector employees (government workers) and private sector employees (everyone else).

In the public sector, government workers are protected from termination (or any other adverse employment action) for publicly or privately making statements regarding matters of public concern, as long as such speech is not made pursuant to the employee’s official duties.  Thus, government workers receive First Amendment protection but only as applied to speech related to “a matter of public concern” (whether speech is a matter of public concern is based on the content, form and context of the statement – Connick v. Myers).  When it comes to proving a First Amendment retaliation claim (at least on its face), public sector employees must prove that their speech was constitutionally protected (i.e. speech related to a matter of public concern and not made pursuant to official employee duties), and that the protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the termination.

On the flip side of the coin, private sector employees enjoy very little protection (far less than public employees) when it comes to free speech.  There are two main reasons for this lack of protection.  First, a valid free speech claim under the First Amendment requires some sort of government action (see the second paragraph).  In the private sector the employer is not the government, but rather a private entity.  The second reason is the existence of the employment-at-will doctrine, which means if no employment contract exists between the employer and employee, either party can terminate the employment relationship at any time, for any reason or no reason at all (as long as those reasons don’t involve discriminating against a protected class).  One instance where private sector employees may enjoy some degree of free speech protection is if the speech falls under the veil of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act and qualifies as “protected concerted activity”.

So the next time you decide to reference or exercise your right to free speech at work, keep in mind that your speech might not be as “free” as you once thought.

 

Robert E. Fravel Jr. is a licensed Pennsylvania attorney at Timby Hunt law firm in Doylestown, Bucks County. If you would like to further consult with Mr. Fravel send him an email at ref@timbyhunt.com or call him at (215) 230-7626.

THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA USE IN THE WORKPLACE: PART II

By Robert E. Fravel Jr., Esq.

 

As I pointed out in Part one, person social media use is quickly becoming a daily occurrence in today’s workplace.  According to the SilkRoad survey: Social Media and the Workplace 2012, 75% of employees access social media while at work.  Given all the technology available in today’s society, I would not be surprised if that number is closer to 80% in 2015.  Social media use at work diminishes an employee’s productivity, thus costing the employer money.  So how can an employer combat social media distractions?  Companies need to establish and enforce policies on personal internet and social media use!  But there is a catch when it comes to implementing an internet and social media policy…

Over the last five years or so, our country has seen an increasing amount of litigation surrounding social media firings and/or the guidelines imposed by a company’s internet/social media policy.  An employee who is fired pursuant to an over-restrictive internet/social media policy will be successful in an unfair labor practices charge against his or her employer.  The relevant question then become “how restrictive can an employer’s internet/social media policy be?”

The National Labor Relation Board (NLRB) has maintained that employers may not adopt any policy that effectively “chills” the activities protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (self-organization, forming, joining, or assisting labor organizations, collective bargaining, engaging in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection).  According to the NLRB, the majority of social media policies are overly broad and thus unlawful due to their restrictive nature.  The NLRB has now made a point to start cracking down on overly broad social media policies.  So how can an employer develop a social media policy that is permissible under the NLRA?  Fortunately, a recent report from the NLRB’s acting General Counsel provided some clarity on this issue.  In order for a social media policy to be acceptable, it must contain (at the minimum) the following:

1. A clear and concise statement expressing why the employer needs a social media policy;
2. A provision explaining to employees that while they are allowed to express their personal opinions on social media, they may be later held responsible for those expressions;
3. A detailed explanation of information that an employee may not disclose on social media (such as confidential information, trade secrets);
4. Explanation and examples of communications that are prohibited under the employer’s anti-discrimination/harassment policies; and most importantly
5. A statement that the employer will in no way employ this social media policy in a way that limit the employee’s ability to use social media to participate in the protected activities set forth in Section 7 of the NLRA.

Aside from following these guidelines, the single most important thing for an employer to do when drafting a social media policy, is to consult with legal counsel (whether that be a company General Counsel or outside counsel).  The law continues to change on this front as more cases are decided, the best way to stay up to date with these new decisions is to consult a lawyer.

Robert E. Fravel Jr. is a Pennsylvania attorney at Timby Hunt law firm in Doylestown, Bucks County. If you would like to further consult with Mr. Fravel send him an email at ref@timbyhunt.com or call him at (215) 230-7626.

WHY EVERY ADULT NEEDS A LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT

By Robert E. Fravel Jr., Esq.

           Planning for your own death is typically not a priority on one’s everyday “to-do” list.  For a lot of people, just thinking about their own death is uncomfortable and as a result many never get around to having a Last Will and Testament drafted.  This is a mistake!

If you are reading this and saying to yourself, “If I am already dead, why would I care what happens to my property?”  Let me explain.  Having a Will drafted according to your wishes gives you the ability to determine who (or what) will receive an inheritance, what type of inheritance they will receive or how much of an inheritance they will receive, when they will receive that inheritance (in some circumstances), and who will be responsible for distributing your property.  And the best part is, if done correctly, nobody can say otherwise!  That is some serious authority!  However, if you die without a valid Will in place (the legal lingo for dying without a Will is “dying intestate”), the state government will step in and the state’s intestacy laws will determine who will receive an inheritance and how much they will receive.  This can and often does, create a multitude of problems, particularly among family members of the deceased (believe me, I have seen it happen).  Here is an example of a fairly basic estate and some of the common problems associated with dying without a Will:

Dave, a lifelong Pennsylvania resident, dies without a Will.  Dave has no living spouse but he does have three adult children – Kelly, Anna and Mike.  Dave also left behind his lifelong best friend, Tom.  At the time of his death, Dave owned the following assets: a 4 bedroom house in Harrisburg valued at $325,000, an old single room fishing cabin on Lake Wallenpaupack which Kelly’s realtor friend valued at $100,000, a dilapidated 1963 Ford Thunderbird valued at $2,000, one checking account with a death balance of $20,000, two savings accounts each with a death balance of $75,000, and various personal items with no real monetary value.  The estimated value of Dave’s estate is approximately $597,000. 

Kelly was very close with her father and the two of them spent countless weekends fishing at the Lake Wallenpaupack cabin.  Regardless of how busy she was, Kelly always made it a priority to see her father at least once a week.  Anna was also very close with her father but 15 years ago her career forced her to move to Erie, Pennsylvania and she has only visited her father twice since she moved. Anna’s fondest memories of her father were the annual trips to the Wellsboro Car Show the two of them made in her father’s prized 1963 Thunderbird.  Mike is the youngest and has a gambling addiction.  Mike left home at the age of 16.  Mike has not spoken to his father or anyone else in his family since he left home, but he still resides in Pennsylvania.  Tom had been Dave’s best friend since they were children.  They grew up together, went to school together and even fought in a war together.  Dave valued Tom’s friendship very much and frequently expressed this to Kelly and Anna.  Tom personally cared for Dave from 2009 up until his death and did everything in his power to make sure her Dave was comfortable during his final years.

In this situation, the Pennsylvania intestacy laws require Dave’s estate to be divided into three equal shares – one for each of his children.  Tom will receive nothing from Dave’s estate.  In this scenario, each child is entitled to approximately $190,000 (597,000 – 4.5% [inheritance tax rate for direct descendants] / 3).  This seems like a fairly simple solution at first glance, but when the estate contains assets that are not liquid (like real estate and automobiles), and/or assets that have some sentimental value to certain beneficiaries, the situation becomes delicate.  If none of the children want the non-liquid assets (Harrisburg house, lake cabin and 1963 Thunderbird), those non-liquid assets will be sold, the proceeds will be combined with the remaining liquid assets (checking and savings accounts) and the entire estate amount will be distributed in three equal shares.  But it is never that simple.

After Dave’s death, all of the children felt as if they should be in charge of their father’s affairs and thus they could not agree on one person to be the Administrator of the estate (this is the person in charge of distributing the estate assets when there is no Will naming an Executor or Executrix).  Tom desperately wanted to help in the affairs of Dave’s estate, he felt it was his last chance to pay his final respects to his beloved friend, but since he was not a beneficiary according to Pennsylvania’s intestate laws he was unable to participate.  As a result, all three children became Co-Administrators and any estate distribution/decision must be approved by at least two of the three children. 

In the above scenario, suppose Kelly wants the lake cabin because it holds a special place in her heart due to all of her fond memories fishing at the cabin with her father.  Mike only wants money.  He wants as much money as possible (to fuel his gambling addiction) and convinces Anna that the lake cabin is actually worth $150,000 instead of $100,000.  Anna and Mike can force the sale of the lake cabin without the consent of Kelly, and Kelly will be forced to either purchase the cabin from her father’s estate for whatever price Mike and Anna deem acceptable or accept one-third of the proceeds from the sale of the lake cabin to a third party.  Depending on how badly Kelly wants the lake cabin, Mike and Anna can strong-arm her into paying a much higher price or completely prevent her from inheriting the lake cabin.  If Mike and Anna decide for some reason, that they simply do not want Kelly to have the cabin, they can refuse to sign the real estate Agreement of Sale or back out at the closing table, even if Kelly is willing to pay the asking price.  It is not difficult to imagine the amount of animosity that will be created between Kelly and her other two siblings if this happened.  This animosity would likely carry on throughout the remaining estate distribution period and possibly long thereafter.

Suppose a few weeks later Anna tells her two siblings that she wants the 1963 Thunderbird because it holds a great deal of sentimental value to her due to the long road trips Anna and her father shared in the Thunderbird.  As usual, Mike is only concerned with money and thinks that despite its current condition, the car is worth more than $2,000 because he claims “it’s a classic, all classic cars are worth at least $10,000”.  Kelly then becomes the deciding vote.  She can either agree to give the car to Anna as a “distribution in kind” with an alloted value of $2,000, or she can decide to side with Mike and sell the car to the highest bidder.  Even if Kelly knows that the Thunderbird is not worth more than $2,000, she may very well decide to authorize the sale out of spite, given how Anna treated the situation surrounding the lake cabin (yes this does happen, family members often become extremely spiteful in these types of situations).

To add further tension, Kelly and Anna might feel as though Mike should not receive anything from their father’s estate because Mike has had no relationship with their father since he was 16.  Or Kelly might feel as though she deserves a larger share of the estate since she was the only one who maintained a constant relationship with her father over the years.  As you can see, emotions and feelings often play a large role in how smooth and efficient intestacy matters proceed.

The above scenario only highlights a fraction of the possible problems associated with dying intestate, but the majority of these problems could have been avoided if Dave simply had a valid Last Will and Testament.  Dave would have had the final authority on each child’s inheritance.  The children would have no power to impede each other’s inheritance.  If Dave wanted Kelly to have the lake cabin, he could have devised that property to her in his Will and neither Anna nor Mike would have been able to second guess that decision, regardless of whether they thought it was worth more than $100,000.  The same goes for Anna and the Thunderbird.  On the flip side of the coin, if Dave never intended to leave any of his estate to Mike due to their non-existent relationship, he could have expressed that wish in his Will, and Mike would not receive a penny.  Additionally, if Dave wanted to reward Tom for his devoted friendship, he could have done so through his Will.  But since Dave did not have a Will when he died, none of this is possible.

It is always a very emotional time whenever a friend or family member passes away, and when these emotions are combined with money – stress, tension and animosity are almost certain by-products.  Having a valid Last Will and Testament will not help ease the pain of those who lost a loved one, but it can go a long way to alleviate some of that stress, tension and animosity.  We all work hard to acquire our assets over the course of our life, and we all deserve the right to pass on those assets to whomever we see fit.  Don’t leave this final decision to someone else.

Robert E. Fravel Jr. is a Pennsylvania attorney at Timby Hunt law firm in Doylestown, Bucks County. If you would like to further consult with Mr. Fravel send him an email at ref@timbyhunt.com or call him at (215) 230-7626.

START WITH THE END IN MIND FIRST – STRATEGIC CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

By:  A. Anthony Rohach, Esq.

As I have mentioned in previous writings, the famous business management author, Peter Drucker, once wisely said, “start with the end in mind first”, when planning out the strategic and tactical maneuvers toward the achievement of an end goal.  This wisdom is critical when negotiating commercial and business contracts.

When I consult with a client regarding this type of transaction, I usually ask several questions of my client when we start discussions, “What are you trying to accomplish with this contract?”; “What are your responsibilities under this contract” and “Can you perform under this agreement?”  After we have established some preliminary answers to these questions, it is then time for me to ask the client the questions they really don’t want to hear.  Namely, what kinds of things can go wrong with this deal and how will that affect my client should those things come to pass.

The reason this is a difficult question for the client is because all they typically see when they want to accomplish a business goal or engage in a business transaction is how wonderful it will be when the transaction is complete.  They rarely think about worse case scenarios and the affect those negative events will have on the business.  That is the task of the attorney and sometimes it is difficult to get the client to see that the attorney is probably their biggest fan, but simultaneously needs to be their protector.  The client needs to fully understand that contracts, by their very nature, are agreements regarding future performance.  As we all know, the future is difficult to predict with a great deal of accuracy.

Some of the issues that I typically ask the client to contemplate are:

• What exactly is the scope and purpose of this contract?
• Who exactly are the parties to the contract?
• If the contract is between parties from different states, then which state’s laws will control the resolution of any disputes regarding the contract?
• What exactly are duties and responsibilities of each party to the contract?
• What are the quantifiable goals and specific timelines for completion contemplated by each party to the contract?
• What assumptions regarding future events and capabilities is each side making when negotiating the deal?
• How will the payment timeline be structured?
• If the parties cannot resolve any issues that arise between themselves, then how will those issues be resolved? For example, litigation in the proper forum state?; mediation?; arbitration?

A careful consideration and resolution of these issues is critical for the parties and their respective attorneys to have completed when drafting an agreement.  The “end game” is that both parties can agree to and most importantly, operate under the final agreement.  Finally, it is critical for each party to understand that they can only predict and control so much of any future events.  When something unexpected happens which affects the rights and responsibilities of the respective parties, it is very important that the parties have a full understanding of such issues will be resolved.

Anthony Rohach is a Pennsylvania attorney located in Doylestown, Bucks County. If you would like to consult with Mr. Rohach send him an email at aar@timbyhunt.com or call him at (215) 230-7626.

ENFORCING THE SECURITY AGREEMENT

By Anthony Rohach, Esq.

Part 3 of a three part series

As I mentioned in a previous post, the term “default” is specifically defined under Secured Transactions law. That term is left up to the parties to define in their security agreement. Upon default, both the secured creditor and debtor have certain rights in the collateral.

After providing the debtor with a notice of default, the secured creditor ordinarily has the right to repossess the collateral subject to the security agreement. Upon receiving such notice, the debtor normally has the right to “cure” or challenge the stated deficiency. However, if the debtor fails to respond or does not otherwise cure the default, the creditor obtains the right to take possession of the collateral.

The creditor will then typically attempt to sell or “liquidate” the collateral for as much money as possible. When conducting such a sale the creditor must use “commercially reasonable standards” or some other reasonable method to sell the collateral.  Normally, the value of the collateral sold in this manner is substantially below the value of the debt owed.  If this is the case, there is a “deficiency balance”, which the debtor is still legally obligated to pay. When this occurs, the secured creditor then transforms into an unsecured creditor and, in theory, acquires the right to pursue the remaining balance due via the court system.  Ordinarily, the security agreement provides that the creditor may assess any additional costs such as attorney fees, court costs, costs of the sale of the collateral or any other cost associated with pursuing the creditor’s claims. As in any contract case, these additional costs and fees are recoverable so long as they are clearly stated in the agreement and both parties agree to those clauses.  If, on the other hand, the sale of the collateral and deduction of costs results in more money than the amount due, such “surplus” belongs to the debtor.

Finally, the debtor does have the right to “redeem” the collateral by fulfilling all the obligations secured by the collateral and any reasonable expenses and attorney fees.

Anthony Rohach is a Pennsylvania attorney at Timby Hunt law firm in Doylestown, Bucks County. If you would like to consult with Mr. Rohach send him an email at aar@timbyhunt.com or call him at (215) 230-7626.

IT’S THE LITTLE THINGS THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE (IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW)

By Robert E. Fravel Jr., Esq.

I often hear fellow lawyers discussing the Do’s and Don’ts in the practice of law. These debates and discussions typically focus on “what is necessary” to be a successful practitioner. Some lawyers swear that being an expert in legal research is the key, while others insist being able to quickly think on your feet is the key, and yet others contend that strong public speaking skills are the key. While all of these skills are important tools in the lawyer’s tool box, they all fall short, in my opinion, of being necessities to the successful practice of law. You can undoubtedly have a successful law practice without being an expert in legal research or public speaking, but you cannot have a successful law practice if you do not communicate with clients.

Communication IS the key. In my experience, the biggest source of contention between attorneys and clients is lack of communication. The reason why most clients are not satisfied with their lawyers is because they feel like they are left out of the loop. Clients pay lawyers substantial amounts of money, and in return they expect to be informed about the progression of their case…and rightfully so. How can this problem be remedied you ask? It’s really quite simple, communicate! It doesn’t necessarily have to be in person or over the phone (although sometimes those are the best methods); a short email will usually suffice. Every time a new development in the case arises, a deadline is approaching or a milestone is met, let the client know. This will keep most clients happy. It makes them feel like they are involved in the process (which they should be) and it gives clients some insight as to what their hard earned money is being spent on.

I always try to take a pro-active approach when it comes to communicating with clients, but sometimes the client beats me to it. Usually clients are just looking for a status update on their case. In these circumstances, I am a firm believer in the 48 hour rule. The 48 hour rule means that if a client is unable to reach me initially, I will get back to them within 48 hours (If possible I try to respond within 24 hours). This seemingly small gesture goes a long way in keeping clients satisfied. So remember, communication within the client relationship is the single most important aspect of practicing law and little things such as returning phone calls in a timely manner can dramatically improve client satisfaction levels.

 

Robert E. Fravel Jr. is a Pennsylvania attorney at Timby Hunt law firm in Doylestown, Bucks County. If you would like to further consult with Mr. Fravel send him an email at ref@timbyhunt.com or call him at (215) 230-7626.

EMPLOYER CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRE-TERMINATION SITUATIONS

By Robert E. Fravel Jr., Esq.

Terminating an employee is something that no employer enjoys, however it is often times necessary. In situations where termination is necessary, taking the proper steps during the termination process can help make the process much more tolerable for both the employee and employer. However, even before reaching the actual termination, there are certain considerations an employer should take into account in order to prevent liability and/or reputation damage in the future.

Even before firing an employee, there are two very important questions the employer must ask:

1) Is the employee who is about to be terminated, under the impression that there is another reason for which they believe is the cause of their termination?  (i.e., does the employee think that his/her recently filed worker’s compensation claim is the cause of the termination?); and if so…

2) Is there any credence to that alternate reason? (Even if that is not the actual reason for the termination, is there any legitimacy to it?)

These two considerations are important because employer retaliation against an employee who has engaged in what is known as “protected activity” (as defined by the National Labor Relations Act) such as filing a worker’s compensation claim, is prohibited (for a full list of “protected activities” contact a licensed attorney). If an employee is terminated shortly after engaging in a protected activity, an inference may be drawn that the termination was a result of the protected activity, which could then lead to a very costly lawsuit…..a situation every employer wants to avoid.

The next time you find yourself in a situation where the termination of an employee is necessary, take a step back and ask yourself the two previously mentioned questions; it could end up saving you and your company a great deal of time, money and stress.

Robert E. Fravel Jr. is a Pennsylvania attorney at Timby Hunt law firm in Doylestown, Bucks County. If you would like to further consult with Mr. Fravel send him an email at ref@timbyhunt.com or call him at (215) 230-7626.

WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A LAWYER

By Robert E. Fravel Jr., Esq.

When most people think of a lawyer, an image of a man with slicked-back hair wearing a double breasted blue pinstripe suit and a gold pinky ring comes to mind (or at least that’s what I thought of when I was younger).  Many people even refer to lawyers as “blood suckers” or “ambulance chasers”, and while those lovely terms of endearment may accurately portray a certain percentage of lawyers, there are plenty of lawyers who entered the profession due to a genuine desire to help individuals during their darkest hour.

For those lawyers who entered the profession because they wanted to help people, the greatest reward is not a giant settlement check (although those are nice too!), but rather a sincere “thank you” from a satisfied client. Clients often seek the assistance of lawyers when they come across a problem they cannot solve or when they are faced with a dire situation.  A lawyer’s goal should be to relieve some of that stress and fix or at least reduce the damage associated with the client’s problem.  When that goal is achieved and the client can finally breathe a sigh of relief, it is a wonderful feeling.

Recently I had a client come to me seeking my assistance in a debt collection matter. He was scared, unsure of what to do, and concerned that this situation would have long lasting consequences. Years ago this client had co-signed on a rental-purchase agreement for a certain item, and the primary debtor (who was no longer involved in his life) had recently stopped making the payments required under the rental-purchase agreement. Shortly before coming to see me, he had received a letter from a collections law firm threatening to sue him if he did not pay a large amount of money by a certain date, and essentially threatening to destroy his credit rating.  This client was well aware that he had some responsibility in this matter because he did indeed “sign on the dotted line” so to speak, but what really worried him was being able to come up with this large sum of money relatively quickly and having his credit negatively affected for years to come.

This was not a terribly complicated matter and by no means involved any brilliant legal work. So with a relatively small amount of effort I was able to negotiate with the creditor and reduce the debt by almost 40%, which made the payment much more manageable for my client and get the creditor to sign a release stating that nothing related to this matter will be reported to any credit bureau. Afterwards I called my client and told him the good news. As the words came out of my mouth, I could literally hear the stress in his voice melt away. It was as if a huge weight was lifted off of his shoulders. After every sentence he repeatedly thanked me and told me how appreciative he was. This case didn’t generate a lot of money for me or my firm, but being able to help a person in need and hear how much my help meant to him was all the reward I could ask for. To me, that is what it means to be a lawyer.

Robert E. Fravel Jr. is a Pennsylvania attorney at Timby Hunt law firm in Doylestown, Bucks County. If you would like to consult with Mr. Fravel send him an email at ref@timbyhunt.com or call him at (215) 230-7626.