On Tuesday, January 19^th, the Obama Administration announced plans to implement new hospital visitation regulations. These new regulations extend to same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. Under the new regulations, patients being treated at nearly all hospitals, specifically those that accept Medicare and Medicaid, will now be allowed to make their own decisions as to who has visitation rights and who can make medical decisions on their behalf.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services has added these new regulations to the already existing requirements that hospitals and critical access hospitals (CAH’s) must meet in order to participate in the Medicare and States’ Medicaid programs. Under these new regulations, hospitals are obligated to have written policies and procedures regarding patients’ visitation rights.  They must inform each patient, or his or her representative, of the patient’s visitation rights, subject to his or her consent, to receive the visitors whom he or she designates, be it a spouse, another family member, or a friend, and of the right to withdraw or deny such consent at any time; and the hospital would not be permitted to restrict, limit, or otherwise deny visitation privileges on the basis of race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. Officials said the new visitation regulations would also benefit, for example, childless widows or widowers who may seek the care and companionship of an unmarried partner or friend. The regulations also apply to members of religious orders.

This is an important victory for many who have suffered the tragedy of being denied visitation to their partners. Can you imagine not being allowed to see your loved ones during their final hours? This social injustice has been documented numerous times and is exactly what the new proposed regulations are hope to quash. Previously, the regulations stated that visitation was only granted on the grounds of marriage or blood relation. Obama told the public, after the announcement, that the LGBT community is uniquely effected by hospital visitation rights and “are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives — unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated.”

One touching story inspired President Obama to enact the regulation. For nearly 4 years, Janice Langbehn has been tirelessly fighting for equality. Her fight was for hospital visitation regulations to be expanded beyond the traditional hetero-marriage model. Her partner, Lisa Pond, of 18 years collapsed with an aneurysm during a Florida vacation. She was taken to a Miami trauma center where she died, at age 39.  Despite tirelessly fighting to persuade hospital officials to let her and their adopted children, Danielle, 15; David, 13; and Katie, 12 to visit Lisa, passed away without the comfort of family around her.  Langbehn sued the hospital for the tragedy they faced.  Lambda Legal represented the family which resulted in the court dismissing the lawsuit. The court’s reasoning was that no statue existed to protect Janice and her partner Lisa.

Obama, inspired by this story, decided to change these regulations. He drafted a proposal that was made public by the Department of Health and Human Services. After President Obama issued a presidential memorandum directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to take steps to fix health care issues affecting LGBT families, he called Janice Langbehn to express his sympathies for her tragic loss.

Lambda Legal has noted that some important protections still need to be added to the new regulations. The new regulations do not outline who may visit when an incapacitated patient has not designated someone to make decisions.  Also, there is still a need for an appeals procedure for visitation denials, and for hospices and nursing homes to have LGBT-specific nondiscrimination policies in place.

Though the outlook is positive the regulations will not take immediate effect because it will take time to fully flush out and draft the regulations.  In the meantime, it is important to understand your rights for hospital visitation and to talk with your doctor about who you want to have access to you in times of medical emergency.  Moreover, contact your attorney and have him or her draw up a hospital visitation authorization, a living will and a health-care proxy.  These documents allow you to designate who can visit you in the hospital, as well as designate who will make health-care decisions should you become unconscious or unable to communicate them yourself.  Under most state laws, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender partners are not considered family and these documents helps to overcome traditional definitions of family and outlines what family means to you while protecting your lifelong partner.

Also, please consider that even if you know your local hospital’s policy, emergencies can happen when traveling. Traveling to another state is one instance when the need for a living will and health-care proxy documents are crucial. Although some states, such as North Carolina, Delaware, Nebraska, and Minnesota, have already enacted their own laws granting patients the right to designate visitors, it is important to remember that each state, each hospital and each attendant at each hospital, has a different perspective about gay rights. Ultimately, you must have all legal documents in place and accessible in the event that you or a loved one needs hospitalization.

**Angela D. Giampolo, Principal of Giampolo Law Group maintains offices in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey and specializes in LGBT Law, Business Law, Real Estate Law and Civil Rights. Her website is www.giampololaw.com and she maintains a blog www.phillygaylawyer.com. Please feel free to send Angela your legal questions at angela@giampololaw.com.

The modern gay rights and current immigration movements may seem like two dissimilar issues; however, the two issues have much more in common than what initially meets the eye.  The push for human dignity, respect, and equality under the law are dominant themes underlying both minority movements.   And, with a large population of gay immigrants seeking refuge in the United States, the LGBT community cannot afford to shy away from ever present immigration concerns.

The United States has historically opened its doors to those seeking a better life, but as times have changed, so too has America’s stance on immigration. Today, immigrants hoping to join America’s melting pot are not always met with welcoming arms, a sentiment all too familiar to many LGBT individuals.

As the push for equality on both fronts moves forward, Deepak Bhargava, Executive Director of Washington, D.C.’s Center for Community Change, believes the immigrant movement can take a page out of the LGBT book in noting, “I think the LGBT movement is one of the few progressive social justice movements that is really moving the country in the right direction.  The work that the LGBT movement has done on every front, from legal and legislative to cultural, offers a good model for the immigrant rights movement.”  One thing is for sure, the LGBT community has been extremely successful at garnering outside support.  An increasing number of non-LGBT individuals have become passionate about standing up for LGBT rights. Arguably, this shift in attitude among straight allies is what has helped propel the LGBT movement forward.   In the same regard, immigrants must work to garner the support of the non-immigrant communities in order to have a viable chance at gaining equal footing.

LGBT issues are not confined to naturally born LGBT citizens.    LGBT immigrants face the same discrimination and abuse as any other LGBT individual.   “LGBT People who are not legalized are often afraid to report hate crimes, fight job or housing discrimination, report police abuse, or stand up for their own civil rights, which will have an impact on all other LGBT people”, reports Kevin Cathcart, Executive Director of Lambda Legal.  In addition, LGBT individuals in detention, especially transgender individuals, are oftentimes subject to brutal discrimination and abuse.  Thus, as Bhargava points out, immigration needs reform because currently, “[p]roviding a path to citizenship is a gay issue.  For so many LGBT people, it is the single most transformative thing that could be done to improve their lives.”

Just as LGBT issues are not confined to naturally born LGBT citizens, immigration issues are is not solely confined to immigrants.  Although immigrants are more likely to have a same-sex partner located outside of the U.S. and are unable to petition the government for their partner to come to the U.S., immigrant couples are not the only ones torn apart by the current policy.  Under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, U.S. citizens and legal residents may sponsor their foreign “spouse” for immigration purposes, but because under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage, same-sex partners are not considered “spouses” for immigration purposes.  As a result, foreign born individuals comprising 50% of same-sex couples continue to face deportation, even in situations where a same-sex couple may be legally married under prevailing state law.

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, which includes the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), which was reintroduced into the Senate this past June, looks to overturn the current policy.  UAFA would not end DOMA. Rather, UAFA was purposefully drafted to circumvent DOMA.  If passed, the legislation would allow U.S. nationals to sponsor their foreign-born same-sex permanent partners for citizenship. The Human Rights Campaign website (www.hrc.org) provides the following explanation of the bill.

UAFA defines “permanent partner” as an individual who is at least 18 years of age who is in a committed relationship with another individual at least 18 years of age who is not a first, second or third-degree blood relative, with the intent that this be a lifelong commitment.

The individual must be financially interdependent with his or her partner, cannot be married or in another permanent partnership and must be unable to enter into a marriage recognized under the INA with the partner.

UAFA will provide lesbian and gay individuals the same opportunity as different-sex, married couples to sponsor their partner.  Like different-sex couples, there are requirements such as providing proof of the relationship — including affidavits from friends and family or evidence of financial support.  As with current immigration laws for married couples, UAFA would impose harsh penalties for fraud, including up to five years in prison and as much as $250,000 in fines.

The UAFA has been introduced into every session of Congress since 2000; however, the stand alone act continuously failed to garner majority support.  Advocates of the measure hope UAFA will perform better this time around packaged as part of the overall immigration reform, but with little bi-partisan support, the Act will have a hard time navigating its way through Congress, especially since the Republicans have taken up defense of DOMA.

Although it would not end DOMA, UAFA’s passage would be a huge step forward for both the LGBT and immigration movements.  And while indeed the two communities share common goals and face similar pitfalls as outlined above, one factor separating the two communities remains – the notion that the large wave of immigrants is comprised of socially conservative individuals who typically oppose LGBT rights.  This notion, combined with the fact that many immigrants are supported by Catholic and evangelical churches, makes the idea of joining the two forces difficult.  Nevertheless, Bhargava believes there is “tremendous openness in the immigrant community for the LGBT agenda.” With any luck, the two sides can merge common agendas and work together toward fighting discrimination and bringing about equality for everyone.

On the afternoon of October 28, 2009, President Barack Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (18 U.S.C. Section 249) into law.  The Act is named after two victims of bias-motivated crimes.   The hate-crime that captured the world’s attention happened to Mathew Shepard, a student in Laramie, Wyoming who, in 1998, who was tortured and murdered because of his perceived sexual orientation.   The less well-known namesake hate-crime happened that same year, in Jasper, Texas, James Byrd, Jr. who was tied to a truck and dragged from it and then decapitated by two known white supremacists because he was African-American.

According to FBI statistics, there were 7,621 reported hate crime incidents that were motivated by a single, discernable animus. This means that there was at least one hate crime incident every hour or every day in the U.S. in 2007. Of those reported incidents, over half were motivated by racial bias; 18% were motivated by religious bias and 16% were motivated by sexual-orientation bias.  From 2003-2007 the number of reported hate crimes against Hispanics increased nearly 40%. And, the number of reported hate crimes against individuals because of their sexual orientation increased to the highest level in five years – amounting to 1,265 incidents.

In response to the insurgence of hate-crimes, The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act expands the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law, which extends to crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin, to include actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The statute further expands the hate crimes law by removing the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity, like voting or going to school; giving federal authorities greater ability to engage in hate crime investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue; providing $5 million per year in funding for fiscal years 2010-2012 to help state and local agencies pay for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes; and requiring the FBI to track statistics on hate crimes against transgender people, as the statistics for the other groups are already tracked.

The statute specifically provides funding and technical assistance to state, local and tribal jurisdictions to help them to more effectively investigate and prosecute hate crimes. It also creates a new federal criminal law which criminalizes willfully causing bodily injury (or attempting to do so with fire, firearm, or other dangerous weapon) when (1) the crime was committed because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin of any person or (2) the crime was committed because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person and the crime affected interstate or foreign commerce or occurred within federal special maritime and territorial jurisdiction.

The newly enacted law has three significant subsections. Subsection (a)(1) has a broader reach than existing hate crime statutes and does not require the government to prove an additional “jurisdictional” element to obtain a conviction.  It criminalizes violent acts and attempts to commit violent acts undertaken with a dangerous weapon when those acts occur because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person.

Subsection (a)(2) of the statute protects a wider class of victims. This subsection criminalizes acts of violence, and attempts to commit violent acts undertaken with a dangerous weapon, when motivated by the actual or perceived gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity of any person.  It also applies to violent acts motivated by animus against those religions and national origins which were not considered to be “races” at the time the Thirteenth Amendment was passed.  Because this portion of the statute was passed pursuant to Congress’s Commerce Clause authority, the government must prove that the crime was in or affected interstate or foreign commerce to obtain a conviction.

Subsection (a)(3) of the statute provides for prosecution of crimes committed because of any of the characteristics defined in subsections (a)(1) or (a)(2), whenever such crimes occur within the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction (SMTJ) of the United States.

It is very important to note, especially in light of the pervasive bullying and harassment of LGBT children and teenagers, that the statute criminalizes only violent acts resulting in bodily injury or attempts to inflict bodily injury, through the use of fire, firearms, explosive and incendiary devices, or other dangerous weapons.  While, the statute does not criminalize threats of violence, threats to inflict physical injury may be prosecutable under other hate crimes statutes, such as 42 U.S.C. Section 3631 or 18 U.S.C. Section 245.

The Department of Justice stated that its prosecution of hate crime cases “have sent the strong message that criminal conduct that violates an individual’s civil rights or seeks to victimize entire communities has no place in a democratic society, wherever and whenever it occurs in the Unites States of America.”  It has gone on to state that the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act  “is essential because, sadly, hate crimes and the intolerance that breeds them remain all too prevent in our nation.”   Attorney General Holder repeatedly emphasized that the “Department [of Justice] and the Civil Rights Division are steadfastly committed to enforcing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act.”

Those who opposed the passage of the statute, such as the socially conservative lobbying group Focus on the Family, argue that it infringes on the First Amendment rights of free speech and free exercise. But the statute only applies to bias-motivated crimes of violence and does not impinge on freedom or speech or religious expression in any way. The law actually contains specific protections for freedom of speech and association, including religious speech and association ensuring that religious leaders can continue to express their beliefs or serve their congregations as they see fit.

If you have experienced any form of hate-based violence, time is of the essence.  Start by calling 911 and explain as many details about the incident as possible.  File a police report and remember to be as detailed as possible. If you are injured, ask for an ambulance and go to the nearest emergency room right away.  Then, most importantly, find support.  No one should have to deal with the emotional and mental strain of experience a hate-crime alone.  Lean on a good friend, family member or someone at a local LGBT community center or agency.  Talking through the incident can help facilitate the healing process.  There are anonymous services available in your local area that can assist you with dealing with the police, finding counseling, and other services.

In short, while the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 does not have all the enforcement “teeth” that it could at the moment and its constitutionality is still being challenged by opposition to the Act, awareness of its existence and its power at the federal level is growing.  Moreover, the Justice Department is working vigorously to educate communities about the new law and to prevent hate crimes from occurring in the first place.

**Angela D. Giampolo, Principal of Giampolo Law Group maintains offices in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey and specializes in LGBT Law, Business Law, Real Estate Law and Civil Rights. Her website is www.giampololaw.com and she maintains a blog www.phillygaylawyer.com. Please feel free to send Angela your legal questions at angela@giampololaw.com.

While the quest for marriage equality goes forth, many wonder (justifiably) what the differences are among domestic partnerships, civil unions and marriage.

Throughout the years, dictionaries have struggled to define “marriage.” The 2010 American Heritage Dictionary defines marriage as “[t]he legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife and, in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.” The 2005 online version of the American Heritage College Dictionary defines marriage as “[t]he legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife; a union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage … a close union.” The 1993 hard-copy edition that I found of the same dictionary fails to mention “same-sex marriage” all together. It defines marriage as “[t]he legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.”

There are many state and federal benefits that married couples, as opposed to nonmarried couples, enjoy. For example, a married couple can file joint tax returns; inherit a deceased spouse’s property without tax consequence; and use the homestead protection, in which the couple’s home is protected from creditors when one spouse dies.

Partnerships vs. civil unions

The difference between domestic partnerships and civil unions is unclear and sometimes non-existent. A domestic partnership is a legal or personal relationship between two individuals who live together and share a common domestic life but are neither joined by marriage or civil union. Domestic partnerships tend to fall into two categories: 1) same-sex couples whose relationship is recognized by the state or local jurisdiction in which they live, or 2) same-sex couples who claim they are in a committed relationship to obtain work-related benefits that are available to heterosexual married employees. It varies but, typically, to obtain status as domestic partners, same-sex couples register with the relevant state or local jurisdiction. Registration alone does not give couples additional rights or benefits, but it is a first step in recognizing their relationship publicly.

Currently, Hawaii, Colorado, Maryland, Rhode Island, Maine, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, California and Wisconsin all have some form of domestic-partnership laws. In addition, cities such as Philadelphia, New York City and San Francisco provide some combination of registration and domestic-partner benefits.

New Jersey and Connecticut recognize civil unions. However, it is important to note that as of October 2010, Connecticut will only recognize marriage. Civil unions are state-sanctioned relationships that convey many of the benefits of marriage without calling it marriage. While civil unions are a start, they do not offer all the rights that marriage offers. Because of this, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that same-sex couples must be given the same rights under civil unions or marriage, even if the word “marriage” is not used.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and, most recently, the District of Columbia allow gay marriage. However, due to other states and laws and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, these marriages may not be recognized as valid in other states and are not recognized by the federal government.

DOMA prevents same-sex couples who are married, in a civil union or a domestic partnership from taking advantage of federal protections that are available to all married heterosexual couples. Some of these are the right to take family leave when one partner is ill, the acceptance of Social Security benefits of a deceased partner and joint tax-filing benefits. Last year, President Obama took a small yet important step toward undermining DOMA by signing a memorandum extending benefits such as visitation and dependent-care rights to the same-sex partners of federal employees.

Court decisions

Some see domestic partnerships and civil unions as a step forward. However, others view it as government-sanctioned inequality, comparing the laws to “separate but equal” in our civil-rights history. So far, courts in Massachusetts, California and Connecticut have weighed in on the issue. These courts agreed that “names matter” and that nominal differences were unconstitutional. By labeling a group with a special designation, a state relegates it to second-class status. As the Connecticut court stated, “A mere difference on nomenclature” was a “form of separate but equal segregation” that only seeks to perpetuate and formalize discrimination against gays.

Other courts have reached a different outcome. As mentioned above, in “Lewis v. Harris,” the New Jersey Supreme Court held it was unconstitutional to withhold the benefits and responsibilities from same-sex couples, but did find that the use of the word “marriage” was unnecessary.

One major difference between marriage and either civil unions or domestic partnerships is that due to DOMA, the federal government only recognizes marriage, and so only legally married same-sex couples have legal standing to challenge DOMA.

The terminology for same-sex unions is constantly evolving, and the rights and responsibilities conferred vary widely by jurisdiction. As the fight for equality rages on, leaders in the LGBT community may have a choice to make: Do they push for change, including domestic partnerships and civil unions, or solely push for same-sex marriage? These early judicial decisions show that the jury is still out on which legal strategy would ensure equality.

Angela D. Giampolo, principal of Giampolo Law Group, has offices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and specializes in LGBT, business, real-estate and civil-rights law. Her website is www.giampololaw.com and she blogs at www.phillygaylawyer.com. Send her your legal questions to angela@giampololaw.com.

As states move slowly to adopt same-sex marriage, couples are turning to other legal mechanisms to govern their relationships. One such tool is the Cohabitation Agreement or “Living Together” Contract.  A Cohabitation Agreement is a legal agreement reached between a heterosexual or same-sex couple who have chosen to live together (cohabitate) but are not married.  It establishes each party’s legal rights and responsibilities in the event of a break-up or death.

For much of American history, courts would not enforce Cohabitation Agreements because the law saw it as an assault on marriage.  Judges did not want to encourage such behavior by allowing the parties the protection of the law.  However, as the norms of society changed, so did the practice of cohabitation.  For example, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, only 523,000 heterosexual couples were cohabitating unmarried in 1970.  By 1995, the amount of cohabitating couples grew to 3,668,000.   Most courts now recognize Cohabitation Agreements by relying on contract law as opposed to family law.  Contract law is concerned with keeping promises between contracting parties and tries to uphold the wishes of parties to a contract, so long as the parties intended to be bound and are contracting for a legal purpose.  In contrast, family law is traditionally concerned with how the state maintains the idea of the nuclear family and its objectives concern how persons should marry, divorce, and care for children.  Since only a few jurisdictions recognize same-sex marriage, same-sex couples should fashion their agreement in terms of an ordinary exchange of contractual promises and avoid the use of family law terms like “alimony, support, guardianship of children, etc.,” to increase the likelihood that their Cohabitation Agreement is enforced.

In 1976, the California Supreme Court in Marvin v. Marvin first recognized the ability of unmarried cohabitants to enter into both oral and written agreements, so long as they were not premised on sexual services. Since Marvin, states have moved towards the acceptance of Cohabitation Agreements, and allowed cohabitants to contract concerning exchange of property and services, so long as the contract is not premised on sexual relations.  However, state to state, courts recognize the scope of these contractual rights quite differently. Some states only validate express written agreements. Other states are willing to entertain oral agreements, or even sometimes imply an agreement. Still, some states don’t recognize Cohabitation Agreements at all, based on the notion that cohabitation without marriage is immoral. Specific to our region, in New Jersey the Court of Appeals recently held in In re Estate of Roccamonte that evidence showing two parties had a martial-type relationship supported an argument that a male partner had promised to support the female cohabitant for life, and the promise was enforceable against the man’s estate.

In practice, Cohabitation Agreements can serve a variety of purposes for the same-sex partners.  Among other things, a Cohabitation Agreement may be utilized to outline each party’s responsibilities with respect to financial expenses associated with living together or specify each party’s responsibility for his or her individual debt.  A Cohabitation Agreement may be entered into as a precaution to protect each party from the cost and stress associated with litigation in the event the partners decide that they no longer wish to live together in the future.  Cohabitation Agreements also permit parties to make arrangements regarding specific assets acquired before deciding to live together and/or assets that they anticipate they will acquire during the period of their cohabitation.  Perhaps most importantly, Cohabitation Agreements allow parties to set forth their agreements regarding child related and parenting issues.  While these agreements are legally binding on both parties regarding financial issues, issues involving custody of children and their welfare are always subject to review by the court system.  In some cases, a written agreement regarding custody may be reviewed or changed by the courts if circumstances or the needs of the minor children have changed since the agreement was written.

To summarize, Cohabitation Agreements should be drafted with care and both parties should have independent counsel to represent their interests.  If constructed properly, Cohabitation Agreements can be a very useful planning tool to provide an extra layer of security, especially in such economically uncertain times.

Tips to Writing a Cohabitation Agreement

1. Talk the issues out at length and come to joint understandings.
2. Regardless of how comprehensive, make sure to cover the basics of property and money.
3. If necessary, have different contracts covering property, support, housing and joint costs – don’t try to cover everything in one contract.
4. A Cohabitation Agreement is personal but exclude personal arrangements such as house chores and cooking.
5. Don’t mention sexual services.
6. Each party should obtain independent legal counsel before executing the agreement, especially if there is a large sum of money and property involved or if bargaining power is not equal.
7. Agree in advance to mediation as the method of dispute resolution.
8. Modifications of a Cohabitation Agreement should always be in writing and drafted by an attorney (especially if the modifications are significant).
9. The Cohabitation Agreement may need to be notarized depending on what state the parties reside and whether the agreement contemplates real estate.
10. Don’t prepare a Cohabitation Agreement if one or both parties are married to someone else.

For additional resources on cohabitation please call my office at 215.645.2415 or contact the following organizations.

Organizations

Alternatives to Marriage Project
P.O. Box 991010
Boston, MA 02199 USA
Phone: (781) 793-0296
Fax: (781) 394-6625
URL: http://www.unmarried.org/
E-Mail: atmp@unmarried.org

American Association for Single People (AASP)
415 E. Harvard Street
Suite 204
Glendale, CA 91205 USA
Phone: (818) 242-5100
URL: http://www.singlesrights.com
E-Mail: unmarried@earthlink.net
Primary Contact: Thomas F. Coleman, Executive Director

Focus on the Family
Colorado Springs, CO 80995 USA
Phone: (719) 531-3328
Fax: (719) 531-3424
URL: http://www.family.org/

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
120 Wall Street, Suite 1500
New York, NY 10005-3904 USA
Phone: (212) 809-8585
Fax: (212) 809-0055
URL: http://www.lambdalegal.org

ONE SIZE DOESN’T FIT ALL!

Like people, every business is unique.  Having standard legal documents that are meant to fit every business is similar to a person filling their entire wardrobe with “one size fits all” clothing.  Realizing that starting and maintaining a business is costly, a business owner should not try to save money where legal compliance is involved.

COST!

On the surface, it appears that a business is saving money using template legal forms.  However, templates will not provide a business with tailored and/or compliant legal documents and could end up leading to unavoidable litigation fees down the road.  Litigation costs are always very expensive and typically the main reason why a company declares bankruptcy.

Having an attorney handle the transactional needs of your business allows for each transaction to be tailored to the exact specifications of the business needs and will save money in the long term.

COMPLICATED LEGAL ISSUES!

The law is complicated; lawyers spend nearly a decade in school to become a lawyer and have constant, on-going education throughout their career.  An attorney will explain the complex legal options to you and put all the legal language into clear and understandable “real world” language.

FORMING AN ENTITY NEEDS TO BE DONE RIGHT TO BE EFFECTIVE!

Forming an entity is a great way to protect you and your family from various liabilities however, the process of both choosing an entity type and forming the entity is extremely complex.  If it is done incorrectly limited liability protection may be lost without the company realizing it.  Retaining an attorney to walk you through the process guarantees that the formation process will be done correctly.

FAMILIARITY WITH BUSINESS AND TRANSACTION!

Retaining an attorney to draft your business documents allows for a trustworthy attorney to become familiar with your business and the business transaction.  If an entity finds itself in litigation over a transaction, unfortunately, it cannot call on a canned website to represent them.  The entity will be better off if they have an attorney who is familiar with the structure and purpose of the business.

1. Do our employee benefit plans extend to our adopted child?
2. Do foreign countries treat LGBT parents differently when seeking a foreign adoption?
3. If we choose to use a surrogate, are we fully aware of the surrogate’s rights to the child?
4. How do adoption agencies view LGBT couples when deciding a proper home for a child?
5. Are our estate planning documents sufficient to provide for a newly adopted child?
6. We are a lesbian couple and one of the partners will be carrying the child, what rights do both the sperm donor and the non-carrying partner have to the child?