The Precautions in Self-Drafting Wills With Your Spouse

Lawyers have a monopoly on the legal system.  It is not uncommon for me to see a husband write a will for his wife.  The husband used a form he got off the internet for $85 and simply filled in the blanks.  The wife is fully aware of the will, expressed her wishes and those wishes were accurately represented.  If the wife dies and the will is challenged, it could be void and the intestacy laws of the State of Minnesota (the will that the legislature wrote for you) would take effect, contrary to the wishes of the wife.  This is because the will was drafted by a layman.  To boot, the husband would also be guilty of a misdemeanor and could potentially be fined and jailed for such conduct.  Thus is the unauthorized practice of law. 

Every single day, I hear how the “system is screwed up”—usually in much more colorful language.  This is usually borne out of frustration because things don’t seem “fair” and lawyers can cost a great deal of money.  Our American system of law is based on an adversarial model, where the search for truth is the ultimate goal.  Our rules of evidence and procedure are designed to protect both parties and cross-examination of a witness under oath is the finest tool to discover truth. 

Minn. Stat. 481.02 prohibits any person, upon penalty of imprisonment and fines, except those licensed to practice as attorneys at law, from appearing, counseling, or preparing documents for another person.  A person can draft documents for himself, but not for another where his or her rights, in any manner, are affected.  This seemingly heavy-handed protection of our monopoly is ultimately for the benefit of both the public at large and the individual. 

Our supreme court has written:

“The unauthorized practice of law by laymen is so inimical to public welfare and results in such serious losses to those who engage such service that we feel it again necessary to vigorously condemn this practice and urge the prompt and aggressive prosecution of violations of this provision of the statute.”

Certain words are terms of art, and if misused, can lead to disastrous consequences.  Certain time limits must be observed and certain procedures and notices must be complied with or else a valid claim is lost.  Judges can only deal with what is placed properly in front of them, and if something is not requested, it usually cannot be ordered.  This is due to the history of millions of claims and problems our courts (and the courts of our ancestors) have had to deal with.  Our procedures and rules are designed to elicit truth, and everything in our system has a purpose, which after enough thought and research contains a rational core.   Lawyers are required to know and use those procedures, and the client has privilege of relying upon our professional knowledge.  The collateral consequences and effects of exercising certain rights are where attorneys provide the most benefit because laymen usually cannot understand the vast complex of our legal machine, even laymen that work for attorneys, such as paralegals. 

When a client relies upon an attorney, it can be done in confidence because we are required to know what we are talking about, and if we fail, we have malpractice insurance and rules of professional responsibility to protect an aggrieved client.  Certainly, attorneys make mistakes, but we also know how to correct them.  Relying on a non-lawyer will almost always prove fatal to protecting yourself, and the avenues for protecting your rights or restoring your loss are sharply curtailed.  As attorneys, we have done much to earn a detestable reputation, but that is through the actions of a few lawyers that make the headlines, but that does not represent the vast majority of lawyers who do excellent work on behalf of their clients.  

This article, authored by Erik Honkanen, was originally published in the Home Town Focus. 

DISCLAIMER: 

The information contained on the Honkanen Law Firm, S.C. website is offered purely for information purposes. It is not intended to create or promote an attorney-client relationship and does not constitute and should not be relied upon as legal advice. It is not intended to seek professional employment in any state where lawyers in the firm are not admitted to practice, or in any state where this web site would not comply with the applicable requirements concerning advertisements and solicitations. We intend to make every attempt to keep this information current. We do not promise or guarantee, however, that the information is complete or up-to-date, and Internet subscribers and online readers should not act based upon this information without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted to practice in your jurisdiction. Transmission of information from the Honkanen Law Firm, S.C. website is not intended to create, and its receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Honkanen Law Firm, S.C. or any of its individual attorneys or personnel. If you elect to communicate with the firm, or any of its attorneys, through this website, do not transmit information about any matter (and particularly not any confidential information) that may involve you until the firm has agreed to represent you and you have received confirmation of that fact in the form of a written engagement letter or fee agreement

The Honest Truth About Drunk Driving in Minnesota

One of the most common crimes on the Iron Range, and across the country generally, is driving under the influence (DUI).  According to the Department of Public safety, in 2015, about 25,000 DWI arrests were made and approximately 21,250 of those have or will result in a conviction.  Since 2006, though, DWI arrests and subsequent convictions have fallen almost 40%.  But what happens prior to the conviction and what are the common considerations in DWI cases?

From a defense attorney standpoint, a DUI case begins at the moment a police officer sees the vehicle he or she will eventually pull over or is otherwise called to the scene.  To stop a vehicle, a police officer must have “reasonable, articulable suspicion,” which is an evidentiary burden, such as “probable cause” and “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”  However, “reasonable, articulable suspicion” is a very low standard, even lower than “probable cause.”  Any traffic infraction, including an equipment malfunction, can be the basis for a stop—no questions asked.  Even if no traffic violation occurs, an officer can still legally stop a vehicle if his suspicion is “specific and articulable,” and the officer’s training and experience can weigh into this factor as well.    

Once the vehicle has stopped, a second set of considerations arise if the officer has reason to expand the search beyond the immediate reason of the stop.  An officer may ask general questions and use his senses—sight, touch, scent, and hearing—in combination with this experience and training, to determine whether or not his expansion of the search is reasonable.  The probable cause standard is used at this point.  That expansion of the search usually results in a preliminary breath test, the results of which can be used for making an arrest but are inadmissible as evidence in a trial.

At this point, an officer may arrest a person on the suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol (or drugs).  An arrest must be based on “probable cause,” which is a higher standard than “reasonable articulable suspicion,” but still relatively low compared to “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”  Probable cause is defined as when “the facts would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to hold an honest and strong suspicion that the driver was under the influence.” See State v. Hendricks.   An officer only needs one objective indication of intoxication to constitute probable cause.  However, in most circumstances an officer usually has more than one, such as bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, flushed complexion, balance and coordination problems, strong odors of alcohol, and admission to previously drinking or taking drugs.  When these facts are considered together, including the results of a field sobriety test and preliminary breath test, the officer can usually provide a court enough evidence to determine that probable cause existed.  The chemical test at the stationhouse is the evidence that would be used against a defendant at trial, but that defendant has the right to a third-party test after the police have tested the suspect.   

It should also be noted that statements made during the period of time from the stop until the point of arrest are usually not protected under Miranda (“You have the right to remain silent…”), wherein a criminal suspect has the right to remain silent.  This issue is outside the scope of this article, but it is fact-driven and usually depends on whether or not a person’s freedom is being limited in some manner, such as being placed in handcuffs or being told not to leave the scene by a police officer.

Each of the standards discussed is a question of law that must be examined by a lawyer to know whether or not an issue exists.  In many cases, the police have properly followed all of the steps and have met the proper evidentiary burden for stop, search, and arrest.  However, a layperson may not know this because they feel that they failed the breathalyzer, but that does not matter.  The whole case can be thrown out if the officer illegally stops someone or does not have enough evidence to expand the search to a field sobriety test.  Everything up to the point of the breath test really does matter!

The Most Expensive and Difficult Issue of Divorce

Two issues make divorces expensive: valuing businesses and children.  And of all issues, the custody of the children is the most difficult to resolve. The best interests of the children are always the paramount concern of the court and parents. 

How individual factors are weighted amongst the parties and the court is the subject of division in many cases. All the while the children are watching this happen, even if the parents think they are not.

In a divorce case, the initial establishment of custody is extremely, extremely important.  Two types of custody exist:  legal custody and physical custody. Legal custody is the right to be involved in the medical, educational, and religious decisions affecting the child.  Physical custody is the right to determine the day-to-day living decisions necessary for raising a child, such as who the babysitter is, what the child’s schedule is, what extracurricular activities the child participates in, and what and how other “administrative” decisions need to be made. 

Custody is then awarded solely to one parent or jointly to both.  A rebuttable presumption exists that parents of a child will be awarded joint legal custody.  No presumption exists on the determination of physical custody, although this precise issue is being hotly debated within the legal community and at the legislature. 

The most important thing to remember is that custody is not the same as parenting time.  Parenting time is the physical time spent with the child, which cannot be interfered with by the other party. 

Understanding the legal standards with regard to the custody is important.  At the initial establishment of custody phase, the court is to determine custody on the basis of the “best interest of the child standard.”  Once custody has been established, modifying it requires an “endangerment” standard, where the party pushing for the modification has to show that the child’s physical, psychological, or emotional development is endangered by virtue of the other parent’s custody. 

This is an extraordinarily difficult standard to achieve.  Generally, police reports and social service intervention must be shown, and the danger must be current and severe.  Even beyond all of that, custody modification is the most bruising legal fight one can be in, and it will most likely cause the child or children lasting scars.  Therefore, by way of comparison, the initial determination of custody becomes more important because of the lower legal standard.

Nonetheless, the holdover philosophy of ages past continues to dominate the current judicial approach to the problem of contested custody proceedings.  Custody used to be simple.  Generally, when a husband and wife divorced, the wife got the custody of the children and the house and the father got an alimony obligation, a child support obligation, and a right to visitation.  Now, both parents are on an equal legal playing field, and since Minnesota adopted no-fault divorce in the early 1970s, the fight has shifted away from the grounds for divorce and more to the children.  

Nevertheless, the general outcome is the same (the terms are different, but still the same):  the husband still pays maintenance and child support, and he gets a parenting time schedule, just like before.  And thus, the big fight is usually for naught. 

I must quickly add that each human circumstance is different and every single family situation has different facts, so my statements above are general in nature.  However, the gender roles often drive the court to the custody decision.  On the Iron Range, men employed in the mines often have schedules that do not correlate as well to raising children as women’s schedules do.  And if the wife is the one carrying most of the childrearing responsibilities, the court will often look at that as a family decision made prior to the divorce and not deviate from that in a custody award. 

Men should recognize that they are viewed equally under the law, but that the facts are what support the decision of custody.  So, if men want a different custody award, then they have to have facts to support that conclusion.     

This article, authored by Erik Honkanen, was originally published in The Home Town Focus

DISCLAIMER: 

The information contained on the Honkanen Law Firm, S.C. website is offered purely for information purposes. It is not intended to create or promote an attorney-client relationship and does not constitute and should not be relied upon as legal advice. It is not intended to seek professional employment in any state where lawyers in the firm are not admitted to practice, or in any state where this web site would not comply with the applicable requirements concerning advertisements and solicitations. We intend to make every attempt to keep this information current. We do not promise or guarantee, however, that the information is complete or up-to-date, and Internet subscribers and online readers should not act based upon this information without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted to practice in your jurisdiction. Transmission of information from the Honkanen Law Firm, S.C. website is not intended to create, and its receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Honkanen Law Firm, S.C. or any of its individual attorneys or personnel. If you elect to communicate with the firm, or any of its attorneys, through this website, do not transmit information about any matter (and particularly not any confidential information) that may involve you until the firm has agreed to represent you and you have received confirmation of that fact in the form of a written engagement letter or fee agreement

MN Spousal Maintenance: The never-ending divorce?

Wondering if you qualify for spousal maintenance? Worried that you may have to pay it? Contact our office today for a free legal consultation! We can help you during this life change. 

Entire bookshelves could be written about spousal maintenance!

In divorces, the request for payment of spousal maintenance by one side will trigger paralyzing fear for the other side and potential big legal bills for everyone.  Spousal maintenance is payment of future income or earnings by one spouse to the other spouse.  It can be temporary or permanent; monthly payments or one lump sum; and really expensive or very little. 

For the spouse paying the maintenance bill, it seems unfair because it’s like the marriage never ended.  Reliving the emotional rollercoaster with each check can be absolutely draining.  For the receiver, it can be the only lifeline to staying alive or rehabilitating into the job market.  The central idea is to have some kind of balance and consistency between the lifestyles of pre- and post-divorce, especially if a receiving spouse has to re-train or find a job. (Common with stay-at-home parents)

In recent days, statutory and case law generally require district court judges to award permanent spousal maintenance in long-term marriages where there is a question whether the spouse seeking spousal maintenance can be self-supporting.  Issues of good faith and rehabilitation have begun to re-emerge and the higher courts reviewing the spousal maintenance issues have wrestled with the tension between recognizing the contributions of spouses and requiring those spouses to share in the economic consequences of divorce.

Now, the courts have begun shifting the focus back to the spouse receiving maintenance when the Minnesota legislature passed a law that permits spousal maintenance awards to be modified on the basis of cohabitation.  This makes sense, as a spouse that is living with a partner presumably has less household expenses because they are sharing bills and presumably taking in two incomes. 

The legislature included four factors that courts must consider: 

1)  would the party receiving maintenance marry the live-in partner but for the award of maintenance;

2)  what kind of economic benefit is that party receiving because of the co-habitation (i.e., bills split, no house payment, or rental income, etc.);

3)  how long the parties have been living together and the likely continuance of that living arrangement; and

4) what economic impact would occur if the co-habitation ended?

Once it has been determined that maintenance will be awarded, the court must consider all relevant factors, including: 

(1) the financial resources of the spouse seeking maintenance, and his or her ability to meet his or her needs independently;

(2) the time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the spouse seeking maintenance to find appropriate employment and the probability, given the spouse’s age and skills, of completing education or training and becoming fully self-supporting;

(3) the standard of living established during the marriage;

(4) the length of marriage, and in the case of a homemaker, the length of absence from employment and the extent to which any education, skills, or experience have become outmoded and earning capacity has become permanently diminished;

(5) the loss of earnings and other employment opportunities foregone by the spouse seeking spousal maintenance;

(6) the age and physical and emotional condition of the spouse seeking maintenance;

(7) the ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet his or her own needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance; and

(8) the contribution of each party in the acquisition of marital property, as well as the contribution of the spouse as a homemaker.

The facts of each case are different, and it is the judge’s job to apply the law to the facts of each case.  Unlike child support, there are no guidelines for determining spousal maintenance and District Court Judges have wide discretion to award spousal maintenance.  The court’s decision to award spousal maintenance is permissive, meaning the Court may grant maintenance for either spouse.  The amount and duration of spousal maintenance can vary widely dependent upon the region, a spouse’s special needs, the cost of living, and the particular judge hearing the case.  This makes it very difficult to predict the outcome in any case, but if there is a long marriage and a substantial difference in the incomes of the parties, maintenance is a likely outcome. 

However, each of these questions is very fact-based and requires a close analysis of the facts, budgets, future plans, and even co-habitation.  In the end, there is no clear method of determining what a spousal maintenance award will be, so it is gamble to push this to a court decision.  Like all family law issues, it is generally better to work toward a compromise that, although imperfect, is fair and equitable under the circumstances.

Wondering if you qualify for spousal maintenance? Worried that you may have to pay it? Contact our office today for a free legal consultation! We can help you during this life change. 

--Jim Cope of Cope and Peterson co-authored this article that appeared in the Hometown Focus in March 2011.

DISCLAIMER: 

The information contained on the Honkanen Law Firm, S.C. website is offered purely for information purposes. It is not intended to create or promote an attorney-client relationship and does not constitute and should not be relied upon as legal advice. It is not intended to seek professional employment in any state where lawyers in the firm are not admitted to practice, or in any state where this web site would not comply with the applicable requirements concerning advertisements and solicitations. We intend to make every attempt to keep this information current. We do not promise or guarantee, however, that the information is complete or up-to-date, and Internet subscribers and online readers should not act based upon this information without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted to practice in your jurisdiction. Transmission of information from the Honkanen Law Firm, S.C. website is not intended to create, and its receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Honkanen Law Firm, S.C. or any of its individual attorneys or personnel. If you elect to communicate with the firm, or any of its attorneys, through this website, do not transmit information about any matter (and particularly not any confidential information) that may involve you until the firm has agreed to represent you and you have received confirmation of that fact in the form of a written engagement letter or fee agreement

Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure Requirements: What is the Truth?

June 9, 2017 US Supreme Court update:

The U.S. Supreme Court has accept review of a case wherein the government obtained a robbery suspect's cell phone data that included location data without a warrant.  Using law established in the 1970s regarding landline phone use, the government argues that the suspect basically consented to the search because a cell phone carrier is a third party.  The defendant argues that so much private information is held on cell phones that no reasonable person would consent to a government search that included precise locations, such as medical facilities where he may have obtained treatment, what churches he may have prayed at, what political rallies he may have attended, or which libraries he may have frequented.  This will be a landmark case in 4th Amendment law.

One place where people learn about search and seizure is from watching TV.  “Law and Order”has educated millions as to the appropriateness of warrants and warrantless searches.  However, the Fourth Amendment has been obfuscated with made-for-television drama. 

Understanding how the Fourth Amendment developed and how its history has shaped its application to our society illustrates an expanding and perhaps more intrusive governmental role. 

Prior to understanding the text of the Fourth Amendment, one must understand where it came from first.

Like the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, the Fourth Amendment developed from pre-existing common law from Great Britain and the colonies.  Two famous cases in Britain confined the government from making unreasonable or expansive searched.  They were Wilkes v. Wood (1763) and Entick v. Carrington.  Both cases concerned pamphleteers who are critical of the King.  In each of those cases, agents of the Kroll executed their own warrants, without the use of a magistrate or judge, and ransacked and confiscated all of the suspects’ books and papers.  From this flowed the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This text can be broken into two distinct requirements. 

First, a person has a right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Second, a warrant shall be supported by probable cause, and it must be specific as to the place and things or persons to be seized.  The Fourth Amendment does not require the use of warrants, but it does place limits upon when those warrants are issued. 

Additionally, the Bill of Rights only protected against federal intrusions into a citizen’s rights, not state police official.  That changed when the Supreme Court in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) held that the fourth amendment was protected from state or local interference through the 14th amendment's process clause, i.e. it was “incorporated” into the states.  Thus, the Supreme Court drew a line in the sand that neither state nor federal officials could lawfully cross, and if they did, the evidence gained from an illegal search or seizure would be excluded or suppressed at trial.

Exceptions to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment

Since 1961, the Supreme Court has developed a variety of exceptions to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.  Police could search for and seize evidence without a warrant when the evidence was in plain sight, when the search was incident to a lawful arrest, or when exigent circumstances existed, such as hot pursuit or destruction of evidence.  When exigent circumstances are raised, probable cause for the search must still be present.

Requirements for warrants and searches

A series hotly contested legal battles throughout the 1970s and ‘80s further refined the Fourth Amendment's requirements for warrants and searches.  Police are allowed to stop a vehicle or investigate suspicious behavior using a lower standard than probable cause, called “reasonable articulable suspicion” because a person has a lower expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle. 

However, the truck of a car is not openly visible to the public, so the police must first get a search warrant, supported by probable cause, to open the truck.  Thus, the broad principles of the Fourth Amendment have been narrowed down to some bright line rules to assist police officers in the execution of their duties.  Whether or not this was intended by the Founding Fathers is arguable, but nonetheless, it is what the law is today. 

Have you, or someone you know, recently been subjected to search and seizure? Contact our office today for a free legal consultation: 218-749-3047

Note: Minnesota Practicing Attorneys

Article originally published in Hometown Focus.

DISCLAIMER: 

The information contained on the Honkanen Law Firm, S.C. website is offered purely for information purposes. It is not intended to create or promote an attorney-client relationship and does not constitute and should not be relied upon as legal advice. It is not intended to seek professional employment in any state where lawyers in the firm are not admitted to practice, or in any state where this web site would not comply with the applicable requirements concerning advertisements and solicitations. We intend to make every attempt to keep this information current. We do not promise or guarantee, however, that the information is complete or up-to-date, and Internet subscribers and online readers should not act based upon this information without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted to practice in your jurisdiction. Transmission of information from the Honkanen Law Firm, S.C. website is not intended to create, and its receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Honkanen Law Firm, S.C. or any of its individual attorneys or personnel. If you elect to communicate with the firm, or any of its attorneys, through this website, do not transmit information about any matter (and particularly not any confidential information) that may involve you until the firm has agreed to represent you and you have received confirmation of that fact in the form of a written engagement letter or fee agreement.

Students and Dog Searches... Constitutional?

Schools are consistently inviting law enforcement officials into the school to conduct contraband sweeps with specially trained dogs.  This is arguably unconstitutional.  School officials have the ability to require students to open their lockers upon demand, but going through the contents of a student’s personal belongings requires a low burden of proof—reasonable articulable suspicion, rather than probable cause.  The goal of preventing drugs and guns in school is a highly laudable and important policy for schools.  Whether or not this modeling of our constitutional principles, in particular the use of drug dogs as a tactic to ferret out contraband, is helpful over time is questionable.  

If the police were to walk up and down Main Street with a dog, they cannot apply for a warrant, nor open a vehicle, on the basis alone that a dog is “hitting” on a particular car, although it is very close.  This does not satisfy the probable cause requirement in the Fourth Amendment.  The Fourth Amendment disallows unreasonable searches, and searches that are performed must be supported by “probable cause,” which means "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search.”  The U.S. Supreme Court has opined that the use of a well-trained narcotics-detection dog—one that "does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view,"—during a lawful traffic stop, generally does not implicate legitimate privacy interests.  [Emphasis added by author]

But when these sniffs are done in a school, law enforcement can open up a student’s personal belongings without meeting the probable cause standard.  Why?  Our Supreme Court has said that the Fourth Amendment protections do apply to schools, but due to the fact that our society recognizes that students are minors and that society has an interest in reducing drugs and other contraband in schools, school administrators, who are subject to constitutional restraints on invading a student’s privacy and liberty, must only meet the lower reasonable articulable suspicion standard.  Therefore, a dog “hitting” on a particular school bag could meet that low burden, but it is still very questionable because the Supreme Court says one still needs independent, objective facts upon which to rest their suspicion.  A dog may not meet that standard without more.    

Also worth noting, is that police dogs are not infallible and can falsely “hit” on things that are not contraband, such as perfume, or “hit” on residues of substances not illegal, such as gun powder.  So, as hunting begins, students may be shooting guns at wild game, a legal activity, but they will later be searched for weapons at school because of gun powder residue innocently left on clothing or backpacks.  Nevertheless, this form of search and seizure, although legal, is over-inclusive, meaning that too many innocent students will now be subject to school and law enforcement rummaging through the intimacies of the person and his or her possessions based simply on what a dog indicates.

Teenagers are not uninformed and unsophisticated.  Perhaps students will leave contraband in a place other than school, but does the use of dogs stop the actual behaviors?  And what are the unintended consequences of allowing dogs into schools?  Will students be dulled as to their particular constitutional rights so as to make future, unreasonable intrusions more tolerable?  What are the effects of innocent students being subjected to searches?  Does the search end at the locked, private journal, or do school officials and law enforcement now have enough suspicion to read through the thoughts of a 15-year-old girl?  They could assert that she may be keeping a log of all her drug activities.  All of this because of dog sniffs…perhaps hitting on the alcohol content of a bottle of perfume?  Should students be advised prior to the dog sweeps of what their rights are if a dog hits on something?  With all of these scenarios in mind, I cannot imagine that the administrative log jam of time-consuming paperwork, wasted money, and personal intrusions into the lives of students makes it even worth performing these searches in the first place, but nevertheless, this is the current state of our schools.  Can this use of dogs expand further into a constitutional slippery-slope that will jeopardize the rights of innocent, law-abiding students?  And do we just let it happen?

DISCLAIMER: 

The information contained on the Honkanen Law Firm, S.C. website is offered purely for information purposes. It is not intended to create or promote an attorney-client relationship and does not constitute and should not be relied upon as legal advice. It is not intended to seek professional employment in any state where lawyers in the firm are not admitted to practice, or in any state where this web site would not comply with the applicable requirements concerning advertisements and solicitations. We intend to make every attempt to keep this information current. We do not promise or guarantee, however, that the information is complete or up-to-date, and Internet subscribers and online readers should not act based upon this information without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted to practice in your jurisdiction. Transmission of information from the Honkanen Law Firm, S.C. website is not intended to create, and its receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Honkanen Law Firm, S.C. or any of its individual attorneys or personnel. If you elect to communicate with the firm, or any of its attorneys, through this website, do not transmit information about any matter (and particularly not any confidential information) that may involve you until the firm has agreed to represent you and you have received confirmation of that fact in the form of a written engagement letter or fee agreement.