Who Takes the Eggs? ART and Estate Planning Considerations

As technology’s digits crawl through the nooks and crannies of our physical world and cyberspace, the legal consequences and questions emerging keep even us non-IP lawyers quite busy. Considering assisted reproductive technology (\”ART\”), family law was the premier practice area for getting caught in ART\’s web. Few lawyers realized the effects ART would have on estate planning and, even as the effects became clear, only a fraction of states passed laws providing legal guidance. Fortunately, Illinois is a state that considered ART in its laws and included laws for in vitro fertilization in the Parentage Act. Additionally, the Probate Act states that children born after a parent’s death (“posthumous” children) are to be considered having been born during the parent’s lifetime. So, what does all this technolegalese mean? Well, in terms of inheritance and/or estate planning laws, it means conversations should be had between Illinois spouses if conception is a challenge or an impossibility for one or both spouses.* The conversations are necessary because of 2 vital estate planning tools often used by couples, Health Care Powers of Attorney (“HCPOA”) and Property Powers of Attorney (“PPOA”), which can also provide instruction for ART cases. Yes, lawyers love acronyms. In Illinois, a posthumous child born via ART typically emerges in 1 of 3 ways: Use of frozen sperm; Use of a frozen embryo; or Use of a frozen egg. Furthermore, obtaining frozen sperm or eggs may not only occur after incapacity but also may occur after death, which is when estate planning mechanisms are triggered. When creating an estate plan, couples usually consider a bunch of “what ifs,” e.g., “what if I become disabled while we’re still in the “prime” of our lives and haven’t had kids yet?” A HCPOA is a tool that requires making those decisions but, consequently, eases the fears associated with the “what ifs.” Accordingly, when considering ART, a HCPOA could, for example, authorize the implantation of frozen sperm or eggs. Of course, other considerations would naturally follow, such as, how one abled-parent and one disabled parent would raise a child. Still, ART combined with the law creates a reasonable and protected possibility for having a family, when that likelihood, outside of adoption, didn’t exist before. Another equally interesting issue relates to the PPOA. But, you say, “That’s about property.” Yes, it is. In a 1993 California decision, Hecht v. Superior Court, which is used by several states, the Court determined that frozen genetic reproductive material, such as sperm and eggs, is property for the purpose of leaving a gift in a will (aka “devise”). Here, you might think the conversation would be easy – women can leave their eggs to their partners; but, not so fast. What if the eggs are frozen, then the relationship is legally dissolved, the donor spouse remarries, and then passes away? Who gets the eggs if the second spouse doesn’t want any (more) kids? She could disclaim them and pass them to her descendants or siblings; that would be interesting. The future brothers and sisters of the former partner? Should the reproductive material be destroyed? Who do you think should get the eggs? * The term “spouses” and \”partners\” are interchanged in this context because the terms are synonymous in Illinois law.
The 3 Tenancies and Your Planning: It’s Not about Rent

In the legal field, we use and create terms and phrases that sound familiar to non-legal professionals, but are strangers when a legal professional provides the actual definition. Take, for example the term, “tenancy.” It sounds like it’s related to renting property, and it is – sort of, sometimes as when you’re discussing leases. However, when discussing legacy planning, it’s a much larger animal. In legacy planning, lawyers primarily discuss 3 tenancies, most of which involve real property or bank account ownership, not renting. Tenancy in common is the most basic type of tenancy ownership. A tenants in common relationship between 2 people over a house, for example, means that one party controls interest in one half of the house, and the other party controls interest over the other half. Either party can sell, lease, mortgage, or devise their interest in half of the property. However, if the other party passes away, generally the surviving party does not get the other half of the property; the survivor is left with his or her interest alone. The remaining half is either bequeathed or passed to the decedent’s heirs via state law.People are rarely tenants in common with respect to bank accounts; this type of arrangement is usually crafted for prenuptial agreements or settlement agreements and, then, the focus is often the parties’ contribution to the account. Joint tenancy with rights of survivorship, on the other hand, allows the surviving party in the above example with the house to own the whole house. Joint accounts are also very common with respect to bank accounts, checking or saving. So, if Grandpa has a bank account and you are on the account as a joint holder, when Grandpa passes away, all of the funds in that account become yours, under most circumstances.However, joint tenancy is the animal that can become a beast for parents trying to leave property for children. Placing a house in joint tenancy with right of survivorship to a child could trigger a taxable event for the child. Additionally, suppose you have 2 children, the house, and life insurance. The house is worth $200,000 and the life insurance benefit is $200,000. You might think that leaving the house to one child and designating the other as beneficiary on the life insurance policy would be an even split. Yet, the child with the house may have to pay estate or gift taxes on the home, leaving the gifts to your children unequal. Tenancy by the entirety is joint tenancy for married couples. This may seem straightforward because most people know that transfers between husband and wife are not taxable events. But, what if the transfer was from husband to husband or wife to wife? Because the IRS doesn’t recognize husband to husband or wife to wife transfers, the survivor of the couple may be facing a taxable event like the child with the house. So when thinking about gifts or transfers of property, careful planning is needed to avoid these non-rental sticky wickets.
3 Reasons for Essential Family Talks and How to Manage Them, Despite Science-Fiction and Poker

Lawyers are no different from other groups when it comes to disagreeing with each other and, in fact, are probably worse. So while attending a recent seminar on trusts and estate planning, I was pleasantly surprised when my colleagues and I all agreed on one thing: People don’t like having the conversations needed for drafting adequate trusts and planning for the future, especially Baby Boomers and young couples. For example, a friend once told me that he and his wife hadn’t revisited the issue of guardianship for 13 years because it created such a stir the first time. Understandable. What man wants to tell his wife that instead of his mother-in-law, he’d rather have the kids raised by Darth Vader? Disclaimer: My friend did not say that about his wife’s mother. Baby Boomers don’t like talking about this issue because we cannot fathom that the world will continue to exist without us. Similarly, young couples, especially young parents, tend to believe that they are the world. Why not? Still, conversations about retirement and the Golden Years are essential and should be had a lot sooner than the appearance of the first strand of grey. How can we lawyers help if the conversations are sidestepped? Well, we try to provide compelling reasons for having these important chats, such as the following: If you’re a couple in your 20s or 30s the world is at your feet and you should do what you can to protect your world. Have you thought about your values and who in your families, outside of your partner, most accurately reflects those values? When you take vacations without the children and/or pets are you comfortable that your values are supported or do the children need reeling back in when returning from 3 weeks with Grandma? Perhaps you should gently suggest that Uncle Bob or Aunt Carol help Grandma out a few evenings. However, if Grandma rebukes the suggestion by playing the “grandparent trump card”: “I’m a grandparent and can do what I want for my grandchildren,” tell Uncle Bob or somebody to be at Grandma’s a few times a week. When Grandma huffs, blame it on a lawyer. Leaving the healthcare debate for another time, if you’re a Baby Boomer, you probably know that medical wonders abound to provide you or your parents with the physiological retirement deserved. Have you found a way to ensure that when their knees need replacing, Mom or Dad will be able to recuperate in the manner to which they’ve become accustomed without sacrificing your lifestyle or their independence? If, when approaching the subject, they start moaning about you deserting them and them living out their final moments with cold mashed potatoes and a checkerboard, suggest interviewing in-home, part-time caregivers and a cruise that gives AARP members discounts. If that doesn’t work, blame the cold potatoes on a lawyer. If you are a small business owner, your business may be your most valuable asset. When you are ready to release the reigns, at least a little bit, are you and your family comfortable with your individual successor or the successor management? Maybe one family member knows the business inside out and the other family member has no clue but 2 people are needed to run it. Update your business plan and bring the other family member in on management selection of neutral parties. If he or she doesn’t want to be involved from that perspective, blame the million-dollar IPO that the family member got locked out of on an accountant.
Do You Have a Sub-Clicker?

Loved ones typically leave beautiful, sentimental gifts behind, so we often think of bequests as tangible, personal or real property. However, other assets can be gifted, too – digital assets. In this context, digital assets are not intellectual property, such as copyrights or patents, but instead are items purchased and/or stored online or stored by some other electronic means that really take up no physical space per se. Consider this blog for a second – it’s not tangible, though reading it might result in numerous tangible benefits. Yet, even though this blog isn’t touchable, it’s something that I put effort into; something you accessed; and something that is “stored” on my website, which is stored on a chip somewhere in California and on my laptop chip in Illinois. Additionally, on those chips are zeroes and ones, not words, sentences, and paragraphs like you see here. Now, many people have blogs, not only professionals, but laypersons and parents, who are uber professionals, in my opinion. You may have a blog, or a Facebook/Meta page, a Flickr account, email somewhere, or other digital assets. Most folks do. Nevertheless, if a person were to become temporarily or permanently incapacitated, would there be anyone designated to manage those intangibles? More importantly, would they want their intangible, yet significant, account such as Facebook to be kept alive as a memorial? Would they want to assign someone as their sub-Tweeter? While most of us don’t have large rooms in our homes designed as libraries, several thousand people own some kind of e-book reader and millions own computers. What should they do with all that knowledge and (hopefully) good writing? Likewise, millions own digital music, but how many of us know how to transfer that music without violating copyright laws? These questions beg an even larger question – does your account allow you to transfer these assets and, if so, what would your trustee or executor have to show to access the account? If the file was paid for and non-musical, it is probably likely that you have a right to transfer. However, what if, in fact, the file was music, or what if it wasn’t paid for but just a free and cool (showing my vintage here) expression of your life experience. Who actually owns it, i.e., who is the rightful transferor? Well, I suggest taking these 3 steps: Create a document, listing all of your digital accounts, usernames, and pass codes. Give that document to a couple of “digital trustees”; not Aunt Gemma who doesn’t know how to use e-mail yet (and yes, there are aunts and uncles like that), and on the flipside, not to the friend who loses the text – another digital asset – you just sent them and never shows up on time. Research your accounts so you know your rights and the rights of your loved ones. Okay, an attorney could handle number 3 and include it in your will or trust, when the time is right. Still, I hope this encourages thought about one of the most important fingerprints we and one we often forget about, until our FB photo shows at the bottom of our Google search results, that is.
Why There\’s a \”Trust\” in Trustee, Part 2

In Part 1 of this series, I discussed why one should be careful in selecting a trustee. Family members are often considered the most trustworthy with respect to family matters, so people typically select them as trustees. However, this endearing gesture can cause serious problems later: Trust assets could be inadvertently wiped out. A trustee is usually responsible for managing the trust assets. If the trust is significant, the trustee should either have the required financial investment background or the ability to wisely choose someone with the needed background to act as the trust investment advisor. If the trustee is not well informed about investment matters relevant to the trust assets and does not employ someone who is, then the trust funds could dissipate leaving the terms of the trust unfulfilled, and probably one or more displeased beneficiaries. This last point is particularly important if the trust isn’t large, but the beneficiaries depend on its income for health and educational support, for example. Valid claims could go unanswered; or a trust claim could be ignored. The trustee is responsible for responding to or initiating litigation on behalf of the trust. So if a long lost family member who would have been provided for had their whereabouts been known, emerges claiming they should receive under the trust, the trustee should properly address that claim. If the trustee is a family member, however, the problem becomes one of bias against that claim because a valid claim could dilute the current beneficiaries’ shares, possibly including the trustee’s share. Another problem is that it takes time to respond to these claims, time that a family member may not have. Equally important is a trust may have a claim that needs to be litigated. But, if the trustee does not recognize the claim issue, a potential financial award for the beneficiaries may go unnoticed. Co-trustees don’t always agree. While the grantor may have gotten along well with both individuals, when it comes time to make a distribution decision or another decision involving the trust, the co-trustees may not see eye-to-eye and both could have valid perspectives. This type of disagreement starts many long-term family arguments resulting in costly court battles. If nothing else, by choosing a corporate fiduciary, the family will be at peace with each other and at war with someone else. Trust administration responsibilities are time consuming and numerous. The following is an incomplete list of trustee duties: Distributing beneficiary shares Providing a regular accounting to beneficiaries Paying debts, taxes, fees and expenses associated with the trust administration Giving notice to guardians or legal representatives of beneficiaries who are minors or incapacitated Executing documents required for trust administration Settling claims against the trust, not just from possible beneficiaries but from estate creditors Buying insurance for trust assets Perhaps now you’re thinking that a Last Will and Testament may circumvent this “trustee” matter, but that\’s not necessarily true. A Will’s executor or “personal representative” often has the same responsibilities as a trustee. So, establishing a Will not only requires delegation to the executor some of the responsibilities above, but in Illinois, it also entails more costs and more time because of probate. Therefore, it is critical to resist the urge to select a family member as a trustee – or executor – without first giving the decision the thought and discussion it deserves.
Why There\’s a \”Trust\” in Trustee, Part 1 of 2

Trust and Estates 101: No trust will fail because it doesn’t have a trustee. Thus, if a trust creator (\”settlor\” or \”grantor\”) doesn’t designate a trustee but has a beneficiary, the court will appoint a trustee for the beneficiary. Why? Because the beneficiary must be able to hold someone accountable in court if the terms of the trust aren’t met. So, the trustee has an obligation to the beneficiary or, in legal terms, the trustee is in a fiduciary relationship with the beneficiary. As a fiduciary, the trustee is held to a high standard of duty to the trust and primary beneficiaries. A trustee must act wisely with respect to the trust assets, managing them to both preserve and, if possible, grow the assets. The trustee can\’t use the assets for their own benefit, even if they are also a beneficiary, without consent from the other beneficiary or beneficiaries. Additionally, the trustee can\’t give the beneficiary’s rights to receive the assets to someone else unless the terms say otherwise. Example: If the Trust terms say only Beneficiary Barbara can receive a Trust distribution, Collector Carter shouldn\’t receive a distribution without a court order. The right to receive that distribution belongs to Barbara only. Finally, if the trust has multiple beneficiaries, the trustee can\’t favor one beneficiary’s needs over the other unless, again, the trust dictates such. This is one reason why, occasionally, bank trustees (\”corporate fiduciaries\”) are often preferred over close friends or family members. And it\’s also why family members sometimes refuse to act – they don\’t want to subject themselves to a potential lawsuit. Therefore, a trustee should be someone the settlor thinks will be loyal to the terms of the trust and not compromised by a relationship with a beneficiary, or a creditor for that matter. This is also why considerable thought should be given to who you name as trustee. Part 2
11 Truths about Trusts, Part 2 of 2

In Part 1, of this series, I explained how disclosing information about legal services benefits clients, namely by helping you save money. For me and my colleagues, the benefit comes in happy clients, more clients, and less stress. So, to continue gently pulling back Mr. Wizard’s curtain, the following are the last 6 of the 11 truths. Trusts are for old folks with lots of money. Truth: Trusts are also for young folks who have loved ones they want to protect, e.g., new partners, newlyweds, and children. My trust will not be affected if I move to another state. Truth: It depends. The document itself is not really affected unless it specifies a choice of law, and most do. This may be problematic because if you’re no longer in the state where the trust was created, the judge may consider it a jurisdictional problem. However, this can be easily remedied by amending the trust to reflect your current residency. Still, you might want to consider the valuation of the asset distribution with respect to state estate and gift taxes. Another challenge may also arise if you’ve moved from an equitable distribution state, like Illinois, to a community property state. Bank or corporate trustees are generally unnecessary. Fact: Bank or corporate trustees are generally very necessary for 2 reasons. First, they can be considered a neutral party so that if family members question a particular distribution term of the trust, the dispute is with someone outside the family, which helps maintain family harmony. Second, institutional trustees are often more financially savvy than family members. Now, there is, of course, a cost to having this peace of mind. Yet, small banks may be more willing to assist families with small trusts. (Thank you to my colleague, Ray Prather of Prather Ebner LLC.) Having an attorney review my DIY trust is unnecessary because the entities holding the assets determine its legitimacy. Truth: Yes, the banks and other entities that are asset-holders have the final ‘say-so’. But if they say, “Yes,” are they really correct? Consider this: Your trust only provides for your named children. The bank says the trust is valid and technically it is. Then later, you adopt or have another child but you don’t change the trust. The later child will be at the mercy of the trustee and the court. Attorneys are trained to ask questions related to these types of situations, which you may not consider when writing the trust yourself. You’ve already saved yourself money by drafting the document yourself. Allowing an attorney to review it in earnest, not just take your list through an auto-checklist like an auto-car-wash will also save your family money and potential heartache. Wills must go through probate. Truth. Most wills do go through probate. On the other hand, in Illinois, if the estate is less than $100,000, it is considered a small estate and in certain circumstances, probate may be waived. Moreover, if you have a trust with a pour-over will, irrespective of the size of your estate, probate may also be avoided. A trust should list all of the client’s assets. Truth. A trust should not detail every asset but only those assets listing title owner as the trust are covered by the trust.
11 Truths about Trusts, Part 1 of 2

Colleagues who bemoan the online legal services world are sometimes criticized by those in the online world for trying to keep the “Wizard” behind the curtain, so to speak. The criticism, which I agree with, is that clients are served better when they can understand what Mr. Wizard, Esq. is actually doing and saying. Yet, even my online colleagues can be a tad overly zealous in encouraging DIY applications. So to temper the curtain yanking but also shed sunlight on Mr. Wizard’s machinations, this 2-part series will provide a few truths about trusts, so let’s click our heels and get started: Attorneys charge more for trusts because we’ll never see clients again after creating the trusts for you, whereas wills keep you and your family coming back at least for probate, which generates big fees. Fact: Attorneys often charge more for trusts because it’s more work. We do see you again because life events such as divorces, re-marriages, and births often require a redesignation of beneficiaries at the least. Sometimes, we see you again because the IRS will inevitably change the tax code in a way that affects your trust. We will also see your beneficiaries if we are designated to administer the trust assets. So, the fees associated with creating a trust are not compensating for the loss of probate fees, they are compensation for the real work that is associated with creating, monitoring, and/or administering a trust. Provisions for tax benefits placed in wills can provide the same results as most trusts. Plus, tax savings in trusts are generally for the wealthy. Fact: True; provisions that save taxes can be placed in a will. However, a properly drafted, stand-alone will must be probated and probate fees will bite into the tax savings. Also, even if it is a small bite, heirs will still have to wait until the claims period ends – 6 months in Illinois – before receiving their distribution. With a trust, there is no probate. Still, while tax savings trusts are generally more applicable to the wealthy, who needs to ensure that they receive the benefits of tax savings and the distribution and sooner rather than later – wealthy beneficiaries or beneficiaries who are below the highest tax bracket? I cast my vote for those who need the money for college tuition, medical bills, or a mortgage payment. The trustee is not the owner of the trust assets because the relationship between trust, trustee, and beneficiary is a legal fiction. Fact: The trustee is the legal owner of the trust assets. With a “self-settled trust,\” the grantor (trust creator) can be the trustee and beneficiary, if the designation is proper under state law. Some grantors are comfortable with a different trustee and don’t require a self-settled trust; some are not. However, if the grantor and trustee are different persons, the grantor can hold the trustee legally accountable if the trustee does not comply with the trust terms. Some colleagues call the relationship as “legal fiction” and it could be interpreted that way. But, consider this: If your home is subject to a mortgage, can the bank come in and tell you what color to paint your walls or that you can’t tear down a wall or put in a closet? No. Similarly, if your house is subject to a trust you created and your son is trustee, he cannot tell you to move or paint the house blue, unless you give him that authority in the trust. Only attorneys can create trusts. Truth: A trust is a legally binding agreement. A legally binding agreement generally requires 2 parties who intend to enter into a mutually beneficial exchange, an offer of benefit, and acceptance of the offer. The parties are not required to be attorneys. Caveat: Agreements can be challenged by parties to the agreement or by intended third party beneficiaries, and that is why attorneys should usually be consulted when creating a trust. Those who say that a trust cannot be challenged by third parties are not considering what is legally referred to as “remaindermen,” and what folks like you and I call “grandkids.” A trust is needed only when a great deal of money is at stake. Truth: A trust is needed especially if a limited amount of income at stake, in case you become incapacitated, even temporarily. If you’re a trustee, with a back-up (\”successor\”) trustee, and you become temporarily incapacitated, the successor trustee will manage the trust until you recover. If you don’t have a trust, your family will have to petition probate court to have you declared incapacitated and appoint someone to look after your financial affairs and possibly a guardian until you recover. This process costs money that will be probably taken out of your limited income.
Taking the \”Estate\” Out of \”Estate Planning\”

People hearing the term, “estate planning” or even “legacy planning,” often wince, squirm, and cringe unless they are within a very fortunate income tax bracket. However, not one to be deterred, when I receive the rolling eyes or blank stare, I reach into my “unraveling legalese” briefcase and offer the following clarification: Your “estate” is anything you own. It doesn’t have to be a million-dollar home or a 1967 Aston Martin. It can include the 150 classic jazz LPs that belonged to your father, your grandmother’s wedding ring, or you and your spouse’s stubs to the Blackhawks 2010 championship. The goodwill created in your small business is also part of your estate, your legacy. Additionally, included are contracts in which you’ve assigned rights to be effectuated at a certain time, i.e., life insurance. Note, however, that though life insurance is a component of your entire estate, it is not part of your probate estate. Estate planning is the process by which everything you own and will likely own or inherit, as well as your liabilities and obligations, is considered to determine how best to transfer your possessions to your heirs and/or intended beneficiaries. If you own a home, a retirement account, life insurance, have one or more dependents and a dog, deciding on who gets what and why is the process of estate planning. Estate planning is not limited to considering how beneficiaries can inherit tax-free or how one can use the current state and federal tax laws to the advantage of your living trust beneficiaries. Estate planning also includes anticipating scenarios such as ensuring that the needs of dependents or a partner with special challenges is provided for and providing for special beneficiaries who may not yet be born. Hence, estate planning is just planning for your future. It is not a tool merely for the wealthy; estate planning is a tool for the wise.
Embracing Online Legal Services…Toothpaste Shouldn\’t Go Back into the Tube

Welcome to The Lotus Rules, formerly known as the Shark Free Zone, the blog for my practice\’s web site. As an experienced blogger, admittedly, this first post is too long, but it\’s the first so I took license. Still, for the sake of you readers and my practice, subsequent postings will be shorter. I was going to write my inaugural piece on why most individuals should have something in place protecting their property and possessions in case they die. However, most, if not all, of the teleconferences, seminars, and webinars that I’ve recently attended were tinged with angst caused by online legal services. Inevitably, a participant would give a haughty, “We’re not afraid of you …humph!” when nothing could be further from the truth. So, the “why you should have something,” piece will make its debut next, as I now share a few observations on the brouhaha regarding online legal services. The fundamental perception underlying the online legal services debate is based on our profession’s steadfast and imprudent use of an outdated framework. The 3 sides of this frame are change aversion, fee generation, and professional egoism. Encompassed within are a myriad of factors, including risk aversion, money affection, perfectionism, and control- and structure-orientation. However, it is the bottom of this non-gendered triumvirate, our professional egoism, causing the most discord. Arguably, certain arguments opposing online services are justified, as is a certain amount of lawyer egoism. Many colleagues and I spent years of enormous effort, anxiety, sleepless nights, money we did not have, and BIG brain power to get to achieve our goal – acceptance in one of the most respected professions in the world. So, those of us who “survived” are now in an “elite” group and that has to mean something. Right? Yes, it does … within reason. The reasonable justifications for opposing online services and justifications for our egoism include: A very high standard of performance in communication and analysis, A deference and respect for those seeking our services because most folks don’t turn to an attorney unless there’s trouble afoot, A deference for and an ability to establish rules that can stand the test of time, lending stability and civility to our society, aka “precedent,” and A genuine desire to help others – not necessarily the altruistic human rights,\”let\’s save the internally displaced\” kind of help, but the “if you sign this contract as it’s written, you’ll lose your shirt” kind. However, the unreasonable justifications are what foster the profession’s debate and undergird the angst: Interpreting elite as exclusionary whereby understanding the law is our territory and online legal services are trespassing, Defining clients as those who can pay premium fees for our efforts, and Simply meaning that “we’re ‘in’ and you’re ‘out’; hence, we make the rules, hide their meanings, and change them whenever we want; and you follow the rules while we enjoy lavish lifestyles.” The reasonable justifications for opposing online legal services can be reconciled with supporting the same. However, those of us holding on to the unreasonable justifications are doing so perilously. Understanding the law is not the exclusive purview of lawyers. It is our duty to protect our clients’ rights. For us to discharge that duty, clients should at least know what their rights are, when their rights are in jeopardy, or when they\’ve been violated. Yet, lawyers don’t sit around coffee shops to see who’s writing the next “One L” and we certainly don\’t troll sweatshops calculating how long the seamstress has worked and for what amount of compensation. Ergo, clients must have some understanding of the law as it applies to them in order to seek protection or demand redress. Frankly, non-exclusivity in this context has generally been the case, so exclusivity is a meritless argument and efforts to continue hiding behind the curtain in Oz are foolhardy. Let me explain. Several decades ago, on Main Street, USA, Almost Famous Author finished \”Two L\” and told Neighbor Nikki about his manuscript, who then advised “call the Library of Congress and get it copyrighted; they’ve got the forms.” Almost Famous Author did as advised but also went to see Attorney Shingle. Attorney Shingle gave Almost Famous Author the forms at no charge, saying, “Call me if ya got any questions, and don’t worry about the fee ‘cause it won’t take long.” In fact, the visit with Shingle was free, too. Well, times changed. Main Street gentrified into Wall Street and Attorney Shingle joined BL & Associates, LLC where forms along with most visits were no longer free. Moreover, Attorney Shingle’s son also went to law school and joined BL, and so did Attorney Shingle’s grandson, and times were great for the profession. Now, times have changed again. Technology allows companies and firms to provide free or inexpensive legal forms and free information, with expeditious delivery, so that even wannabe famous writers who could afford BL are obtaining legal services online. Irrefutable is that the purveyors of the new free forms and information earn a comfortable living, but they are also doing something to offset a most egregious result of the second factor – limiting who obtains help by requiring clients to pay a premium’s premium fee. Firms embracing technology are providing access to legal services to those who needed them but often could not afford them. Technology helped unmask the rules and unlock their “hidden” meanings with “plain English.” As a result, the technology toothpaste is out of the tube, so to speak. Yet, all is not lost for lawyers and clients who prefer the traditional ways. The legal profession has a great opportunity in its impending transformation. Of course, some practice areas are too complex to lend themselves to online services, e.g., international intellectual property matters and corporate litigation. However, if lawyers in even complex areas can unbundle repetitive, redundant processes, the outcome will be greater efficiency, happier clients, more clients, and higher income without increasing fees. In contrast, some areas must change dramatically or technology will devour