For those of us in the sandwich generation, this is not an abstract concern. You may already be the child who manages your parents' bills and accompanies them to medical appointments, which may make you the one they are considering putting in charge. Alternatively, you may be the sibling on the sidelines, watching a brother or sister handle everything while declining every offer of help. In either case, it is worth understanding what the data shows before your family learns it the hard way, in the midst of grief.

Three law professors, David Horton of UC Davis, Reid Kress Weisbord of Rutgers, and Christopher (CJ) Ryan of Indiana University's Maurer School of Law, have produced what they describe as the first empirical study of trust litigation. Their article, "Trust Litigation," was recently published in the Washington University Law Review.¹

Until then, there has been little data on trusts and even less on trust disputes. Last wills and testaments (“wills”) pass through probate court, which makes will contests part of the public record and relatively easy to study. Trusts are different; they're designed to bypass probate, so the documents remain private. When a trust does end up in litigation, more than one court may have jurisdiction, which means most of the conflict happens out of public view.

To address that, the authors combed through thousands of civil filings in San Francisco Superior Court and identified every contested trust proceeding filed between 2014 and 2020: 640 cases in all, and what the authors found was striking. The conflicts were rarely about the trusts themselves. Instead, each of the conflicts had one thing in common: the person in charge, the trustee.  When most envision a fight over an inheritance, we picture a disputed will, a deathbed change in a hospital room, a much younger new partner named as the main beneficiary, or a question of whether an elderly parent was of sound mind at the time of signing.

That's not what the researchers found. Roughly three-quarters of the lawsuits grew out of how the trust was administered after the parent died.

The irony is that this is the very feature that makes living trusts attractive. A successor trustee can manage the family's assets for years after death, without probate. But years of only one person having the power to make unilateral decisions about shared money and legacy can also create years of opportunity for resentment, suspicion, and conflict.

The finding that has drawn the most attention is that nearly a quarter of the disputes involved one child or grandchild suing another who served as both a beneficiary and the trustee. Most of those petitioners were siblings, whether by blood or by marriage.

Consider what that arrangement creates: two siblings are meant to be equals under the trust, yet one of them, trustee, controls the finances. That trustee may determine when distributions are made, whether and when the family home is sold, and who may rent it. In one case reported by CNBC,² siblings went to court over whether the trustee brother had the authority to take on a tenant. Ryan observed that granting one child this degree of discretion can exacerbate a long-standing perception that a parent favored one child over another. Neither the trust instrument nor the appointment of one trustee creates the rivalry. Instead, it provided the rivalry a legal framework and built-in an imbalance of power.

Anyone in the sandwich generation who has shared caregiving responsibilities with a sibling will recognize this dynamic. The sibling who provided the most hands-on care may feel entitled to make decisions, while the sibling who lived farther away may feel excluded. These tensions do not end at death. More often, this is where the tension grows, without the guardrail or the conscience of the parent standing watch and putting a stop to it.

None of this suggests that one child should never be named sole trustee. It does suggest that the decision deserves more careful consideration than it typically receives, and that certain questions are worth raising with your parents and their estate planning attorney while everyone is still able to discuss them.

The first is whether one child truly needs to serve alone. Families can instead appoint co-trustees, a neutral professional or corporate trustee, or a family member working alongside a professional. Each option involves trade-offs: co-trustees may reach an impasse, and professional trustees charge fees. A related question is how much discretion the trustee actually requires. When the trust sets out clear terms governing when and how assets are distributed, there is less opportunity for one sibling's judgment to be perceived as favoritism.

Transparency matters: regular, detailed accountings provided to all beneficiaries address suspicion before it develops into litigation. The same is true for communication from the parents, who should share their thought process in creating the trust. A candid family conversation, or a letter explaining why a particular child was chosen, can soften a decision that might otherwise be perceived as a slight.

Finally, families should consider how disagreements will be resolved. Some trusts require mediation before any beneficiary may file suit. No-contest clauses, which penalize beneficiaries who challenge the trust, are another option (although the effectiveness of these clauses vary from state to state).

If you happen to be the child named as sole trustee, two things are most important. First, you should maintain meticulous records of all transactions made in your capacity as trustee, and second, communicate with your siblings and the trust beneficiaries early and often. A lack of communication and transparency only leads to mistrust and confusion.

This study demonstrates that establishing a trust alone cannot eliminate the risk of disputes and litigation. The allocation and exercise of authority by a trustee are as significant as the terms of the governing document.

¹ David Horton, Reid K. Weisbord & Christopher Ryan, "Trust Litigation", 104 Wash. U. L. Rev.

² CNBC, "New study reveals the estate-planning choices that are likely to pit heirs against each other", Sept. 25, 2026

In America, when a person dies, a life’s entire business gets taken over by what the law calls “a fiduciary.”  The legal term itself, roots from the Latin, “fides”,¹ meaning trustworthiness, loyalty, reliability, faithfulness. It is a tremendous honor to be selected as an executor by another person. Think of it— the testatrix has adjudged you worthy of her trust, to properly administer her wishes and her estate. There are different types of fiduciaries when a person passes, depending on how organized they were in their pre-death planning. If your loved one executed a Will, the fiduciary is called “executor.”  If they had a trust, you may be “trustee” for private-inheritance administration (and executor only as a back-up role, if some assets are discovered that never quite made it into the trust.) In the event your loved one did no estate planning at all, then you may serve as “administrator” of the intestate estate, or the more generalized term, “personal representative.”  Regardless of what species of fiduciary you are, someone will have to be given court authority to manage the funds/lands.

A Life’s Bounty

But what all these trusted people, however denominated, have in common is that they are NOT the decedent. And stepping into another person’s shoes, in order to organize the decedent’s affairs (marshaling assets, paying off creditors, distributing gifts) can seem overwhelming to the average person. This is natural. It’s like inheriting an entire household of new duties, bills, and assets; none of which you had any visibility-on prior to the passing. Certain fiduciaries, as with executors in Virginia, have to prepare and file an Inventory and Accounting for all that they discover in their due diligence inspection period.²  Yes, the executor has a lot of work to do.

In the Commonwealth of Virginia, a probate, while mostly administrative, is overseen by the thirty-one Circuit Courts, through their appointed Commissioners of Accounts. Commissioners receive the Estate Inventories and Accountings, as required by law, and can convene hearings regarding the estate. Commissioners not only receive the executor’s filings, but also audit the estate management duties you will perform as a fiduciary. It is the compliance-work of a watchful society.

If you are assuming such a fiduciary role, which requires from you a formalized curiosity (your ‘due diligence’), you will have to investigate and uncover the decedent’s assets, and determine their value, as of the date of death. Later, as the process winds on, you will also have to capture any “change” in that value, since your executor-work may include selling a home, cashing out stocks, or selling jewelry — all subject to market fluctuations. For example, the price of precious metals, like gold, can change day-to-day, and certain stocks can rise or dip with the overall economy. The discovery of a loved one’s assets may be hard at first, given your understandable grief, and it may be nerve-wracking, as more assets come to light and more information trickles in. The good news is that, in Virginia, you have four full months, from the date of your Court Qualification, to get a list — or inventory — of the decedent’s assets filed. And if more assets come to your attention thereafter? No problem; you can update the Commissioner by filing an amended inventory.

Coins in the Couch: The Due Diligence Paradox

Some Circuits, when you are qualified by the Court and with the help of the Commissioner of Accounts, may instruct you to check “unclaimed property” as part of your initial due diligence/asset discovery work. This is a searchable database, where the executor (once qualified by the court) can input the decedent’s name, and discover if they were owed any refunded money. Generally, Unclaimed Property may include items such as small refunds from banks, utility companies, or taxing authorities owed to the decedent, which were never cashed by the decedent. Naturally, this can happen due to frequent moves, a long hospitalization or deterioration in physical capacity prior to death, or they may simply be ‘lost in the mail’ checks that never found their way to the loved one, during their lifetime. The Virginia Department of Treasury oversees this unclaimed property program for executors and its database is jauntily called “vaMoneySearch.gov” and rightly aims to reunite the estate “with lost or misplaced bank accounts, wages, stocks, dividends, utility deposits, insurance benefits, safe deposit box contents and more.”³ Just last year, House Bill 1606, which was passed into law effective spring of 2025, creates a streamlined process allowing, Virginia Treasury to automatically mail checks (totaling up to $5,000) to citizens who are owed refunds.⁴ This is a terrific benefit for most people, but unfortunately, and understandably, the formalized, and methodical ‘opt-in’ claims process is still required for estates.  This makes perfect sense. To prevent fraud or scams, it is entirely reasonable for the state to require strict proof that you’ve got legal authority by court qualification, to access the funds which are due and owing to your deceased loved one. In a probate context, the rightful owner of the unclaimed property is the estate through its executor/administrator.

When you search, you may ask yourself, is it worth the time to lay claim to a potentially small amount of money owed to the estate?  That is a fair question. The cost/benefit analysis may come out wanting, but if you’ve been instructed to perform the search as part of your duties, and if the heirs/beneficiaries are entitled to these assets, you may rightly consider it your fiduciary duty to make the claim. The website is user-friendly and fast, so a quick search shouldn’t take too much time. Furthermore, if there are several refunds in the system, they can accumulate to more than you might expect.

Click and Claim: Escheatment & The Unclaimed Property Process

Escheatment is a legal term describing the turning over of abandoned accounts or real estate to the Commonwealth, after a diligent search by the Escheator for the rightful owner proves inconclusive or unavailing. Bank account funds are determined “abandoned” by the owner of the account if there is no action at all on it; and in Virginia, banks observe a five-year dormancy rule.⁵ Interestingly, contents of a safety deposit box are deemed abandoned as measured from the end of the box lease-term, plus those five years.⁶ So a decedent’s safe deposit box may outlive escheatment, depending on her particular bank’s terms of service. This can happen more than you would think, given frequent moves, deployments, hospital stays, residential-care changes, or even just chronic illness, over time.

Naturally, your appointment as a fiduciary will preempt any such abandonment procedures, which is why it is important to timely register your loved one’s Will with the Probate Office. If the bank cannot find the rightful owner, they are authorized to submit the funds to the Virginia Treasury as unclaimed property, so the Commonwealth can update its “Click and Claim” database for a wider audience. The submitter bank or taxing authority reports all that they know about the previous customer, such as their name, previous address, and Social Security number. An executor should expect to see the decedent’s name listed in various ways (i.e., with or without the middle initial or middle name, sometimes by nicknames, maiden-names, or other variations) all dependent on how the account was initially established. So try various versions of your loved one’s name.

Once the fiduciary has checked  Unclaimed Property and discovered funds being held by The Commonwealth, you must supply proof of your court qualification and the decedent’s death certificate, to prove you have legal authority to make the claim, and receive the funds in the name of the estate. Given your duties to inventory and account, you’ll want to keep copies of your claim request form, so that you can itemize the small amounts on your accounting to the Commissioner of Accounts, later, since The Treasury Department will issue one, aggregated check to the estate, reflecting the total amount claimed.

Conclusion

While it could seem like a trifling matter, and not worth the effort when you are battling the grief of loss, unclaimed property due diligence is still a part of your work as a faithful fiduciary. As time passes from the funeral, and you begin your fiduciary duties in earnest, consider it necessary work to do right by your loved one and her heirs. Particularly when your Circuit Court or Commissioner instructs you to search this database, and where the escheated funds may aggregate to a healthy refund, executors should take the Commonwealth at her invitation to “click and claim.”  Part of your task in the process of probate is to ensure the heirs/ beneficiaries receive the full bounty of the decedent’s estate.  

And coins in the couch are still legal tender.

Estate planning rarely fails because a family lacks a story. It fails because the documents do not account for how complicated that story has become. Families immigrate. Children live across states and countries. Real estate is held through entities. Family businesses grow. Cultural expectations endure, even when the governing law has changed. At death, those threads do not untangle themselves. They meet in probate court, trust litigation, or the uncomfortable space in between.

Cross-jurisdictional planning is no longer an exotic concern. A client may live in California, own property elsewhere, hold interests in a family company, have relatives abroad, and still assume one domestic trust will quietly solve every problem. Sometimes it will. Sometimes it will not. The difference is whether the plan was drafted with the family’s full legal geography in mind.

The Maryland dispute in Ahmad v. Ahmad, No. 634, September Term 2020, 2021 WL 6133796 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Dec. 27, 2021) (unreported), illustrates the risk. Mehdi Ahmad emigrated from Iran to the United States, built family businesses in Maryland, and later funded a revocable trust with his business interests. The trust “specifically excluded” his eldest child, M. Abraham Ahmad, from serving as trustee or beneficiary. After Mehdi’s death, Abraham sued to have the trust declared invalid and the estate administered under the fixed inheritance provisions of the Iranian Civil Code. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed summary judgment against him.

The case is not just about Iran, Maryland, or one family. It is about the collision between private expectations and public legal systems. A parent’s sense of fairness may be shaped by culture or family history. A child’s sense of entitlement may be shaped by the same forces. But a U.S. court starts elsewhere: with the documents, statutes, governing law, deadlines, and public policy of the forum.

Abraham argued that Iranian law gave him an “indefeasible fixed portion” of Mehdi’s estate that “automatically vested at his birth.” The appellate court rejected the challenge on limitations grounds and made clear that foreign law has limits when it would impair the forum’s strong public policy.

The court put it plainly: “To disregard Mehdi’s choice as expressed in his will in favor of applying Iranian primogeniture law to Mehdi’s estate would be contrary to Maryland public policy.” That sentence carries the planning lesson. Foreign-law expectations may influence family dynamics, but they do not automatically override a valid U.S. estate plan.

If a client’s life crosses borders, the plan should say so. It should identify the governing law, coordinate the disposition of assets, address business ownership and control, and anticipate the legal or cultural framework a disappointed beneficiary may later invoke. Silence is rarely neutral. In estate planning, silence often becomes an invitation.

This matters most where families own businesses, investment real estate, or assets in multiple jurisdictions. A trust may say who receives an ownership interest. But entity documents, title, management rights, buy-sell provisions, tax rules, and local probate procedures may determine whether that transfer is smooth or explosive.

These problems are not limited to ultra-high-net-worth families. A blended family with property in two states, first-generation parents with relatives abroad, a business owner whose children disagree about succession, or an oral promise made around a kitchen table can all create the same problem. The question is not whether the family is international enough. The question is whether the plan reflects the jurisdictions, relationships, and expectations that actually exist.

Clear drafting is the first defense. Wills, trusts, beneficiary designations, powers of attorney, and entity documents should speak to one another. They should identify the intended governing law, define beneficiaries and exclusions with care, and avoid language that leaves room for competing inheritance theories to take root.

Communication matters, too. Not every family meeting prevents a lawsuit. But where expectations are likely to collide, a thoughtful letter of intent, a documented planning file, or a deliberate fiduciary choice may keep surprise from becoming litigation.

Deadlines also matter. Cross-border disputes may sound grand and philosophical, but probate and trust litigation often turns on something far less dramatic: whether a claim was filed on time.

A better approach is to build the plan around the actual family, not a simplified version of it. Where are the assets? Where do beneficiaries live? What law may apply? Who can realistically serve as fiduciary? How will business control pass? Do foreign documents exist? Are there inheritance expectations that may later be asserted? These are not side questions. They are the architecture of the plan.

The Ahmad dispute is a reminder that planning across borders should not be left to assumptions. A favorable ruling after litigation is not the same as a well-designed plan before conflict. The goal is not merely to win the fight. It is to avoid making the fight necessary.

When family, assets, and inheritance laws cross borders, an estate plan should do more than distribute property. It should translate intent across legal systems, narrow the gap between what the client meant and what a court may later be asked to decide, and make clear which law governs the legacy being left behind.

If your family, assets, or business interests cross state or national borders, an estates and trust attorney can help evaluate whether your estate plan is prepared for the jurisdictions, relationships, and expectations it may one day need to withstand.

Most NJDEP regulatory programs have their own rules governing civil administrative penalties. Those rules may establish penalty amounts, ranges, matrices, multipliers, or adjustment factors based on the nature of the violation and the circumstances surrounding it.

For a company seeking to reduce an NJDEP penalty, the starting point should therefore be the applicable penalty framework — not simply an across-the-board request for a lower number.

Understand How NJDEP Calculated the Penalty

The first step is to identify the regulations governing the penalty assessment.

Depending on the NJDEP program, the penalty may be based on a specified amount for the particular violation or may be calculated using factors such as the seriousness of the violation, the conduct of the violator, prior violations, duration, or other circumstances.

Some programs also expressly allow NJDEP to adjust penalties based on mitigating or aggravating factors.

For example, NJDEP’s solid waste utility regulations permit penalty adjustments based on compliance history, mitigation, measures taken to prevent recurrence, environmental or public impacts, and other circumstances.

The specific program therefore matters.

Before negotiating, a company should understand the factors NJDEP relied upon, whether those factors were applied correctly, and whether the available facts support NJDEP’s conclusions.

Negotiate Within the Penalty Framework

Penalty negotiations are generally more productive when they address NJDEP’s calculation directly.

If NJDEP treated a violation as particularly serious, the company should evaluate the factual basis for that conclusion. If prior compliance history increased the penalty, the company should confirm that the cited history is accurate and applicable. If NJDEP’s calculation assumes a continuing violation, the company should determine whether the duration is correct.

Mitigating circumstances may also matter.

Prompt corrective action, measures taken to reduce environmental impacts, steps designed to prevent recurrence, and other circumstances may provide a basis for seeking a reduction where the applicable regulatory framework allows NJDEP to consider those factors.

The objective is not simply to argue that the penalty is too high. It is to identify why the penalty should be different under the rules NJDEP itself uses to calculate it.

Preserve Your Rights While Negotiating

Companies should not assume that engaging in settlement discussions extends the deadline for contesting a penalty.

Where NJDEP has issued an AONOCAPA or other appealable penalty assessment, the company should review the applicable hearing deadline and preserve its administrative hearing rights while settlement discussions proceed. NJDEP’s hearing process expressly contemplates settlement discussions and alternative dispute resolution, but those discussions do not eliminate the need to comply with applicable procedural requirements.

Failure to preserve those rights can result in waiver of objections to the penalty assessment and, depending on the enforcement document, the underlying violations or corrective requirements.

Estate plans are designed with the best of intentions. Over time, however, even a well-drafted trust can transform into something unexpected, something…monstrous!

This Halloween, four of the most terrifying estate planning creatures lurk in the shadows, waiting to ensnare an unsuspecting client.

The Frankenstein's Monster Trust

Like Frankenstein's monster, this trust is assembled piece by piece from unrelated parts. The trust is amended repeatedly, adding and removing clauses, changing fiduciaries, and beneficiaries. What may have been beautiful at first has been patched together into something truly horrifying.  A marital trust is established under article five, but article three makes a distribution outright to the spouse. The trust protector referenced in article nine does not appear anywhere else in the document.  One provision assumes a corporate trustee while another contemplates an individual trustee.

If we ever face this monster, we can stop it dead in its tracks. Rather than continuing to tack on amendment after amendment, we can restate the trust in its entirety so that all the provisions work together toward achieving the client’s goals.

The Ghost Trust

The Ghost Trust sits eerily quiet in a safe. The client sleeps soundly at night, comforted with the peace of mind that their loved ones are provided for and their assets are protected. Then, one night, a spine-tingling chill creeps up their spine; was the trust ever actually funded?

The client is in a state of shock. The bank accounts remain in their individual name. The deed to their home remains unchanged from when they first purchased the property. Business interests were never assigned to the trust.

The trust technically exists, but only barely.

Proper funding can bring this trust back from the dead and end this nightmare. Assets should have been transferred into the trust when it was first established, but it is never too late to fund a trust. As new assets are acquired, they too may need to be transferred to the trust to ensure the client’s estate plan will function as intended.

The Zombie Trust

The Zombie Trust is not necessarily bad. In fact, many Zombie Trusts were thoughtfully designed when they were created. But as years pass, what was once beneficial can atrophy and warp.

The trust was drafted years ago when the grantor's children were minors. Today, those children have their own families. Perhaps the trust was drafted when the federal estate tax exemption amount was a fraction of its current value.

Perhaps the client established an irrevocable dynastic trust. This may have been sensible when their business was worth millions of dollars. Now, several of those business ventures have failed, and the client would find themselves in a dramatically better position if they could only access those trust assets.

Circumstances change. Assets change. Tax laws change. Unfortunately, an outdated estate plan can create more problems than it was meant to solve.

We can defeat this monster through regular maintenance and review. Estate plans should be reviewed every few years, as well as whenever there is a significant change in family circumstances, assets, or the tax law, and, if necessary, revised to ensure that the client’s estate plan remains aligned. Oftentimes, even an irrevocable trust can be undone with the assistance of an attorney.

The Mummy Trust

Wrapped tightly in layer upon layer of legal jargon, the Mummy Trust is perhaps the most intimidating creature in the estate planning graveyard.

The client wants every possible contingency addressed. The drafter wants maximum flexibility. Each provision adds another layer of protective wrapping. The trust may contain multiple classes of beneficiaries, numerous distribution standards, trust protectors, advisory committees, removal provisions, appointment powers, decanting provisions, tax formulas, and administrative procedures.

By the time the document is complete, it has become nearly impossible to navigate, even by an experienced fiduciary. The trust will be burdensome and complex to administer. Meanwhile, the trust's assets may only consist of a residence, several bank accounts, and a modest investment portfolio.

Complexity has its place. Large estates, blended families, special needs planning, asset protection objectives, and sophisticated tax planning may justify highly technical provisions. The Mummy Trust becomes a monster when the document's complexity exceeds the client’s needs and actual circumstances.

The Mummy Trust is defeated through simplification. An estate plan should only be as complex as necessary and should avoid provisions that are not required to accomplish the client's goals.

A Final Halloween Warning

The most frightening estate planning problems rarely arise because someone failed to create an estate plan. More often, they arise because a trust was never funded, never updated, unnecessarily complicated, or patched together over time until its original purpose becomes difficult to recognize.

This Halloween, dust off your estate planning documents and take a closer look. You may discover a trust stitched together from mismatched provisions, a trust that owns no assets, a trust that has not been reviewed in decades, or a trust buried in unnecessary complexity. With a thoughtful review and proper maintenance, even the most terrifying Monster Trust can be laid to rest before it comes back to haunt you.

What Did McLaren Macomb Hold?

The severance agreements at issue prohibited employees from disclosing the agreement's terms and from making statements that could disparage the employer. The Board found these provisions unlawful because employees could reasonably interpret them as restricting their ability to discuss workplace conditions, communicate with coworkers, cooperate with unions, or participate in NLRB proceedings.

Why Nonunion Employers Should Care

Although the case arose in a unionized workplace, the NLRA protects most private-sector employees, regardless of union status. As a result, McLaren Macomb affected employers with both unionized and nonunion workforces. Employers across industries revisited severance agreements and added carve-outs, preserving employees' rights to engage in protected concerted activity and communicate with government agencies.

The Decision's Reach Extended Beyond Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Clauses

Shortly after the decision, then-General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued guidance explaining that lawful severance agreements remain permissible but warning that McLaren Macomb may also impact other common provisions. The memorandum identified noncompete clauses, no-solicitation provisions, no-poach agreements, overly broad releases of claims, broad covenants not to sue, and certain cooperation requirements as provisions that could potentially interfere with employees' Section 7 rights.

The memorandum also emphasized that simple disclaimer language or "savings clauses" would not automatically cure otherwise overbroad restrictions.

A Potential Shift on the Horizon

The future of McLaren Macomb may be uncertain. In a recent memorandum outlining agency priorities, NLRB General Counsel Crystal Carey identified McLaren Macomb as a decision her office is seeking to have reconsidered and overruled. While that memorandum does not change existing law, it signals a significant policy shift within the agency and raises the possibility that a future Board could restore greater flexibility for employers when drafting severance agreements.

The Bottom Line

For now, McLaren Macomb remains binding law. Employers should continue to ensure that severance agreements do not contain provisions that could be interpreted as restricting employees' NLRA rights. However, with the current General Counsel actively seeking reversal of the decision, employers should closely monitor developments that could once again reshape the rules governing severance agreements.

Confidentiality and reputation management are often central to these cases. Attorneys must help clients understand what information may become public, identify appropriate privacy protections, and develop strategies for responding to media attention or unauthorized disclosures. While confidentiality cannot always be guaranteed, careful case management and thoughtful communication can help minimize unnecessary exposure.

Complex financial matters may also require specialized expertise. High-profile clients may have substantial business interests, investment portfolios, trusts, real estate holdings, intellectual property, and variable compensation. Family lawyers frequently collaborate with forensic accountants, financial advisers, valuation experts, and tax professionals to identify assets, assess financial obligations, and pursue equitable outcomes.

When children are involved, protecting their privacy and best interests remains paramount. Attorneys must consider custody arrangements, demanding professional schedules, travel, security concerns, and the potential impact of public scrutiny on the family. A measured, child-focused approach can help reduce conflict and preserve stability during an already difficult transition.

Equally important is selecting the appropriate dispute-resolution strategy. Negotiation, mediation, and other available forms of alternative dispute resolution may offer greater privacy and control than public litigation, although court proceedings may be necessary to protect a client's rights. Effective counsel evaluates each option in light of the client's circumstances, objectives, and long-term interests.

Ultimately, representing high-profile clients requires balancing assertive advocacy with sound judgment and discretion. The most effective family lawyers understand that success is not measured solely by the outcome of a settlement or trial, but also by their ability to protect their clients' interests, manage risk, and guide families through complex personal transitions with professionalism and care.

A marital settlement agreement is a legally consequential document that may determine property division, spousal support, debt allocation, and parenting arrangements. AI-generated agreements may contain inaccurate legal provisions, overlook important financial considerations, or fail to comply with jurisdiction-specific requirements. Professional-sounding language does not guarantee that an agreement is complete, enforceable, or in a client's best interests.

The risks can be particularly significant when a divorce involves business interests, retirement accounts, complex assets, tax implications, or children. Generic provisions may fail to address future contingencies, leaving parties vulnerable to costly disputes. Additionally, entering sensitive financial or personal information into AI platforms may raise privacy and confidentiality concerns.

AI can be a useful organizational tool, but it should not replace individualized legal advice. An experienced family law attorney can identify overlooked issues, explain the consequences of proposed terms, negotiate appropriate protections, and ensure the agreement complies with applicable law.

Ultimately, the cost of correcting an inadequate marital settlement agreement may far exceed the expense of obtaining legal guidance before signing. In divorce proceedings, convenience should never come at the expense of protecting one's rights and long-term interests.

He was not alone. His problem was the predictable failure mode of Banking-as-a-Service, or BaaS. In a typical BaaS program, the customer opens an account in an app that may carry a bank’s name and logo. A fintech company designs the app and runs much of it. The bank holds the deposits and provides the regulated services. A middleware company like Synapse sits between them, connecting systems, processing transactions, and keeping the ledger that says who owns what. For a community or regional bank without the budget to build its own digital platform, the model is attractive. It is also a structure in which no single company sees the whole picture. When the middle layer fails, the bank must ask the question it should have asked from the start. If the provider disappeared tomorrow, could it still determine what it owes each customer? 

Synapse’s Collapse

Synapse occupied that middle layer. Its technology connected nonbank fintech platforms to partner banks, including Evolve Bank & Trust, and supported account infrastructure, payments, and ledger management. By one industry estimate, as many as 100 fintechs and 10 million end users relied on Synapse.¹ 

The decline was quick. Synapse laid off staff in 2023 and filed for Chapter 11 in April 2024, planning to sell its assets to another fintech. The buyer walked away within weeks.² 

Then customers lost access to their money. Synapse’s records could not be reconciled with those of its partner banks. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) later alleged that Synapse failed to keep adequate records of where consumer funds were and failed to make sure its records matched the banks’. By the CFPB’s account, the banks found that they held between $60 million and $90 million less than the balances in Synapse’s records. Synapse, through its bankruptcy trustee, resolved the CFPB matter by stipulated judgment, without any adjudication of fact or law.³

Unlike a Notice of Violation, an AONOCAPA may be contested through NJDEP’s administrative hearing process. Companies receiving an AONOCAPA should therefore promptly identify the applicable hearing deadline and evaluate both the underlying violation and the penalty assessment before determining how to respond.

It is critical to act promptly. Failing to submit a timely hearing request will cause the AONOCAPA to become final and eliminates the opportunity to contest the alleged violations and penalty.

Determine the Response Deadline

The first issue is timing.

There is no single response deadline that applies to every NJDEP AONOCAPA. The deadline depends on the regulatory program and may range from approximately 10 to 35 days. The applicable deadline should be stated in the enforcement document, and companies should review it and the governing regulations immediately upon receipt.

Review the Facts, Legal Issues, and Penalty

Once the deadline is identified, the company should review NJDEP’s allegations and the available record.

That review may include permits, inspection reports, sampling data, operating records, correspondence, photographs, consultant reports, and prior enforcement history.

The company should consider several separate issues.

• Did the alleged violation occur?
• Does the cited requirement apply?
• Does NJDEP have all of the relevant facts?
• Has the violation been corrected?
• Is the penalty calculation consistent with the applicable regulations?

The underlying violation and the penalty assessment should not necessarily be viewed as the same issue. A company may agree that corrective action is appropriate while disputing the amount of the penalty or aspects of NJDEP’s factual or legal conclusions.

Prepare the Administrative Hearing Request

Once the matter has been evaluated, a company that intends to contest the AONOCAPA should prepare and submit its hearing request on time.

A hearing request is a formal document with specific procedural requirements and potentially significant consequences. NJDEP’s current guidance requires enforcement hearing requests to address the allegations being admitted, denied, or contested; identify the issues in dispute; state the defenses being asserted; and provide supporting information. NJDEP may treat an incomplete request as deficient and may deny a request if required deficiencies are not corrected.

Companies should therefore avoid treating the hearing request as a simple notice of disagreement with NJDEP. Instead, the hearing request is better understood as analogous to an answer in litigation: it begins defining the issues that are actually in dispute.

Consider the Appropriate Resolution

Requesting an administrative hearing does not mean that every matter will proceed to a contested hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

NJDEP’s administrative process allows for settlement discussions, and its Office of Administrative Hearings and Dispute Resolution also offers an alternative dispute resolution process.

The appropriate strategy will depend on the strength of the company’s factual and legal position, the amount of the penalty, the status of corrective action, prior enforcement history, and the business consequences of the dispute.

The important point is to make that decision after preserving the company’s rights through an appropriate and timely hearing request.

An AONOCAPA is both an environmental compliance matter and a formal enforcement matter. Responding effectively requires attention to the immediate deadline while developing the facts needed to determine whether the best approach is to contest, negotiate, comply, or pursue a combination of those options.