The U.S. legal system has a united legal profession, which means that it does not draw a distinction between lawyers who plead in court and those who do not. Many other common law jurisdictions, as well as some civil law jurisdictions, do draw such a distinction: for example, the division of solicitor and barrister (advocate) found in the United Kingdom, and the division of advocate and civil law notary in Italy and France. An additional factor which differentiates the American legal system from other countries is that there is no delegation of routine work to notaries public or their civil law equivalent.

Some attorneys use the post-nominal Esq., the abbreviated form of the word Esquire.

The job of an attorney

Once admitted to practice by the highest court of a state (a function sometimes administered by the state’s bar association), an American attorney may file legal pleadings and argue cases in any state court (federal courts usually require separate admission), provide legal advice to clients, and draft important legal documents such as wills, trusts, deeds, and contracts.

In some states, real estate closings may be performed only by fela attorneys, even though the attorney’s role in a closing may involve primarily notarization of documents and disbursement of settlement funds through an escrow account.

Practicing law includes interviewing a client to identify the legal question, analyzing the question, researching relevant law, devising legal solutions to problems, and executing such solutions through specific tasks such as drafting a contract or filing a motion with a court.

Most academic legal training is directed to identifying legal issues, researching facts and law, and arguing both the facts and law in favor of either side in any case.

For several years, law schools have sent through far more students than new job openings have become available. This leads to attorneys (once they pass the bar) seeking work in other occupations, either by choice or by the lack of employment opportunities. This has led to a market in legal temps or contract attorneys, where attorneys spend a certain period of time working on tasks such as discovery for a case.

Education and training

Almost all U.S. jurisdictions require successful completion of a bar exam to be licensed as an attorney. All but a few of those states which require a bar exam also require the applicant to have taken a degree in professional law from an accredited law school. Most require it to be an American professional doctorate in law. A few states accept foreign law degrees. In addition to this formal education, attorneys in most jurisdictions must complete regular Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirements.

The State of Washington has a separate Law Clerk program under Rule Six of the Washington Court Admission to Practice Rules. A college graduate of good moral character may be accepted into the four-year Rule Six Law Clerk program, obtain employment in a law firm or with a judge for at least 30 hours a week, and study a proscribed Course of Study under a tutor. After successful completion of the Rule Six Law Clerk program, a law clerk may take the Washington State Bar Exam and, upon passing, will be admitted as an attorney into the Washington State Bar Association.

The degree earned by prospective attorneys in the United States is generally a Juris Doctor (J.D.), or Doctor of Jurisprudence. Historically, law was an undergraduate subject in the United States, as it still is in most other Anglophone countries, for which the LL.B. (Bachelor of Laws) or other undergraduate degree is conferred. This undergraduate degree was followed by the LL.M. or Master of Laws and, where the LL.B. is still awarded.

The highest degree is often still the LL.D. or Doctor of Laws. In the United States, however, the LL.B. was elevated to the graduate school curriculum starting in 1896 (Harvard), as a second bachelor’s degree. Then, starting in 1902 in the University of Chicago, it was replaced by the professional doctorate in law, known generally as a “J.D.,” or “D.Jur.” when the degree is conferred in English. By 1971, all ABA-accredited American law schools had replaced the bachelor of laws with the professional doctorate in law.

The master of laws continues to be offered in the United States, sometimes as a type of specialist post-doctoral degree and sometimes as a legal master’s degree in U.S. law for non-U.S. educated attorneys with the bachelor of laws or other non-U.S. law degree.

Many non-U.S. lawyers who have an bachelor of laws or other non-U.S. law degree come to study in the United States to obtain an master of laws degree in comparative law, in order to familiarize themselves with U.S. common law, and to enable themselves to take the bar exam in New York or California, both of which allow foreign attorneys with such degrees to take the exam. Some of these lawyers end up practicing law in the U.S., while many of them return to their home countries and use their U.S. master of laws and bar admission as a gateway to advising international clients.

Among U.S. lawyers, the most common use of the master of laws degree currently is to acquire an advanced level of expertise in a specific legal discipline, such as tax law. American law schools are very slowly beginning to address the situation of advanced academic law degrees by creating explicitly post-doctoral degrees, like the S.J.D. or J.S.D. (Scientiae Juris Doctor or Doctor of the Science of Law).

No related posts.

Like many entrepreneurs, Flather was accustomed to the ups and downs of his business – the price of his raw materials, Kevlar and carbon fiber, had ratcheted higher in recent years because of heavy demand from the military – but the drumbeat of retirement anxiety never faded: Will there be enough? Will I – or my spouse – outlive the wealth we’ve created?

While any number of financial planners will help you figure out your future, none can guarantee that all will be fine. Here’s the good news: A number of financial products now offer significant security for retirees.

Consider annuity policies, which allow you to invest a chunk of your savings in return for regular payouts. Annuities got a famously bad rap in the 1990s because of their unfamiliar – and surprisingly steep – fees. Since then, the variety of products has grown and some of the fees are down, especially if you shop around. Moreover, today there is an annuity to suit every stripe, and many are “unbundled,” allowing consumers to customize their annuity just as they might tweak a new car purchase to add side-curtain airbags.

At the suggestion of his financial advisor, Joel Flather invested $500,000, about a quarter of his savings, in a Vision variable annuity from Allianz Life. (A number of insurance companies offer annuity products.) “It will provide me and my wife with income for life,” he says. But it also offers access to his invested dollars should he and his wife need it, plus – in exchange for a hefty annual fee – full protection from negative investment performance. “It’s terrific,” says Flather.

Even with all the bells and whistles, annuities still roll out of the factory on one of two basic chassis. Fixed annuities yield a steady stream of income for a set number of years or the rest of your life. Variable annuities can also provide regular checks, but they tie the amount of your payouts to the performance of an investment portfolio. Both types allow you to choose whether to begin receiving payouts immediately (in monthly, quarterly, or annual installments) or at a later date. And both varieties pay out partly taxable money – you are taxed only on your gains, not your original investment – at regular income-tax rates, an important fact to weigh when considering annuities for your financial plan.

Just like a new-car purchase, you then start adding options. You can buy fixed annuities and tack on inflation protection for your payouts; you can choose to add a death benefit – or not. Some policies offer an option for long-term-care insurance, which raises your payouts if you become disabled. On certain variable annuities, you can opt to have your portfolio value (and thus your payouts) reflect your performance only in neutral or good years, just as Joel Flather’s annuity will do.

All these cool features come at a price, however, so do some soul searching to figure out what’s most important to you, and follow that with energetic comparison shopping. On fixed annuities, the price comparison among different firms’ offerings is relatively simple: “It all comes down to how much money you put in and what initial payment that produces,” says Christine Fahlund, a T. Rowe Price senior financial advisor.

On variable annuities, try to determine the cost of a specific feature (it’s usually expressed as percentage points deducted from your returns), then ask yourself how badly you want it. Features that limit downside investment risk tend to cost anywhere from 1¼ to 1½ percentage points deducted from your annual portfolio returns. That’s on top of annual investment-management fees, which can vary widely.

For fixed-annuity holders, the most important extra to consider is inflation protection. That’s because even modest price increases can ravage your purchasing power over decades. For example, somebody living on $100,000 a year in 1980 would need $253,000 a year today to maintain the same lifestyle. Inflation protection in the form of annual adjustments to your income from the annuity is not cheap – it will slice about 30% off the first payout you receive – but that’s not bad considering that the insurance company takes on a big unknown (after all, you could live to be 100).

Still, if all-out inflation protection seems too pricey, think about buying a policy with an escalation clause, which stipulates that your annual payout will rise, say, 3% each year through thick and thin. This typically shaves your initial payout by 25%. Notes T. Rowe Price advisor Fahlund: “I like this feature because it’s more affordable, and it keeps you apace with inflation in all but the really bad years.”

Annuity shopping can be tricky. But with the right product, you could glide through retirement like a canoe on Mirror Lake.

No related posts.

Unlike traditional IRAs, Roths allow after-tax contributions to grow and be withdrawn tax-free. Historically, many successful business owners haven’t been able to take advantage of Roths because their income was too high. Next year, as in past years, you must earn less than $116,000 as an individual or less than $169,000 as a couple to be eligible to open a Roth. Similarly, under current law, you are not eligible to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth if you earn more than $100,000 a year.

But in 2010 the salary limit for conversions expires, and the back door opens – meaning that from that year forward anyone can convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, regardless of income.

“As part of my long-term plan,” Heck says, “I will probably convert a portion of my retirement savings into a Roth.”

What’s the catch? Well, because traditional IRAs hold pretax dollars and Roth IRAs hold after-tax dollars, you will have to pay taxes immediately on the money you move into the Roth.

It may seem counterintuitive to pay taxes right away when they could be deferred. Most financial planners argue that it makes more sense for younger investors to roll over into Roths and incur the income tax hit, because they have a long time horizon to enjoy the tax-free growth.

There’s another factor to consider: tax rates. Because of the growing national deficit and recent corporate bailouts, many experts believe that higher income and capital gains tax rates are inevitable next year.

Heck took his cue from Vincent Barbera of TGS Financial Advisors in Radnor, Pa.

“We advise people close to retirement age to roll over into a Roth and take the tax hit now, because your tax bracket may be much higher by the time you start taking distributions,” says Barbera. “If you convert $100,000 in 2010, you might have to pay $25,000 in taxes. But if you wait five years it might go up to $33,000 by the time you withdraw.”

The deal is further sweetened by a provision that income taxes triggered by a Roth conversion in 2010 need not be paid all at once. As a one-time benefit for the first year the law changes, the taxes can be spread over 2011 and 2012. For example, if you convert a $100,000 traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, you would normally trigger a tax bill of $35,000 (assuming a 35% tax bracket). But if you make the move in 2010, you will be able to declare $50,000 of the income in 2011 and the other $50,000 in 2012 – in effect, getting a one-time, interest-free loan from Uncle Sam.

The new Roth loopholes are an obscure fringe benefit of the Bush administration’s tax cuts. When Congress extended the cuts in 2006, the Roth rollover measure was enacted as a revenue raiser, explains Mitch Drossman, a wealth adviser for U.S. Trust in New York City.

“It is particularly attractive to high-net-worth individuals – such as small business owners who have accumulated a lot of money in their IRAs,” Drossman says. “Who else would be able to voluntarily pay the tax early in return for a carrot that just gets bigger and bigger?”

At his adviser’s suggestion, Heck has already started putting aside the additional money he will need to cover the income taxes that will be triggered by his Roth conversion.

Of course, the limits on income remain if you want to open a new Roth IRA. So here’s a strategy that some planners recommend – you will have to act fast – instead of opening a Roth directly. You can open a SEP IRA (a traditional IRA for the self-employed) in 2008. This year and next, you can fund your new SEP to the limit of 25% of income, up to a maximum of $46,000. You’ll deduct the amount you contribute from your 2008 and 2009 taxes, but set aside money to pay the tax in 2011 and 2012 – after you convert the entire amount to a Roth in 2010.

You should also do some planning to minimize your 2010 income, perhaps by taking some of it in 2009 instead. You may have to use the back door to take advantage of a Roth IRA, but in these uncertain times you should grab any advantage you can.

No related posts.