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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT