I love those new light bulbs, you know, the spiral kind.  Their packaging tells me that I can save $120 a year or something if I replace my old fashioned light bulbs. Having changed out my bulbs – they’re not kidding, I do save money on my monthly electric bill.

The problem is to save that money, I must first spend money on new bulbs.  If I didn’t have any money, I’d be stuck with my old bulbs which would cost me more money each month and I’d be poorer because of it.

Cool New Light Bulb

The Hartford Courant does near weekly articles on how much our probate courts cost and how they’re nearly bankrupt.

One of the reasons probate courts operate at a deficit is conservatorships. If a person doesn’t have money the court appoints an attorney for the proposed conserved person and pays that attorney at a rate of $50 an hour. If the person is conserved, the court also pays a conservator $50 an hour to manage that person’s affairs.

One of the most effective ways to prevent a conservatorship proceeding is to execute a living will and power of attorney.  People often end up conserved because for one reason or another they fail to do any advanced planning.

Sometimes perceived cost is a reason people don’t see an attorney to do a living will or a power of attorney. 

Consequently, our state pays more for conservatorships because people don’t do advanced planning.

It’s like we’re running our state on old light bulbs. 

What the legislature should consider is a tax credit on legal fees for people who do some advanced planning. 

What the legislature is doing is considering a tax on legal services and raising the attorney occupational tax – both of which will result in a higher cost of legal services for residents of Connecticut.

Raising the cost of legal services for the middle class is about as short sighted as the state deciding to raise taxes on those cool new light bulbs.

Here at A Connecticut Law Blog, I’m ready to hit the ground running in 2009. The Pats aren’t in the playoffs, truck day is still 5 weeks away, and I’m feeling energized.

This post comes from a merger of two ideas. First, as Rick Green often writes about, contested conservatorship proceedings can be ugly to say the least. Second, the more I litigate, the more I believe in mediation.

A contested conservatorship can cost a person his or her life savings and dignity. It’s possible in a drawn out proceeding for a proposed conserved person to pay for an attorney, a GAL, and the petitioner’s attorney.

Most conservatorship proceedings are not long protracted battles that end up in Mr. Green’s columns. Probate judges, litigants and lawyers do their jobs and you never read about it.

Then there’s those cases that make the headlines.

For those cases, how about mediation?

Connecticut Superior Courts use mediation in all housing cases, family cases, and by agreement of the parties in contested civil matters. Recently, the foreclosure mediation program has gained acclaim. Why do courts use mediation? Because it works.

I think, a proposed conserved person, should have the option of mediating the proceeding before a superior court judge prior to a contested hearing in probate court. 

This would give a proposed conserved person, who maybe unhappy with probate court venue, an option to have his or her case heard before a superior court judge prior to incurring thousands of dollars in fees.

Now they’ll have a few less things to worry about.

On October 1, 2008, PA 08-115 went into effect which prohibits telephone and cable operators from charging an installation fee when a resident changes rooms within a facility.

The problem with this act is that the legislature took away some of its bite by providing that a violation does not constitute an unfair or deceptive trade practice under CUTPA.

It seems pretty unfair that a utility company could charge fees for installation of television and cable when a resident changes rooms in violation of an express public policy and it not be an unfair trade practice.

I’ve taken great pleasure in writing about ”interesting” Connecticut laws in this blog. Fortunately, there is no shortage of material.

I’m pleased to write that this past legislative session generated more laws. Earth shattering news, I know.

It seems that monogramming dentures was a concern for the legislature in this past session.

PA 08-24 requires all dentists to offer patients who need removable dentures the opportunity to have the patient’s name or initials placed on the prosthesis.  Further, the markings must be permanent, legible, and cosmetically acceptable. 

Alas, the citizens of Connecticut can sleep soundly at night. Our legislature has made sure that your dentist offers monogramming for your dentures!

I’m waiting for the legislature to require all clothiers to offer me monogramming on my shirts.

This had me thinking, if John McCain were a Connecticut resident, what could he decline to do?

For starters: jury duty.

In Connecticut, a person 70 years or older can choose not to serve on a jury if called. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 51-217(a)(7).

Of course, McCain is an admirable man who has dedicated his life to serving his country so there’s no reason to think that he would choose not to serve on a jury if asked.

However, McCain, 72 years old, would have the right not to serve if he so choose. Which presumably would free up time on his calendar for things like presidential debates.

One of the purposes of this blog is to inform the public as to how our legal system in Connecticut impacts everyday life. I like to think that law is everywhere and it is. From scenic roads to where nets are placed at baseball games, law has a significant and sometimes invisible impact on day to day life in Connecticut.

On the judicial branch website, I saw a link to a free Seniors and the Law seminar in Enfield on October 15th,  2008.

The seminar deals with practical issues faced by senior citizens in Connecticut, including: elder abuse, fraud, probate, utility rights, and jury duty.

Informing non-lawyers about laws benefits both the public and the legal system as a whole.

I’m happy that John McCain has selected a woman as his vice-presidential running mate.

So sometimes in this blog, I’m like Pompey. Pompey was my pet parakeet. Not only was he the best parakeet ever….he was the best pet ever.

He’d fly around and say “I love you.” Pompey said lots of things but only things that he picked up from me and my wife.  And for the record, he never swore.

So today, I am “Pompeying” Matt Curtis’ Blog. 

Last week Matt wrote about planning for your pet’s life after your death. Matt offers the following suggestions:

1. Specifically bequeath in your will your pet to a friend of family member along with some money for its care.

2. Specifically bequeath in your will a dollar amount to a person, with the condition that it be spent for the care of your pet.

Sound advice that I’ll proudly “Pompey” here in this blog.

Sometimes, I get contacted by bloggers who want me to link to his or her site. As you can see, I don’t link to many sites on this blog.

For me, I treat linking to someone’s blog like recommending a restaurant to a friend. I don’t want to send my friends to places that are likely to provide bad food and service.

If you’re taking the time to read this, I consider you a friend.

As your friend, I recommend without hesitation Matthew Curtiss’ Connecticut Estate Planning Blog.

I went to law school with Matt and we were in the same section together during our first year.  You learn a lot about someone when you are section mates in law school. Generally you are in a class of about 60, you sit in the same room all day (professors come to you), and you take the same classes for a whole year.

I have known Matt to be a very intelligent, witty, and all around great guy and I expect his blog to be an extension of who he is.

Check it out.

According to Project Laundry List, dryers account for 5 to 10 percent of all residential energy use.

With sky rocketing energy costs I’m happy to report that the bill has received a joint favorable report from the energy and technology committee. The bill passed the committee 12-9.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal spoke in favor of the bill and noted that 10 states have similar laws.

I’m more than a little disappointed to see that my State Representative, Richard Ferrari, voted against the bill in committee.

Is Mr. Ferrari aware that in 2007, atmospheric C02 increased by 19 billion tons over 2006 levels?

Is Mr. Ferrari unaware of the rising energy costs faced by his constituents?

Does Mr. Ferrari understand that elderly on fixed incomes are selling their houses to move into condos?

Does Mr. Ferrari understand that Connecticut residents who have lost their homes to foreclosure have no choice but to rent? People who may have lost their homes in part because of rising energy costs? People who are trying to support families on limited incomes and are faced with increasingly higher energy costs.

Mr. Ferrari and all of the legislators who voted against this bill in committee should be ashamed of themselves.

Does $4.00 for a gallon of gas mean nothing to certain legislators?

Do your part. Email this blog entry to your friends. Urge your state representatives to support this bill.

Otherwise, I’m afraid that we’ll all be left out to dry.

All of this reminds me that I need to put up a clothesline.