Probate Litigation and Administration, with Jordan C. Parr of Hill, Farrer & Burrill

0:02 So, one of the exciting parts about probate is there's always something different. And it's never really what you what you expect the last case to be like. As a probate real estate broker, I'm really excited to work with a kind of comp- complicated litigation situation with our guest today, Jordan Parr of Hill, Farrer, and Burrill, where, you know, it's not the ordinary case where family has money and they want to sell a house and divide the revenue. The opposite, in this case there was a creditor involved who was forcing the issue. And they owed money to somebody who happened to be a large firm who hired Jordan's firm to represent them and get collected. So, Jordan, thank you for joining us today.

0:36 Thanks for having me, Bill. It's a pleasure to be here. So, we do litigation and I think one of the things that's a challenge is people call me and say, "Hey, Bill, I'm being ripped off by my brother and it's a probate and there's, you know, a $400,000 house and we're we're arguing over $50,000. I want to sue him." I say to them, "That's an expensive proposition unless you find somebody to do on contingency and even they're usually it's like a million-dollar minimum for those who do contingency work." But you really represent primarily I would imagine corporate clients or high-net-worth individuals who have the ability to pay for a claim to hire your firm to collect money. Is that kind of standard overview or good overview for you?

1:12 Yeah, I think that's a really good point. it is true that probate litigation and any litigation really is is so expensive and you really have to wonder if the juice is worth the squeeze, so to speak, because if you're fighting over 50 grand or whatever, I mean, that is a lot of money to, you know, in a certain extent, but the attorneys' fees, I mean, if you were to go to trial over that amount of money, it just does not make any sense. So, I mean, most of the time when I am representing clients who are in a litigation posture, they are of the wealthier, you know, they have the means to afford to take things to trial. that's not always the case. I have some other clients where, you know, the goal is really to settle it. I mean, often times the goal is to settle it no matter what, but sometimes you do have to take it all the way. But for when you are faced with these kinds of disputes, you really need to count the cost before, you know, thinking that you can just show up and get the relief that you want cuz you might have a great case, but the just the fees that are involved in litigating it are substantial. So, it's it's something to really be aware of.

2:21 Yeah, I had you on this podcast previously, an attorney who won a big case for elder abuse where a real estate developer had falsely transferred a bunch of property and then in this case, the elderly victim couldn't manage her affairs, but her daughter, I think, was fairly well-to-do and it was willing to put up three you know, $200,000 initially and then another $100,000 $300,000 into this case, but it went to appeal. And that's even that's like you know, if you think attorneys are expensive, you should talk about appellate fees. It's even more expensive and $300,000 only took them so far. They're fortunate to get the attorney to work on a contingency for the rest of the way and they won and got it back, but that's not the common case. I imagine people pay out of their pocket, find out that their pockets are only so deep at some point, right?

3:06 Yeah, and often times clients say, "Well, I want to get my attorney's fees back as part of, you know, the litigation." And certainly that can be an option in certain circumstances, but because the majority of cases do end up settling, going to mediation, coming up with a deal, very rarely, if a case settles, do does the other side agree to pay the attorney's fees. It's I'd say it's much more common in that settlement situation where each side bears their costs. So, again, helping clients have a real understanding of even if you win, there's a cost to it, really helps calibrate their expectations that I think is is very important part as a litigator to make clear to clients.

3:54 On the flip side, there are people who are wronged and there are people who have the ability financially to pursue it and we recently worked on a case where that was such a case where you had a client we're not going to go into details on, but a very large corporate entity that had been wronged for a large amount of money and there was a property they were able to lean and then sell. So, talk a little bit about how the client went about getting paid back in a case where the person I think in this case the person that they had their lawsuit victory against for this claim passed. So, but they still were able to get the money from the estate. How did that work out?

4:29 So, it was a definitely an unusual situation and to kind of back up what actually happened was our client, the creditor, had a judgment against the son of a deceased person and the son basically, you know, he did not he was he did not have enough money to cover the judgment that was owed. And so, the procedure that we had to go through is that he was going to get an inheritance from this family member and so, we came in and said, "Hey, this guy is still owes money. We're going to We're going to ask the court to assign his inheritance to the creditor." And we were able to do that and this guy, you know, he was a bad actor and had done a lot of, you know, unethical things and so, the court was pretty sympathetic to the creditor saying, "Hey, this guy, you know, he has to he has money that he has to pay and so, we can pay the creditor out of the estate." And there were some procedures that we had to follow in order to make that happen, but that is a very that was a very unusual and colorful case for sure.

5:38 And that case was one of was a case where a creditor is allowed to file a petition to administer an estate. This is something people understand is just because somebody passes doesn't mean it has to be family members or heirs at law or otherwise. if you're owed money by somebody, there's a list there's a hierarchy list of who has priority to be approved by the court. But one of them could be a creditor. In this case, I think that's what we did. The creditor and you represented them, applied, got the right to administer, and then you hired somebody as a human being to step in and actually administer the case. And that's kind of how the whole process got started, correct?

6:16 Exactly. And creditors are at the very bottom of the list of the priority, but they are on there. And the reason for that is a much more typical situation is a person passes away with creditors. So, our situation that we're just talking about, it wasn't the deceased person who actually owed money, it was their son, and that was kind of the odd thing about it. But it's much more common for if a person passes away with debt, and then a creditor says, "Well, okay, this person has passed away. How do I, you know, collect what's owed to me?" You typically need to do that through a probate administration. And so, family members might say, "Well, if my, you know, we don't want to open a probate administration because we don't want to deal with the creditor issue." And, you know, if there's a estate plan or trust, there's other, you know, nuances that complicate things. But in a situation where someone dies without a trust or whatever, and the family members don't want to open a probate because for creditor reasons or whatever, the probate code does allow the creditor to say, "Well, if no one's going to do it, we're going to do it." And almost always what happens is the creditor, submits their petition for probate, and then that kind of forces a family member or somebody else to step in and say, "Okay, well, you know, I'm going to have more priority than the creditor because again, they're at the bottom of the list. And so, at least I'll be somewhat involved in the negotiations. And then, once the probate is open, the creditor can submit their claim with the court, and then it goes through the process of whether it's accepted, and if you have to litigate that, and you know, it can spiral from there. But, certainly, if you if a creditor is owed money when somebody passes away, and nobody is doing anything about it, yeah, filing a petition for the deceased person as their creditor is is an option, for sure.

8:04 Now, I don't give legal advice, I'm not attorney, and you are, so but I do give business advice in the probate space, and I've had several people who are creditors, and my advice was, "Hey, file a petition, because they're going to talk about it forever. They don't want to sell the house. They're glad to live there for free, and put you off." And they'll talk about it and talk about it. but, if you file, it forces a hearing date, by which at some point they need to do something, and they can drag it out to some degree, and object, and so on. But, at least the clock starts, and it forces them to do something. Is that fair legal advice to give to a creditor?

8:40 Well, it's so important for creditors to establish their rights, because there's a hard stop, a statutory, that if you're owed debt from a deceased person, it's after a year, you're out of luck, basically. So, you've got to get that petition on file, and file that claim within a year of the date of death of the person, the debtor, or otherwise, you just you waived essentially waived your right to collect on that. So, it's so important that if no one's doing anything to get that petition on file, and not just the petition, the actual creditor's claim, that is a separate document that needs to be filed. That needs to be in the court within a year of the date of death, or else you are basically out of luck.

9:25 And the family, if they're if there's a creditor, and there's no equity in the house, or they don't want to sell the house, they'll drag it out for a year, 2 years. I mean, I know people talk about the timelines, but I actually download the actual court filings in LA County. and can tell you there's plenty The average case doesn't close for over 2 years. That's just the average. That's not counting ones where they try to delay things. In the case that we worked on with you, Jordan, the son in this case, he tried to fight us or he did fight us at every single issue to the death, right? So, he's he's going to drag it out forever. He's He was glad to drag it out forever.

10:01 Yeah, unfortunately, you know, the delay tactics the court already moves slow even when everything's going smoothly. And then if you have somebody who's incentivized to sandbag or, you know, cause that delay, there's it can be very frustrating certainly.

10:20 One thing that's changed here in LA is it's so difficult to get squatters or tenants or other occupants who have no right out of a property. You know, if they're properly motivated, it's almost impossible. It's cheaper for them to fight legally than it is to move. And their courts are so sympathetic. And this is a case where it was interesting we had a new law in LA where a seller is obligated to identify rare species or endangered species of trees. And we couldn't get on the property without trespassing to some degree. And this guy wouldn't even allow us to get on the property just to look at the trees. And we literally had to get a I think an ex parte motion signed by the court and then court order to allow us to go on the property. I mean, really at some point it's a good thing that your attorney is cuz I think family members would lose heart along the way and be so frustrated and often give up. That's why we have professionals like you to carry the suit to the end.

11:16 Definitely. And just being aware of what your options are when you have a, you know, stubborn person or somebody who's acting in bad faith, you know, the law does provide these levers that you can pull in order to move things forward. but there's always a cost and it's always challenging, even when, you know, you have the facts on your side. It's just the nature of an imperfect court system, but certainly as an attorney, when I'm able to come in and help a client navigate these really thorny and, you know, frustrating issues and get through to the other side, it's one of the things that I like most about my job. It's extremely satisfying, to really kind of make a way for people when they're encountering these obstacles.

12:03 One of the things I've noticed is that, you know, just like in any industry, there's different types of attorneys, not just in terms of technical work, but in terms of personality, but litigators tend to be different than probate administrators or probate filers or estate planning filers. Not to say you can't do all of it, but that it seems that the best of one is different than the best of the other. And one thing that I notice about litigators in particular is they tend to compartmentalize more clearly what they do and what they don't do, and they're quicker to delegate what they don't do, than the average attorney who will say, "Oh, I could follow probate. How hard could it be?" and I know in this case, you know, I and I didn't know the whole breakdown. There were several other parties. We had a fiduciary. We had another attorney involved. Talk about coordinating in litigation, the need for multiple attorneys to represent a client, to be successful.

12:55 Yeah, I think it's really important. I mean, as attorneys, we always have a duty of competency, and so making sure that whatever advice you're giving is something that you are, you know, familiar with and confident about. So, having an attorney who really knows their lane, is is important. And, of course, hiring lots of attorneys, there's an expense to that, but I would say that it's better to pay that money up front than to try and have somebody do it all, you know, to cut costs, but then that person doesn't do it correctly, and then you have to go back, and it's always, you know, it's it's more difficult to fix things after they've already happened than it is to just do it right the first time.

13:39 Yeah. So, certainly making sure that the attorney that you hire is really well suited for the particular role that you need them for.

13:48 Yeah. and in this era, you know, I've talked to older attorneys, it's become so much more specialized. I'm a I'm a younger guy, and it's just normal for me to see the way that, you know, you have a niche that you focus in, and I'm but that hasn't always been the case. Having talked to older practitioners, it's like there was an era where being a generalist was more common,

14:11 Yes. especially in a market like Los Angeles, that that is is less and less the case, I think. Yeah, my father was an attorney, and he they described themselves as a country attorneys. They were in Whittier, but they had three partners who covered everything you could encounter. They had a criminal attorney, a wills and probate attorney, and my father was the civil, but they covered all kinds of stuff, and drunk drivers, and you know, business formation, and civil trials, and things like that. So, it was a different era, and I think that's true with real estate as well. and particularly this niche is something that gets very complicated. But at the same time, I think the thing that on one hand, you recognize that limit and are quick to delegate, I also know I don't again, I don't want to get too personal here, but I also know it's your advantage because the people that you send business to see you working in the specialty, and then come back to you on the next case where they need somebody who has a specialty. So, I think sometimes attorneys are afraid to delegate out or assign out or refer out business that they don't do, wanting to do it all, but they end up doing what they're not good at versus if you just focus on the most best of the customer or client, you end up getting more work than you can handle, I think, in the long run.

15:21 Certainly, and one of the things that I really like about my firm Hill Farrer is that we have a team of attorneys that are kind of our sister you know, practitioners in the sense that we've got our trusts and estates practice, but then we've also got real estate and business attorneys and very often there's a lot of overlap between these areas because you know, as you're administering a trust or a probate, there might be I mean, very often is real estate investments, small businesses and there's all these ways that these assets that are outside the typical, you know, securities and cash and what have you, where they need a little bit more expertise in terms of making sure that they're properly administered as we can just go down the hall and ask our colleague and keep it in-house and say, "Hey, I'm dealing with this, you know, partnership issue. Can you Can you help weigh in on this?" And so, that way I feel really equipped to, you know, whatever my clients might be facing, if I don't know what it is, I know that there's somebody in my firm who can who can help. So, it's really great to have that depth of practice all under one roof.

16:30 Yeah, and I think that I've noticed that attorneys who were, you know, more experienced maybe build that through a Rolodex, but it's hard as a sole practitioner to have kind of that informal, collegial, "Hey, I have this situation." And you might not even think to call them, but you go down the hall to go to the restroom or get a drink of water, you bump into your colleague, "Hey, you know, you do well estate." I imagine you have these informal calls. That's the advantage of being in an office versus being a sole practitioner. I feel the same way as a real estate agent that on one hand, I have the efficiency of being on my own, on the other hand, I lose some of that collegial interaction. And it certainly might mentees around me kind of lose that. So, I it's it's interesting that you would state that. So, talk about, you know, obviously, you work for a firm. I'm sure there's trade-offs, right? There must be a give and a take. on one hand, you know, you don't own the firm outright. On the other hand, I'm sure there's different programs and policies and things like that. Talk about your conscious choice to be at this particular firm. What is it that in addition to the resources on these cases, or is that it primarily? That just helps you be a better attorney.

17:34 Well, one of the things that really stood out to me about Hill Farrer is that it's one of the older firms in Los Angeles. It was founded, I think, in 1923, so it's over 100 years old. and I'm born and raised in LA, so I love the historical connection that the city and this firm have together. And then the way that it's structured is fairly unique in the sense that you know, they have a very unique compensation structure that really incentivizes even associates to do a lot of business development. And so, I really appreciate that kind of ownership mentality that they give even to associate attorneys. and the people there, it's it's been the warmest, most collegiate environment in a law firm that I've worked at, which is is really wonderful. And everyone there is is brilliant, and it's a it's an absolutely great atmosphere to learn and to live in, really. So, those were the main reasons that attracted it to me. So, and I'm I'm very happy here.

18:35 Well, they certainly have an amazing reputation. I know I know of them before we worked here the first time, and certainly everything you've done since has only confirmed. So, let's talk about your business particularly as a litigator. I know you have background drafting estate plans, and I think you say that gives you like a drafter's eye in litigation. Talk a little bit about the advantage of having been on the drafting side of estate planning that makes you more effective on the litigation side.

19:03 Absolutely. I mean, I think it's really been a great foundation for me, you know, being on the planning and admin side and then also doing litigation. It because when you're you know, when there's a dispute about what a trust says or what's supposed to happen, I can draw upon my experience of, well, you know, if there wasn't a controversy here, this is what it appears is supposed to be, you know, what the document says. and having written sort of trusts and knowing that, okay, well, this is probably what the trustor intended. And oftentimes when there's a dispute, it's the trustor is no longer living, so you can't just ask them. All you have is what the document says. so, having that experience creating the documents helps me read them better. And then my tax background also gives me another kind of layer to which I look at you know, disputes that might arise because, for example, a fiduciary may be missing, you know, the tax implications and they may be damaging you know, a beneficiary or the trust because they didn't do the proper procedures in terms of, you know, filing the estate tax return or making sure there was, you know, a gift tax return or whatever tax issues that come up in a dispute. So, both the planning and admin with the tax side, I think give me a very unique perspective that helps my litigation practice, certainly.

20:36 I'd also think experience drafting you see more plans as a drafter than you would as a litigator, you know, for the same time period. And so, it kind of consolidates your experience faster versus seems to me litigation just becomes more consuming. You can only handle so many trials at once, but you can probably handle a number of estate plans going on. So, it's seems to be a kind of common career path, I think and it makes sense. Talk about so, using your drafter's experience then, talk about what are, you know, as a litigator, what are one or two of the most common mistakes or traps that drafters make in poorly written plans that can lead to litigation if you don't think things through?

21:13 So, I think one of the biggest things is getting to know the trustors, getting to know the clients. And what I mean by that is not just getting a list of their assets, but really understanding the family dynamics at play because so often in trust and estate litigation, there's emotional content that drives these disputes in a way that a typical business, you know, a contract dispute or something isn't there. I mean, unfortunately, you have brothers and sisters, you know, grandkids, family members, close family members who are who are fighting each other. And there's all this family history, you know, there are things that go back to childhood to high school. And it's like it's all coming out in these estate disputes. And I say for drafters to really get to know how the family gets along is probably one of the strongest things you can do to avoid litigation. And so, here's what I mean. So, for example, if brother and sister, you know, don't get along, or brother and sister get along, but third brother is the odd person out, or whatever the situation might be, knowing that will help kind of cut off potential disputes in the future because, for example, it's not uncommon for, you know, if you're not really getting into the details for families to just name, "Oh, well, I'm going to name my oldest child as the trustee because they're the oldest. So, I'm just going to put them in as in control." But if you get to know that family say, "Oh, well, oldest and middle child just really can't stand each other." And middle child has, you know, a lot of, you know, baggage about older child. Well, then do you really want older child to be in control of middle child's, you know, inheritance, that's that's just a recipe for middle child to feel upset and to be looking for, you know, something to fight about.

23:11 And so, when you know that there's family tension, it really helps avoid it at the start because you could say, "Okay, let's just put a neutral fiduciary in. Let's just put, you know, a corporate fiduciary, whoever it is, to avoid you know, those disputes." Or maybe there's one child who brother A and brother C don't get along, but sister B is kind of the glue and everyone kind of likes her. Well, she should probably be the fiduciary then if everybody gets around her if you don't want to do the corporate or the professional fiduciary route. So, those sorts of family dynamics, they're what make this job very interesting. They're also what make this job very challenging in many ways, but as a as a drafter, really getting to know your clients and their lives, not just their balance sheet, I think is probably the best thing you can do when you're creating an estate plan.

24:06 And a constant theme on this channel is always combining the soft skills with the technical skills because it's nice to be the world's greatest attorney in terms of legal knowledge, but if you understand your clients and all the parties communication styles and understand their emotions, you can apply those skills more effectively. If you don't, you're going to miss it. You're going to apply the wrong skills and not be as successful. That's a constant theme I think I see with all the attorneys that we talk to. One of the most common areas of litigation that I've seen is undue influence, right? Is a estate plan done, and out of the blue comes a will or another plan leaving everything to the caregiver, the girlfriend who happens to be the caregiver, or the one child who's in the house who is, quote, the caregiver for the last 5 or 10 years. And so, I've seen cases where to me it's obviously undue influence. I mean, as a human being I'm allowed to make that judgment, but that doesn't mean that my judgment has any staying court. They come to you with it, and you have to prove it. So, what's the biggest challenge in proving undue influence, and what are some of the strategies in being successful in this really challenging area?

25:13 So, I think probably one of the biggest challenges is usually by the time a lawsuit is brought in these cases, the person who was accused of undue influence is either incapacitated, they have Alzheimer's, dementia, or what have you, or they're passed away. So, not being able to, you know, you're having to kind of do some detective work to say, "Okay, here's what the documents say. Here's what the medical records are. You know, how susceptible was this person?" you know, that that is that takes a lot of work to get to the bottom of that. And that's why I always advise my planning clients that if they're going to do something that could be controversial, if they're still in good health, it's better to tell the family member, you know, so they hear it straight from your mouth as opposed to surprise, "Here's your you're disinherited." And you and now mom and dad are passed away, and then that person thinks, "Well, they would have never disinherited me. Somebody must have been manipulating them." And then they file a lawsuit when if it's if the person, the trustor, the parents are able to communicate that, you know, decision themselves, it's never a fun conversation, obviously, but it's definitely worth it to avoid a potential lawsuit down the line. So, yeah, figuring out what the trustor really intended and how susceptible they were when they're no longer available to speak for themselves, that's that's very challenging. the things that I look for in terms of evaluating these cases are like sudden changes that are uncharacteristic of somebody. So, like for example, you know, the caregiver situation, that's always a red flag. you know, and there are times, you know, and what makes that challenging is there are times where it is legitimate to give to a caregiver. So, it's not

27:07 Difficult cuz there are some of those. Yeah, it's not a black and white thing, but the law also, you know, caregiving, you know, they know that that's an area of potential abuse. So, there are certain, you know, presumptions that if a caregiver gets a gift that, you know, it creates a little bit it makes it a little bit easier to contest that, but it's still always challenging because again, you can't get the information from the person who made the gift. All you have is just the paperwork, so to speak. And yes, you can interview family members, and you can try to get a better sense of what was going on when those gifts were made, but there's always a degree of, you know, distance between or, you know, you might say hearsay in certain cases of what really happened. And so, you know, the medical records are often very important. if you have somebody with a diagnosis, you know, it can start from, you know, MCI, moderate cognitive or cognitive impairment, and then it can go all the way to full-blown dementia. You know, once those diagnoses start showing up in the records, it becomes a lot more difficult to defend gifts that were made after the fact. If somebody's been diagnosed with Alzheimer's and they make a gift, you know, of a lot of money, well, that's questionable, to say the least. so, all of those things come into to play.

28:36 And so, communicating for those who want to solidify the actual documents, communicating with family members are critical. I know there's a process where there's like an a drafter will have another attorney interview the trustee to verify they're still competent. Can you talk a little bit about that process?

28:54 Yeah, so it's called the certificate of independent review, and that's a very powerful tool where if you have somebody who's older and maybe not in the best health and there's a potential for controversy. Like for example, if there's a second marriage with a blended family, so you've got step kids on both sides, that's always a sensitive situation because people can feel like, well, they're not really my family or you know, there's all kinds of things that can come up with that. And you know, or if you have an older husband and a younger wife or vice versa and there's making these gifts, what you can get is is the estate planner creates the plan and then the another neutral attorney who's not affiliated with the estate planner comes and interviews the trustor and asks them like, do you understand what this is? Is this really what you want? And tries to get a sense of, you know, are they really expressing their true intent or are they being manipulated? And a certificate of independent review should be performed by another estate planning attorney because they're going to know those questions to ask. But once you have that certificate after the attorney does their interview, it really helps shore up the legitimacy of that estate plan. So, if you're creating a plan and you're unsure about, oh, well, what are people going to think about this and could it create an issue, you know, consider getting that that certificate of independent review because it is a powerful defense after you're gone to confirm that this is really what you wanted.

30:37 It would seem to be a small part of the overall cost if you through the trouble of a plan and you have substantial assets, you know, that extra step is is like everything in life, right? The extra step of preparation always pays off in the long run, but we don't always do that. so, something definitely to consider. so, just kind of to move to a wrap up a little bit. I appreciate your time, but I wanted to ask you, I know you're on the National, I think, Elder Law Attorney Board of some sort. so, you're involved in National Elder Law, but particularly in organization of attorneys that service elders. What's the role of the Association, and where do you see changes either needed or coming in the area of Elder Law? Cuz it just seems to me, you know, people getting older, Alzheimer's more common, there seems to be more crime. It just feels like a perfect storm of mass coming towards us fast, and are we planning towards that?

31:29 So, I got to stop and just clarify. I am actually no longer affiliated with the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys. Okay. great organization. I just my practice has moved away from Elder Law, so it just didn't you know, make sense for me to continue being affiliated with them, but I've a huge NAELA fan. If you are looking at Medicaid issues, special needs planning, NAELA is a amazing resource, and I highly encourage people facing those issues to seek out a NAELA attorney, but, you know, just for the record, you know, that that's not really my practice these much as much these days. so, I'm I'm no longer part of that board, but it was a great experience for when I was on it.

32:13 I missed that issue of the Jordan Parr newsletter, so forgive me [laughter] I bring you up to date on you, but I guess I missed that particular episode. So, okay, good. Well, look, obviously you're you're with Oops. I lost myself there. Right. you're obviously with the one of the leading law firms in Downtown Los Angeles, Hill, Farr, and focus in probate litigation, and also probate administration, and trust administration. I've had the personal pleasure of working with you on a case, a very complicated case, and really seeing you and your firm work at the best. I know your time is valuable. I really appreciate you being with us today. we'll put the contact information down below for anybody who wants to get a hold of Jordan at Hill Farrer & Burrill LLP, [phone number shown on screen]. We have his email as well as the company website. If you want more information, Jordan, thank you so much for your time today. I really feel I learned a lot and hopefully we shared a lot with our platform to be more effective. Thank you so much for your time.

33:04 Thank you, Bill. It's been a pleasure speaking with you and I so appreciate the invite to come on your show. Fantastic. We'll do it again sometime as well. And for the rest of you, this was Probate Weekly. We get together every week and talk about probate litigation, avoiding probate through proper estate planning, and related issues. We're excited to have today one of the leading attorneys in LA on litigation. if you like this, please like, subscribe, give me a comment down below. If you're an attorney who wants to be interviewed, please let me know as well. Reach out at Bill Gross Probate on social media, and as always, make today your best day ever.