Some Wednesday Ramblings…

As February is closing down, I realize that I have been using my new office space for nearly three months now and I still haven’t shared photos! I teased my followers with a post back in November 2019 showing the pre-construction/remodeled space. Better late than never? Let me introduce you to the new Kirk Law Office:

Some of the pictures above still include holiday decorations because it was such a festive season at my office. I had the honor of hosting my Rotary club’s annual holiday party where we wrap presents for an adopted Salvation Army Family:

It turns out my new office is the nearly perfect place to host a party!

Kirk Law Office is now located in the original City Hall for the City of Superior at the intersection of Broadway Street and Hammond Avenue. The building opened in 1890 and is on the National Registry of Historic Buildings! So far, clients’ reactions have been nothing but positive. I have said for the last six years that opening my own firm was partially motivated by a desire to “do law differently.” My space is a true reflection of that desire. Clients have described it as “cozy”, “comfortable”, “fun”. I like to think of it as humble, down to earth, and a place where my clients, colleagues and friends will always feel welcome and never feel intimidated.

When the Hard Work Pays Off.

Six years ago I opened Kirk Law Office not knowing if I’d be able to pay the rent in 60 days. This journey has been both demanding and rewarding. In the next couple weeks I am taking another scary step and moving my office to a new location that better reflects who I am as a lawyer and a person. For the past few months I have been working late nights and weekends cleaning and remodeling the new Kirk Law Office. #KLO v2019

Below are some pictures of what the space looked like when I started. I can’t wait to get moved in and share updated photos. The change has been amazing. I want to thank all of my colleagues, clients, friends and family who have been so patient and understanding during this process. The finish line is in sight and the hard work is going to pay off!

WI Liquor Law Changes Just in time for the Fourth of July!

Yesterday, Govenor Tony Evers signed legislation that grants the public UNLIMITED access to off-sale liquor. Prior law limited sales by Class B (off-sale) to a maximum of four liters per transaction. This is the new law:

2019 WISCONSIN ACT 6 An Act to amend 125.51 (3) (b) of the statutes; relating to: retail sales of intoxicating liquor for consumption off the licensed premises. The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows: Section 1. 125.51 (3) (b) of the statutes is amended to read: 125.51 (3) (b) In all municipalities electing by ordinance to come under this paragraph, a retail “Class B” license authorizes the sale of intoxicating liquor to be consumed by the glass only on the premises where sold and also authorizes the sale of intoxicating liquor in the original package or container, in multiples not to exceed 4 liters at any one time, and any quantity, to be consumed off the premises where sold. Wine, however, may be sold for consumption off the premises in the original package or otherwise in any quantity. This paragraph does not apply to a winery that has been issued a “Class B” license. Paragraph (am) applies to all wineries that have been issued a “Class B” license.

4th Of July Fireworks Law Reminder

Fireworks

With the Fourth just a few days away, here is some guidance from the Wisconsin Department of Justice on fireworks rules and regulations.

fireworks-advisory-2014

A few highlights:

“State law allows the sale, possession and use, without a permit, of sparklers not
exceeding 36 inches in length, stationary cones and fountains, toy snakes, smoke
bombs, caps, noisemakers, confetti poppers with less than ¼ grain of explosive mixture,
and novelty devices that spin or move on the ground. Wis. Stat. § 167.10(1). There is
no age restriction on sale, possession or use of these devices and the statute does not
classify them as fireworks.”

That’s right, my three year old can buy these!

“Possessing or using any other fireworks, including, for example, firecrackers, roman
candles, bottle rockets and mortars, in Wisconsin without a valid permit is illegal. Wis.
Stat. § 167.10(3). A commonly used rule of thumb is that a permit is required if the
device explodes or leaves the ground. The sale of these restricted fireworks to a
resident of this state without a valid permit is also illegal. Wis. Stat. § 167.10(2).”

Penalties
“A person who possesses or uses fireworks without a valid permit, or who sells fireworks
to a person who does not have a valid permit, is subject to a forfeiture of up to $1,000
per violation. Wis. Stat. § 167.10(9)(b). Each firework illegally possessed, used or sold
may be a separate violation.
A parent or guardian who allows a minor to possess or use fireworks (not including
those for which no permits are required) is subject to a forfeiture of up to $1,000 per
violation. Wis. Stat. § 167.10(9)(c).
A city, village or town may obtain an injunction prohibiting a person from violating Wis.
Stat. § 167.10(8)(a). Violations of such an injunction are criminal misdemeanors, subject
to up to 9 months in jail and a $10,000 fine. Wis. Stat. § 167.10(9)(a).”

Before you stop at a roadside stand and then hand all those “under the table” goodies over to your teenager, keep in mind the potential fine is $1,000 for them and $1,000 for you!  I have seen some of those roadside stands authorized by the local town/village to issue permits so that shoppers can obtain their permit for “fireworks,” buy,  and use them legally.  The linked document above sets out the permitting requirements in more detail.

Enjoy, and be safe!

Johanna R Kirk

Supreme Court Rules on Mandatory Reporter Testimony

2000px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg
It is common sense that the relationship between a student and his teacher is very different from that between a citizen and the police.
– U.S. Supreme Court, Ohio v. Clark, No. 13–1352 (U.S. Jun. 18, 2015)

In October 2014 I wrote about the case of Ohio v. Clark.  On June 18, 2015 the Supreme Court issued its decision determining that statements from minors, made to a mandatory reporter, can be repeated by the mandatory reporter in criminal trials against the accused abuser.   The primary issues of the case were whether mandatory reporters are serving as “law enforcement” when interviewing children about suspected abuse and whether the statements made by the children are “testimony” about the alleged abuse.  The Court ruled that mandatory reporters are NOT “law enforcement” because their purpose isn’t to uncover and prosecute criminal behavior.

When an individual receives statements designed to be used for evidence or prosecution they are considered “testimony” and cannot be repeated unless the accused has an opportunity to confront the accuser. This is the general constitutional protection under the 6th Amendment.  The Court found that in this situation, statements to the teacher about abuse were made in order to protect the child, not to build a case against the abuser.  Because the statements weren’t “testimony” and the teacher wasn’t “law enforcement” the defendant did not have a constitutional right to confront (cross examine) the minor children who made the statements.

For more information about the Court’s ruling and reasoning, visit the National School Boards Association summary.

As I said back in October, my biggest concern about the case is whether or not prosecutors are now going to be able to subpoena mandatory reporters and force them to testify about the statements children make to them.

Johanna R. Kirk

 

New Resources Available for FREE!!

free

In order to help clients and non-clients understand what to do after someone dies, I’ve created two resources that are available for FREE!

The first is a checklist for practical steps that should be taken after someone dies: After Death – A Checklist

The second is a brief description of Probate and the Probate process: Probate

As always, feel free to call me if you have a question about Probate.

Johanna R Kirk

Buying or Selling A Home? Here are a few tips.

In the past few months I’ve received many calls from people who are either trying to buy or sell a home and have general questions about the process.  Many people opt to use a realtor who can help you through the paperwork process.  Others choose to try it on their own, venturing into the world of For Sale By Owner.  So just what steps are there to a residential sale?

The basic steps and paperwork you will absolutely want to include are:

  1. Real Estate Condition Report disclosing any “defects” in the property which MUST be given to the buyers before they make an offer.  It is required by Wisconsin Law!
  2. Offer to Purchase (including any contingencies from the buyers such as financing, selling their current home, inspection, closing date, etc.) Traditionally the buyer generates the offer and seller accepts, creating a binding sale agreement.
  3. After the sale agreement is in place, the buyers and sellers get busy arranging financing, inspection, and making sure all the contingencies are met.
  4. Proof of title. If buyers are financing the purchase with a loan, their bank is likely going to require title insurance. This process involves a title company who checks the history of piece of land for any outstanding owners, rights, liens, etc. Usually if a title company is involved, they handle all the rest of the closing documents.

At the “closing” you will see the following documents:

  1. Settlement statement. This sets out the purchase price, reduction for the current year’s taxes which will be paid by the new owners, costs for title insurance, fees for recording the documents, the tax that sellers have to pay, any mortgage payoff you may have, and details the exact amount of money that the buyers will be paying and the seller will be receiving.
  2. A deed transferring the property and any other documents needed to ensure the title to the property is clean such as a Satisfaction of Mortgage from the bank who holds the sellers’ loan.
  3. Tax reporting.  Whether a title company, lawyer, or realtor handles the “closing” there usually is a 1099-S disclosing the sale price to the IRS.  You will need to talk to your tax preparer to get advice on reporting the sale for purposes of income tax.

Because realtors, banks and title companies handle so much of the paperwork, there usually is very little for a lawyer to do in the typical home sale, unless they are hired by the realtor, bank or title company.  That doesn’t mean you absolutely won’t or don’t need a lawyer.  You should always feel free to contact a lawyer if you have concerns about the process, documents, or if issues arise.

If you are interested in more details about the sale process, the State Bar of Wisconsin’s website has a page that explains Buying/Selling Real Estate. The site provides information about each step and the documents in more detail.

Non-Compete Agreements Get a Boost From the WI Supreme Court

On April 30, 2015 the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a decision that finally clarifies the enforceability of a non-compete agreement signed by an existing employee.  It has long been settled that new employees can be required to sign non-compete agreements because the employee is receiving employment in exchange for the promise not to compete during or after employment.  What has been unclear was whether an employer can use continued employment as the “consideration” in exchange for the employee’s promise. “Consideration” is a legalese term in contract law.  It is the “stuff” exchanged by parties to a contract.  For example, if you buy a dog for $300, one party gives $300 as consideration and the other party gives a dog as consideration.  A promise to do (or not do) something can be consideration.

In Runzheimer International Ltd. V. Friedlen, 2015 WI 45 (April 30, 2015) the Supreme Court confirmed that continued employment can be the value exchanged for a non-compete.  ““We hold that an employer’s forbearance in exercising its right to terminate an at-will employee constitutes lawful consideration for signing a restrictive covenant.” wrote the Court.  A non-compete may still be unenforceable if the terms and conditions are unreasonable as to the geography or time after employment that an employee is prohibited from working.  It may also be unenforceable if the employer acts in bad faith.

For more information about the ruling, visit the State Bar of Wisconsin’s website which has an article summarizing the Court’s decision. Also coming along in the world of non-compete agreements and restrictive post-employment contracts is proposed legislation that could change how non-competes are enforced after employment.  If enacted, the legislation would be favorable to employers who can show a legitimate business interest in the restrictions, that adequate consideration was given to the employee, and that the restrictions are reasonable considering the industry and nature of business.  For more information about the pending legislation the State Bar of Wisconsin has an article that summarizes the proposal and it’s possible impact on business owners and employees.

Johanna R. Kirk

May 1 is Law Day. Learn About the Magna Carta! (It’s 800 yrs old!)

May 1 of each year is designated by the American Bar Association as Law Day.  This year Law Day activities and opportunities have a focus on the Magna Carta.  Bonus points to you if you can tell me what year it was written.

If you’d like to learn more about the Magna Carta, or need to find a way to kill about thirty minutes while eating your lunch, visit the ABA Law Day 2015.  There’s an informational video and reading materials too.

Enjoy your Friday!

Johanna R. Kirk

Generational Differences Impacting Workplace Design.

On May 8, 2015 I will be presenting at the Wisconsin Bar Leaders Conference.  My session topic is “Titanium Hips with Smart Phone Holsters – The Ethical Implications of Generational Differences. ”  The session explores an area that interests me a LOT – generational differences.  In the past few years I have become addicted to articles, stories, research, and discussions about workplace generational differences and the impact they have on co-workers, professional peers, and customers.  For lawyers, that means understanding different communication styles and expectations between in-office lawyers and staff, outside lawyers who are working on the same case/claim/matter, judges, and clients.

Even if you aren’t a lawyer, you might be interested in this article I found on Workplacedesign.com.  “Workplace Design Implications of Emergent Worker Attitudes” is a great article about how generational differences are impacting the relationships between co-workers and as a result, the physical workplace.  The article addresses four key areas of changes with the first being, “There is a shift in the nature of the social contract between “worker” and “employer”, what Dan Pink has called “free agents” and not employees.”  The second is a move from hierarchical management to collaborative work models. These fundamental shifts in how people approach their work is impacting the space they work in as well.

“$1200 chairs and carpet refresh every 5 years are a thing of the past.” says the article. Desks, offices, cubicles, file cabinets, and personal assistants, may soon be a thing of the past. I know that in my mere nine years of practicing law the approach towards the physical space of law firms has changed dramatically.  Take my office for example.  I do not have a “file storage room” or a “library.”  The only “legal” book in my office is a Black’s Law Dictionary that my husband bought me fifteen years ago!  (However, if you’re looking for a copy of Anna Karenina, Dr. Zhivago, Sherlock Holmes, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Moby Dick, or other classics, call me. Chances are I’ve got it here in my office.)

The field of law is desperately clinging to traditional titles such as “partner” and “associate” and “staff” assuming there is an unstated but understood status that comes with those titles.  Likewise, there are firms that hold tightly to the traditional expectations of what a law firm should look like.  You’ve seen them on television and in the movies – those offices with wood paneled walls, rows and rows of those funky yellow books with the red stripes, the “conference room” and “corner offices” where partners have leather couches for themselves.  For decades law has been practiced in offices that equate opulence with success and competency.  The fancier an office looked to clients and other attorneys, the better the law firm must be, right?

If the linked article and other sources are accurate, you should be seeing a shift in that thinking.

Johanna R. Kirk – Kirk Law Office, L.L.C. 1418 Tower Ave Suite #6; Superior, WI 54880 (715) 718-2424