Legal lesson in MJ death

July 8, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
I know, I know, there’s been non-stop news coverage of the death of Michael Jackson since June 25, and the last place you’d expect to read more about him is here. But I think there is a legal lesson to be learned from his death if you’ll just hear me out – the importance of wills.

For a few days, there was talk that Jackson didn’t have a will. Turns out, he had one prepared back in 2002. My thought when hearing these discussions: Maybe this will make people following this saga create or update their wills. (Does this mean I’m starting to think like a lawyer if that’s what I immediately think about when watching the coverage?)

For some reason, when celebrities do certain things or when they die, it affects some people more profoundly and personally than if the same thing happened to a non-celebrity. Because these celebrities are on our TVs each week, on the big screen, or playing on our radios, some feel a connection to them that they may not have with neighbors or family. Let’s face it – celebrities are influential and perhaps Jackson can influence people to make a will.

I do think if he hadn’t had a will, it would be even more influential on people because the talking heads would have picked this apart and spent days, weeks, or even months talking about it as Jackson’s affairs were settled.

We, as the general public, know wills are important but the thought of actually creating one (and paying a lawyer to help make one) can be daunting and overwhelming. People put it off because creating a will signifies dealing with your mortality. Although we know we won’t live forever, no one likes to think about actually dying.

Some people have wills, but then never update them. Life happens after you create the will – you make more money, get married, get divorced, have children, etc. Perhaps what you wanted to leave to your brother before you had children you’d now rather leave to your son. Things like that.

I imagine most people watching the news and memorial service are just trying to remember a great entertainer who had a major impact on the world, but maybe a few will remember to update their wills or find a lawyer to make one.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT