ICE Worksite Fines, No Thaw in Sight for 2013! (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)

The National Law Review recently published an article regarding Immigration Compliance written by Dawn M. Lurie with Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP:

Just how much money did Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) fine US companies last year? While we don’t have an exact number confirmed by the government, we do know the fine amounts skyrocketed to over $10 million according to data released by ICE in response to a request from the Associated Press. What’s more important is the fact that ICE issued over 3,000 Notices of Inspection (NOI) in FY 2012. An NOI initiates a government administrative inspection of a company’s Form I-9s. NOIs are considered administrative tools which are used to assist in criminal investigations. We also know that 238 company managers were arrested last year in light of these investigations. Under the Obama administration, civil administrative audits are just one of many tools ICE is using to reduce the demand for unauthorized unemployment and protect opportunities for U.S. workers. This enforcement strategy also includes the expanded use of civil penalties, employer audits, and debarment. While ICE has told stakeholders it no longer tracks the conclusion of an investigation or whether a matter is being pursued before the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO), we know the Agency does track how many Notices of Inspection (NOIs), Notices of Fines, Final Orders, and Debarments it issues. The scope of this Alert does not cover debarments for federal contractors, but it should be noted that ICE has rapidly expanded the program and continues to refine the suspension and debarment process.

With comprehensive immigration reform on the horizon and President Obama’s proposal calling for “cracking down on employers hiring undocumented workers,” we can expect at least another 3,000 audits in 2013 (bets anyone?). ICE is fairly predictable and consistent in its approach to worksite enforcement. In fact, it is likely we will see the first round of audits by mid-March. While the days of “worksite enforcement actions” (AKA raids) are gone, there are many in the government that still agree with the words of Julie Myers Wood, a current proponent for comprehensive immigration reform and former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for ICE who said, “We want to send the message that your cost of business just went up because you risk your livelihood, your corporate reputation and your personal freedom.” Wood was also quoted as saying that ICE was prosecuting “individuals who have profited from hiring illegal aliens…we’re going after their houses, their Mercedes and any money that they have, as well.”

For certain, NOIs and administrative audits are something every employer needs to take very seriously. These inspections are clearly serving as examples and being used as deterrents. Again, as immigration reform heats up and the Administration focuses on effectuating a new policy, the fines are likely to increase and enforcement efforts will be stepped up. The inequities that plague the worksite program in terms of how some employers are treated verses other employers will likely be addressed during the reform process. We can also expect that once reform is effectuated there will be serious consequences embedded in the legislation, not only for employers, but also for employees that work without authorization. That said, in order toemployers to the government, and provide employers with adequate tools and discernible guidance to determine who is authorized to work and who is not.

In the meantime, the fine amounts listed below, coupled with ensuing bad P.R., legal expenses and other drains on a company involved in a worksite investigation should be high enough to catch the attention of “mom & pop” employers and the Board of Directors of public companies alike.

Specifics from four states

In numbers that were just released today, February 5th, ICE noted it fined 10 businesses in San Diego and Imperial counties more than $173,800 for hiring “unlawful” employees. In addition to listing the names of the businesses and the amounts fined the agency noted in a news release, “In fiscal year 2012, HSI conducted 151 worksite audits in San Diego and Imperial counties, compared to 86 audits the previous year and 63 audits in fiscal year 2010.”

In Massachusetts, ICE issued a total of thirty-five NOIs and ultimately fined seventeen employers for a total of $349,620. The fines hit Northern Pelagic Group (NORPEL) particularly hard with the highest amount fined in Massachusetts, $151,200. Special agent in charge (SAC) of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Boston Bruce M. Foucart disclosed that ICE’s investigation of NORPEL discovered 351 suspect documents, which according to Foucart “for the most part…means the employee[s] [were] illegal.”

Companies in Connecticut were fined a total of $132,584. Out of the eighteen inspections ICE conducted, ICE issued twelve fines to Connecticut companies ranging from $45,000 to $1,386. Calabro Cheese Corporation of East Haven received the highest fine of $45,000. Foucart, who has jurisdiction over this area as well, announced that the company had a “significant amount” of workers with suspect documents, along with “supporting documents that were not real or were from someone else.” Calabro’s general manager Rich Kaminski noted that ICE “led all of the people who were illegal out of [the company] on the same day.”

Rounding third on the list of fines was Maine with a grand total of $78,967. Out of the twenty-two inspections ICE conducted, eight resulted in fines ranging from $13,900 to $1,777. While substantial, these numbers represent a significant drop from ICE’s total fines of $150,000 for only six Maine companies in 2011. SAC Foucart of Boston who oversees HSI throughout New England noted that these settlements will “serve as a reminder to employers that HSI will continue to hold them accountable for hiring and maintaining a legal and compliant workforce.” Foucart expanded that employers should “take the employment verification process seriously” because ICE is expanding the number of audits it is conducting each year, focusing on employers that are “knowingly employing illegal workers.” According to Foucart, ICE will continue to target specific industries and businesses known or alleged to hire illegal workers. ICE has continued its trend of ramping up worksite enforcement efforts in the criminal arenas, as well. Last October, three individuals were arrested for unlawful employment and for conspiracy to induce illegal aliens to reside in the United States. The indictment alleges that the three owners of the Bamboo Village restaurant in Rosenberg, Texas, hired employees without completing Form I-9s or viewing identification and work authorization documents. If convicted of the conspiracy charge, the owners could face up to ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

In September, Micro Solutions Enterprises (MSE) and its owner both pled guilty to criminal charges resulting from a HSI investigation in 2007. As part of its plea bargain, MSE pled guiltyto one misdemeanor count of continuing to employ unauthorized workers, admitted to hiring fifty-five unauthorized workers and continuing to employ them, will pay $267,000 in civil and criminal fines, and is on a three-year probation term with implementation of “stringent measures” to ensure it is complying with hiring laws. MSE’s owner pled guilty to one felony count of false representation of a Social Security number and faces up to five years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine.

There is good news to add in at this point. A review of recent OCAHO decisions, illustrates that for the majority of those employers challenging the fine assessments ICE in 2012, the court reduced the amounts of the fines/penalties sought by the government.

The Takeaway

What is the bottom line? Take NOIs seriously. Consider while some companies get lucky with new/inexperienced auditors and agents who may not have the time or interest to pursue an investigation, other special agents remain aggressive. Also consider that in many instances neither ICE nor the U.S. Attorney’s office will forgive companies who they consider to be “willfully blind”. Ignoring a “problematic” work force, identity theft issues, and error-ridden Form I-9s can lead to the knowing hiring or continued employment of unauthorized workers. At the same time, if you have received a fine notice from ICE after trying to negotiate a reasonable settlement, don’t rule out a hearing before OCAHO, if the economics warrant, and the company has the appetite to challenge the fine assessment.

The message remains the same: Be proactive; review your Form I-9-related compliance; conduct internal audits supervised by experienced counsel and act on the results; do not ignore unconventional Social Security no-match notifications (such as unemployment claims of employees not working at your company) and potential identity theft issues; provide ongoing training to those individuals completing Form I-9s; seriously consider the use of E-Verify, and finally, above all else, institute a written compliance plan and establish workable policies.

Chief Litigation Officer Summit – March 21-23, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Chief Litigation Officer Summit:

The primary objective of the Chief Litigation Officer Summit is to explore the key aspects and issues related to litigation best practices and the protection and defense of corporations. The Summit’s program topics have been pinpointed and validated by leading litigation counsel as the top critical issues they face.

March 21-23, 2013

The Broadmoor, Colorado Springs, CO

#Human Resources Tip – Save Those Voicemails

Mitchell W. Quick with Michael Best & Friedrich LLP had an article, #Human Resources Tip – Save Those Voicemails, featured in The National Law Review:

Probably every Human Resources Manager has received a voicemail from an employee advising them he is “quitting.” Sometimes the employee even “thanks” the HR Manager and/or the company for the “opportunity,” and does not say anything negative about his employment experience.

I strongly recommend saving such voicemails from any employee the company suspects is a “litigation risk” (in their original audio format) for at least a year, and preferably two.

Why save them? Employees often conveniently change their “stories” or recollections after quitting. Such voicemails present compelling evidence to defeat an employee’s later claim that he was “fired” or “forced to quit” (aka “constructive discharge”). They are particularly useful in knocking down unemployment compensation claims and previously unreported claims of harassment. The employee is left to “explain away” his own statements, and will not appear credible in doing so.

Why save them that long? Under most federal and state laws, claims for discrimination, harassment and retaliation generally have to be asserted within 300 days of the alleged adverse employment action. Retaining the voicemail for at least a year will ensure you have it available if a claim is filed. Keeping them two years is preferable because claims under the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) can be asserted 2 (or even 3) years later.

Bottom line: don’t hit the “delete” button, and you may “save” your case!

White Collar Crime Institute – March 6-8, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming White Collar Crime Institute:

The program will provide an in-depth analysis of three recent high visibility trials by the lawyers involved in the cases. The many topics covered will include: ethical pitfalls and blunders in white collar practice, conducting global investigations (including issues of competing laws), data privacy and blocking statutes, trial tactics in white collar cases, Brady obligations, international issues in white collar practice (including obtaining evidence abroad), handling of, and dealing with, issues related to electronically stored materials, sentencing guidelines and arguing for a departure, updates and trends in securities and FCPA enforcement, and more!

Awuah v. Coverall: What If I Didn’t Know About The Mandatory Arbitration Provision In My Franchise Agreement?

The National Law Review recently featured an article by Matthew J. Kreutzer with Armstrong Teasdale titled, Awuah v. Coverall: What If I Didn’t Know About The Mandatory Arbitration Provision In My Franchise Agreement?:

A new ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Awuah v. Coverall case, No. 12-1301, — F.3d — (1st Cir. Dec. 27, 2012), is yet the latest in a string of recent court decisions that confirm the strength and enforceability of arbitration clauses in franchise agreements.

The Awuah case first made waves two years ago when the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts compared the franchise relationship between Coverall (a janitorial service franchisor) and its franchisees to a “modified Ponzi scheme.” You can read more about that decision in my prior blog posts here and here. This latest ruling deals with the enforceability of the arbitration clauses in a number of the subject franchise agreements.

The facts can be summarized as follows: a class of franchisees sued their franchisor, Coverall North America, which is a janitorial cleaning service. The franchisees assert several state-law claims against Coverall, including claims for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and deceptive and unfair business practices. In addition, the franchisees claim that Coverall misclassified them as independent contractors when they are, in fact, employees, and that Coverall failed to pay wages due to them.

Appellees, who are a subset of the overall class, challenge Coverall’s contention that appellees should be required to arbitrate the dispute based on arbitration clauses in the subject franchise agreements. Appellees became Coverall franchisees by signing Consent to Transfer Agreements, or Guaranties to Coverall Janitorial Franchise Agreements. These documents did not themselves contain arbitration clauses, but instead incorporated by reference the terms and provisions of the transferor’s franchise agreements, which did contain such clauses. None of the appellees allegedly received (or requested) copies of the franchise agreement signed by its respective transferor.

Appellees argued to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts that “it is black-letter law in the First Circuit that an individual may not be bound to an arbitration clause if he does not have notice of it,” citing cases brought under federal employment statutes. Appellees made the point that Coverall had not demonstrated that any of them were shown the transferor’s franchise agreement, or that they were shown the arbitration clause contained therein. The District Court agreed, determining that the appellees did not have to arbitrate their claims against Coverall because they did not have adequate notice of the arbitration clause in the franchise agreement. Coverall appealed.

The U.S. District Court for the First Circuit overturned the District Court’s ruling, finding that under governing Massachusetts law, “one who signs a written agreement is bound by its terms whether he reads and understands them or not.” The Court further found that Massachusetts does not impose any requirement that the parties be given special notice of an arbitration provision. In any event, the Court stated, any such requirement would be preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., which requires that agreements to arbitrate be treated in the same manner as other contracts.

This latest decision serves as a reminder for prospective franchisees to carefully review a proposed franchise agreement before signing. For existing franchisees, it is a warning that mandatory arbitration clauses are not easily avoided. For franchisors, the decision highlights the importance of ensuring that, when a franchisee transfer or assign their franchises, the new franchisees receive and sign a full copy of the franchise agreement that will be effective post-sale.

Rainmaker Retreat: Law Firm Marketing Boot Camp

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Law Firm Marketing Boot Camp:

WHY SHOULD YOU ATTEND?

Have you ever gone to a seminar that left you feeling motivated, but you walked out with little more than a good feeling? Or taken a workshop that was great on style, but short on substance?

Ever been to an event that was nothing more than a “pitch fest” that left a bad taste in your mouth? We know exactly how you feel. We have all been to those kinds of events and we hate all those things too. Let me tell you right up front this is not a “pitch fest” where speaker after speaker gets up only trying to sell you something.

We have designed this 2 day intensive workshop to be content rich, loaded with practical content.

We are so confident you will love the Rainmaker Retreat that we offer a 100% unconditional money-back guarantee! At the end of the first day of the Rainmaker Retreat if you don’t believe you have already received your money’s worth, simply tell one of the staff, return your 70-page workbook and the CD set you received and we will issue you a 100% refund.

We understand making the decision to attend an intensive 2-day workshop is a tough decision. Not only do you have to take a day off work (all Rainmaker Retreats are offered only on a Friday-Saturday), but in many cases you have to travel to the event. As a business owner you want to be sure this is a worthwhile investment of your time and money.

WHO SHOULD ATTEND?

Partners at Small Law Firms (less than 25 attorneys) Solo Practitioners and Of Counsel attorneys who are committed to growing their firm. Benefits you will receive:

Solo practitioners who need to find more clients fast on a shoe-string budget. In addition to all the above benefits, solo attorneys will receive these massive benefits:

Law Firm Business Managers and Internal Legal Marketing Staff who are either responsible for marketing the law firm or manage the team who handles the law firm’s marketing. In addition to all the above benefits, Law Firm Business Managers and Internal Legal Marketing Staff will also receive these benefits:

Of Counsel Attorneys who are paid on an “eat what you kill” basis. In addition to all the above benefits, Of Counsel attorneys will also receive these benefits:

Associates who are either looking to grow their book of new clients in the next 6-12 months or want to launch their own private practice. In addition to all the above benefits, Associates will also receive these benefits:

New Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) Release will Address Student and Exchange Visitor Visa Overstays

Featured recently in The National Law Review, New Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) Release will Address Student and Exchange Visitor Visa Overstays, an article by William J. Flynn, III with Fowler White Boggs P.A.:

A new version of the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS)is scheduled to release this spring. The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), a faction of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is developing the new release as part of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiative to address visa overstays by F and M students and J exchange visitors. “Release 6.12” will enable better and more frequent data sharing between SEVIS and the Arrival Departure Information System (ADIS). As a result, SEVIS will now contain I-94 Arrival/Departure Record information, as well as passport information for students and exchange visitors who overstay their visas.

SEVIS is an internet-based system that was launched in 2002. The system allows DHS to track and monitor information related to SEVP-certified schools and international students in F and M status, along with their dependents. The U.S. Department of State (DOS) also uses SEVIS to access information related to DOS-designated visitor program sponsors and J-1 exchange visitors and their dependents. The new information-sharing technology of Release 6.12 will facilitate the efforts of both agencies with respect to overstays.

As part of the DHS initiative, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has also created a visa overstay working group to address the overstay of students and exchange visitors. The group will work towards creating a solution to facilitate the identification, location, and removal of students who overstay their status.

In light of these new initiatives, it is especially important for students and other nonimmigrant visa holders to maintain lawful status for the entire duration of stay in the United States. Overstaying a visa can not only jeopardize one’s eligibility for renewals and extensions, but may also negatively affect eligibility for permanent residence and other immigration options in the future. If you have questions on maintaining lawful status in the U.S., or would like more information on the new DHS student overstay initiative, please contact Bill Flynn, Board Certified Immigration and Nationality attorney.

2013 National Law Review Law Student Writing Competition

The National Law Review is pleased to announce their 2013 Law Student Writing Competition

The National Law Review (NLR) consolidates practice-oriented legal analysis from a variety of sources for easy access by lawyers, paralegals, law students, business executives, insurance professionals, accountants, compliance officers, human resource managers, and other professionals who wish to better understand specific legal issues relevant to their work.

The NLR Law Student Writing Competition offers law students the opportunity to submit articles for publication consideration on the NLR Web site. No entry fee is required. Applicants can submit an unlimited number of entries each month.

Winning submissions will be published according to specified dates.
Entries will be judged and the top two to four articles chosen will be featured on the NLR homepage for a month. Up to 5 runner-up entries will also be posted in the NLR searchable database each month.
Each winning article will be displayed accompanied by the student’s photo, biography, contact information, law school logo, and any copyright disclosure.
All winning articles will remain in the NLR database for two years (subject to earlier removal upon request of the law school).

In addition, the NLR sends links to targeted articles to specific professional groups via e-mail. The NLR also posts links to selected articles on the “Legal Issues” or “Research” sections of various professional organizations’ Web sites. (NLR, at its sole discretion, maydistribute any winning entry in such a manner, but does not make any such guarantees nor does NLR represent that this is part of the prize package.)

Congratulations to our 2012 and 2011 Law Student Writing Contest Winners

Fall 2012: October Contest

Spring 2012:

Winter 2012:

Fall 2011:

Why Students Should Submit Articles:

Students have the opportunity to publicly display their legal knowledge and skills.
The student’s photo, biography, and contact information will be posted with each article, allowing for professional recognition and exposure.
Winning articles are published alongside those written by respected attorneys from Am Law 200 and other prominent firms as well as from other respected professional associations.
Now more than ever, business development skills are expected from law firm associates earlier in their careers. NLR wants to give law students valuable experience generating consumer-friendly legal content of the sort which is included for publication in law firm client newsletters, law firm blogs, bar association journals and trade association publications.
Student postings will remain in the NLR online database for up to two years, easily accessed by potential employers.
For an example of a contest winning student written article from Northwestern University, please click here or please review the winning submissions from Spring 2011.

Content Guidelines and Deadlines

Content Guidelines must be followed by all entrants to qualify. It is recommended that articles address the following monthly topic areas:

March 2013 Suggested Topic:

Labor Law

Submission Deadline: Monday, March 4, 2013

Articles covering current issues related to other areas of the law may also be submitted. Entries must be submitted via email to lawschools@natlawreview.com by 5:00 pm Central Standard Time on the dates indicated above.

Articles will be judged by NLR staff members on the basis of readability, clarity, organization, and timeliness. Tone should be authoritative, but not overly formal. Ideally, articles should be straightforward and practical, containing useful information of interest to legal and business professionals. Judges reserve the right not to award any prizes if it is determined that no entries merit selection for publication by NLR. All judges’ decisions are final. All submissions are subject to the NLR’s Terms of Use.

Students are not required to transfer copyright ownership of their winning articles to the NLR. However, all articles submitted must be clearly identified with any applicable copyright or other proprietary notices. The NLR will accept articles previously published by another publication, provided the author has the authority to grant the right to publish it on the NLR site. Do not submit any material that infringes upon the intellectual property or privacy rights of any third party, including a third party’s unlicensed copyrighted work.

Manuscript Requirements

Format – HTML (preferred) or Microsoft^® Word
Length – Articles should be no more than 5,500 words, including endnotes.
Endnotes and citations – Any citations should be in endnote form and listed at the end of the article. Unreported cases should include docket number and court. Authors are responsible for the accuracy and proper format of related cites. In general, follow the Bluebook. Limit the number of endnotes to only those most essential. Authors are responsible for accuracy of all quoted material.
Author Biography/Law School Information – Please submit the following:
1. Full name of author (First Middle Last)
2. Contact information for author, including e-mail address and phone number
3. Author photo (recommended but optional) in JPEG format with a maximum file size of 1 MB and in RGB color format. Image size must be at least 150 x 200 pixels.
4. A brief professional biography of the author, running approximately 100 words or 1,200 characters including spaces.
5. The law school’s logo in JPEG format with a maximum file size of 1 MB and in RGB color format. Image size must be at least 300 pixels high or 300 pixels wide.
6. The law school mailing address, main phone number, contact e-mail address, school Web site address, and a brief description of the law school, running no more than 125 words or 2,100 characters including spaces.

To enter, an applicant and any co-authors must be enrolled in an accredited law school within the fifty United States. Employees of The National Law Review are not eligible. Entries must include ALL information listed above to be considered and must be submitted to the National Law Review at lawschools@natlawreview.com.

Any entry which does not meet the requirements and deadlines outlined herein will be disqualified from the competition. Winners will be notified via e-mail and/or telephone call at least one day prior to publication. Winners will be publicly announced on the NLR home page and via other media. All prizes are contingent on recipient signing an Affidavit of Eligibility, Publicity Release and Liability Waiver. The National Law Review 2011 Law Student Writing Competition is sponsored by The National Law Forum, LLC, d/b/a The National Law Review, 4700 Gilbert, Suite 47 (#230), Western Springs, IL 60558, 708-357-3317. This contest is void where prohibited by law. All entries must be submitted in accordance with The National Law Review Contributor Guidelines per the terms of the contest rules. A list of winners may be obtained by writing to the address listed above. There is no fee to enter this contest.

Estate Planning with Digital Assets in Mind

H. Trigg Mitchell with McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC recently had an article, Estate Planning with Digital Assets in Mind, published in The National Law Review:

“It’s ‘Bosco’!!” Seinfeld fans will recall from “The Secret Code” episode that George Costanza created a good deal of chaos by being reluctant to share his secret code. By the same token, failing to share the secret codes to your digital assets could put a wrench in your best laid estate plans. This article will discuss various measures that you can implement to insure that your digital assets will pass in accordance with your desires.

Whether we like it or not, the world is changing at warp speed. Paper statements for bank accounts and the like are going to the way of the dodo bird. Those dusty old books that used to gobble up shelf space can now be stored on a device that fits in the palm of your hand. Same goes for the vinyl records you bought with money from mowing lawns. And who would have ever thought that you’d be able to share pictures of your children or grandchildren with your friends and family by posting them on Facebook?

As the world becomes more and more digital, so too do the assets which comprise your estate. Digital assets encompass a wide variety of items. The website www.digitalestateresourse.com defines digital assets to include the following:

files stored on digital devices, including but not limited to, desktops, laptops, tablets, peripherals, storage devices, mobile telephones, smartphones, and any similar digital device which currently exist or may exist as technology develops; and
e-mails received, e-mail accounts, digital music, digital photographs, digital videos, digital books, software licenses, social network accounts, file sharing accounts, financial accounts, banking accounts, tax preparation service accounts, online stores, affiliate programs, other online accounts, and similar digital items which currently exist or may exist as technology develops, regardless of the ownership of the physical device upon which the digital item is stored.”

Failing to properly catalogue your digital assets could have a variety of negative consequences. By way of example, that rainy day savings account that you never told anyone about could go undetected by the executor of your estate; and those vacation photos which your family would so enjoy could be forever locked in a Shutterfly account.

So what needs to be done to insure that your digital assets are properly accounted for and that they go to their intended beneficiaries? Taking the following steps will go a long way towards accomplishing your objectives: (1) keep a master list of your digital assets; (2) keep the master list current; (3) tell someone where you keep the master list; (4) determine whether your digital assets are transferable; and (5) consider making specific provisions for them in your Will.

(1) KEEPING A LIST. The most important step in properly handling your digital assets is to create a master list of such assets. I find Excel spreadsheets to be a helpful tool for creating and maintaining such lists. For each of your digital assets, consider including the following information: (i) a description of the asset (e.g., TD Ameritrade Brokerage Account); (ii) where the asset is located (e.g.,www.tdameritrade.com); (iii) any account number or user name associated with the asset; and (iv) any password that is necessary to gain access to the asset.

(2) CURRENT INFORMATION. Creating a list of digital assets without keeping the information current is about as useful as having an ashtray on a motorcycle. It doesn’t do your executor any good to know that the brokerage account you opened in 2004 was with TD Ameritrade. Rather, he really needs to know that you transferred the assets to Fidelity Investments in 2009 and that is where the assets are currently located. Ideally you should update the master list every time you change the location of the assets, change a password or make a similar change. Short of that, you should review your master list at least once every three months and after you have done so, make a notation to that effect on the master list. Something such as “Current as of 12/1/12” would work nicely.

(3) LOCATION OF THE LIST. Creating and maintaining the master list does your heirs no good unless you share its location with someone you trust. As a best practice, you should tell your executor where the master list is located and you should keep a copy of the master list with your other valuable papers and documents.

(4) NOT ALL DIGITAL ASSETS ARE TRANSFERABLE. Unless you are the one person in 10,000 who actually reads the user agreement when you establish an online account, you should revisit each user agreement for your online accounts to determine which of your digital assets are transferrable upon your death. By way of example, not all airlines permit the transfer of frequent flyer miles upon the death of the account holder. Upon making such a determination, you should update your master list accordingly.

(5) SPECIFIC BEQUESTS OF DIGITAL ASSETS. Now that your executor knows your digital assets exist, they should pass in accordance with your overall estate plan. Without making specific provisions for your digital assets, they will pass pursuant to the residuary clause of your Will. So, while it is not necessary to make specific bequests of your digital assets, as a practical matter it may be advisable to do so. For example, I know that my wife would love to have the family photos stored on my laptop, but I can promise you that she has no interest in the Alex Cross novels I’ve purchased for my Kindle Fire or the Johnny Cash albums I’ve purchased for my iPhone.

Digital assets are often an overlooked component of even the most complicated estate plans. However, with proper planning you can make sure that all of your digital assets are properly accounted for and that they pass according to your wishes. To assess the current health of your estate plan, including a determination of whether your digital assets are properly accounted for, consider scheduling an appointment with your estate planning attorney.

2013 National Association of Women Lawyers Mid-Year Conference

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming 2013 NAWL Mid-Year Conference – Stretched & Balanced:

Please join NAWL at Walt Disney World®, Florida for our 2013 Mid-Year meeting, February 14-16, 2013.

Attend timely andstimulating CLE programs that will assist you as a woman lawyer in your practice setting.

Network with NAWL membersfrom across the country, plan future activities with your colleagues on NAWL committees, and have a family-oriented, fun-filled time at the theme parks.

View Brochure (.pdf)

The National Law Forum

ICE Worksite Fines, No Thaw in Sight for 2013! (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)

Specifics from four states

The Takeaway

Like this:

Chief Litigation Officer Summit – March 21-23, 2013

Like this:

#Human Resources Tip – Save Those Voicemails

Like this:

White Collar Crime Institute – March 6-8, 2013

Like this:

Awuah v. Coverall: What If I Didn’t Know About The Mandatory Arbitration Provision In My Franchise Agreement?

Like this:

New Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) Release will Address Student and Exchange Visitor Visa Overstays

Like this:

2013 National Law Review Law Student Writing Competition

Congratulations to our 2012 and 2011 Law Student Writing Contest Winners

Fall 2012: October Contest

Spring 2012:

Winter 2012:

Fall 2011:

Content Guidelines and Deadlines

March 2013 Suggested Topic:

Articles covering current issues related to other areas of the law may also be submitted. Entries must be submitted via email to lawschools@natlawreview.com by 5:00 pm Central Standard Time on the dates indicated above.

Manuscript Requirements

Like this:

Estate Planning with Digital Assets in Mind

Like this:

2013 National Association of Women Lawyers Mid-Year Conference

Like this:

Specifics from four states

The Takeaway

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

WHY SHOULD YOU ATTEND?

WHO SHOULD ATTEND?

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Congratulations to our 2012 and 2011 Law Student Writing Contest Winners

Fall 2012: October Contest

Spring 2012:

Winter 2012:

Fall 2011:

Content Guidelines and Deadlines

March 2013 Suggested Topic:

Articles covering current issues related to other areas of the law may also be submitted. Entries must be submitted via email to lawschools@natlawreview.com by 5:00 pm Central Standard Time on the dates indicated above.

Manuscript Requirements

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: