What a difference fifteen years has made. I remember when the elder law section was small and inconsequential. Today the Section is one of the largest sections of the State Bar.
Throughout the years some of us old-timers have noted the rapid evolution of the Section - and have shared concerns that the Section is moving away from its roots. Like many things that happen quickly – sometimes changes occur without much reflection. So I thought this might be a good opportunity to consider what, if any, qualities of the past are worth preserving. Others may have different ideas, but following are what I perceive to be the two primary qualities of the Section that seem in danger of being lost in this transition.
1. There has always been a problem in our practice area with the sale of documents and strategies based on a system of scaring people to believe the situation is more dire than it is, and offering a silver bullet – what I sometimes think of as the ugly underbelly of estate planning and elder law. I would suggest this trend began with trust mills and "probate avoidance" but has changed its focus recently to be largely about Medicaid planning and "asset protection." In the early days of the Section, this type of practice was avoided – if not abhorred. Today it seems the Section is much more willing to embrace certain aspects (if not all) of this type of practice.
2. In the beginning the Section was more interdisciplinary and actively worked to develop channels through which social workers, adult protective services workers, and other professionals involved in studying the aging process were able to participate and interact. [I would largely credit Brad Geller’s involvement in the fall conference for this.] Today, the Section appears less interested in developing these types of contacts, and to the extent other disciplines are involved they tend to be annuity sales-persons and "financial planners" – whose interests are less about protecting vulnerable adults and more about selling product.
I acknowledge that old-timers, like me, tend to be sentimental about "the way things were" and maybe place too much value on qualities that seemed important in the past; and further that my observations may come off as smug and self-righteous. Maybe the way I have characterized the changes that have taken place isn’t fair or accurate – but I know from my conversations with other old-timers that I am not alone in this perception. In any event, I don’t mean to be smug or unfair. I get it – times change and staying trapped in the past is never productive. But it’s also true that recognizing how we are changing, and thinking about where we are going, isn’t necessarily a bad thing.