If you are a trustee, beneficiary, or settlor considering changes to an existing trust in Burlingame, a trust modification petition may be necessary to adapt the trust to new circumstances. The Law Offices of Robert P. Bergman assists clients throughout San Mateo County with petitions to modify or clarify trust terms, whether due to changed family dynamics, tax considerations, or drafting errors. This introduction outlines when a petition is appropriate, what the process generally involves, and how our office approaches these matters with careful planning and clear communication. We focus on practical solutions tailored to each client’s situation.
Trust modification petitions can resolve disputes, correct unintended provisions, and update trust administration methods to reflect current laws and the settlor’s wishes. When informal agreement among interested parties is not possible, filing a petition in probate or superior court provides a formal path to obtain judicial approval for requested changes. Our team explains eligibility for modification, potential impacts on beneficiaries, and alternatives like trust decanting or amendment when available. We emphasize clear client communication and thorough documentation, helping you weigh the benefits and risks of seeking court intervention in Burlingame and the surrounding communities.
A trust modification petition addresses issues that cannot be resolved through informal amendments or trustee actions alone. It provides a legal mechanism to correct errors, adapt to unforeseen circumstances, or change administration where the trust terms or state law prevent unilateral revisions. The primary benefit is securing a court-approved resolution that clarifies rights and responsibilities for all parties involved. A successful petition can prevent future disputes, preserve the settlor’s intent, and ensure assets are managed and distributed in accordance with updated goals, reducing long-term legal and administrative uncertainty for beneficiaries and trustees alike.
The Law Offices of Robert P. Bergman, based in San Jose and serving Burlingame and San Mateo County, focuses on estate planning and trust matters including trust modification petitions. Our approach combines careful legal analysis with practical problem solving tailored to each family’s circumstances. We assist with preparing pleadings, gathering supporting evidence, negotiating with interested parties, and representing clients in court when necessary. Communication and responsiveness are priorities; we work to explain options clearly and to pursue outcomes that protect client interests while aiming for efficient, cost-conscious resolutions whenever possible.
A trust modification petition is a court request to modify, reform, or clarify the terms of an existing trust when circumstances warrant judicial intervention. Common reasons include ambiguous language, changes in family circumstances, tax law shifts, disability of a beneficiary, or the need to correct drafting errors. The petition typically explains the requested change, the legal basis for modification, and the consent or opposition of interested parties. This process often requires detailed documentation, careful legal argumentation, and sometimes negotiation with beneficiaries to reach a resolution that reflects the settlor’s intent or current equitable considerations.
Filing a petition can involve preparing declarations, trust documents, notices to interested parties, and supporting exhibits showing why the court should grant the requested relief. In some cases, parties agree and the court approves modifications by stipulation; in others, contested hearings determine the outcome. Timing, venue, and procedural requirements vary by county and case specifics. Clients should expect an initial consultation to review trust instruments and objectives, followed by a strategy for achieving the desired change while minimizing conflict, delay, and expense through negotiation or targeted litigation as needed.
A trust modification petition is a formal legal request submitted to a court seeking to alter, reform, or interpret terms of a trust instrument. Courts consider petitions when the trust document is ambiguous, when extrinsic evidence shows the settlor’s intent differs from the written terms, or when circumstances make the original terms impracticable or inconsistent with the settlor’s objectives. Petition grounds can include mistake in drafting, changed circumstances, or tax or administrative concerns. Courts aim to respect the settlor’s intent while considering fairness to beneficiaries and conformity with governing law.
Trust modification proceedings typically require assembling the original trust instrument, any amendments, relevant correspondence, and evidence supporting the requested change. The petition should clearly state the relief sought, the factual basis for modification, and the legal authority relied upon. Notices must be provided to beneficiaries and other interested parties, who may respond in writing or appear in court. Discovery and settlement discussions sometimes occur before hearing. The court evaluates whether the requested modification is consistent with the settlor’s intent and applicable statutes, then issues an order granting, denying, or shaping the remedy.
Understanding common terms helps clients navigate trust modification matters with greater confidence. Key concepts include settlor, beneficiary, trustee, modification, reformation, decanting, and Heggstad relief. Each term relates to rights, duties, or procedural mechanisms used during petition proceedings. Clarifying these definitions at the outset helps set expectations about the process, timelines, and possible outcomes. We provide plain-language explanations and apply them to your trust documents during the initial review so you know what each item means for your case and how it may influence strategy and potential results.
The settlor is the person who created the trust and initially funded it with assets. The settlor’s intent, as reflected in the trust document and supporting evidence, is central to modification petitions because courts prioritize the settlor’s original purpose when considering changes. Evidence of intent may include prior drafts, correspondence, or testimony from those familiar with the settlor’s intentions. When a settlor is alive, their expressed wishes can sometimes be used to effect modifications; when deceased, the trust instrument and extrinsic evidence guide the court’s analysis and ultimate decision.
Reformation is a legal remedy whereby a court modifies the terms of a trust to correct a mistake in the document so it reflects the settlor’s actual intent. Reformation typically requires proof that the written trust does not convey what the settlor intended due to a drafting error or mutual mistake. The petitioner must present clear and convincing evidence or statutory grounds depending on jurisdictional standards. Reformation differs from amendment by agreement in that it is a judicial remedy used when parties cannot unilaterally alter the trust or when the settlor is no longer available to amend the document.
Decanting refers to a trustee’s ability to transfer assets from an existing trust into a new trust with different terms, when state law and trust provisions allow. This technique can achieve changes similar to modification without court involvement if the trustee has the authority to do so. Decanting can adjust distribution schedules, trustee powers, or beneficiary designations, often to address tax planning or creditor protection. Because rules vary by state, a careful review of the trust instrument and California law is necessary to determine whether decanting is an available and advisable option for a given case.
A Heggstad petition seeks court recognition of trust assets transferred into a trust after the settlor’s death, often to have those assets treated as trust property for distribution purposes. This petition can correct administration errors where assets intended to be included in the trust were not formally titled in the trust’s name. A successful Heggstad petition allows the court to honor the settlor’s intent and ensure assets are distributed according to the trust terms rather than intestacy rules or separate probate proceedings, helping beneficiaries avoid delays and potential double administration.
When addressing needed trust changes, parties may consider informal amendment, trustee-initiated decanting, or filing a court petition. Informal amendments are simplest when the settlor is alive and willing; decanting can be efficient when statutes and trust language permit trustee action. When those routes are unavailable or contested, a petition provides a formal judicial solution. Each option carries tradeoffs in time, cost, and predictability. Choosing the right path depends on the trust terms, the settlor’s status, relationships among beneficiaries, and the specific legal issues at stake in Burlingame and San Mateo County.
If the settlor is available and capable of executing a written amendment, an informal amendment can be the fastest and least expensive way to update a trust. This route avoids court involvement and allows direct revision of distribution terms, trustee powers, or administrative provisions. It is appropriate when all material parties agree with the changes and the trust contains amendment provisions. Despite its efficiency, proper execution and witness or notarization requirements must be followed to ensure the amendment is legally effective and will withstand future challenges.
A limited approach may be sufficient when the trust document grants the trustee discretionary authority to adjust administration or distributions and state law permits decanting. In such cases, the trustee can transfer assets into a new trust or exercise powers to achieve updated objectives without court proceedings. This option is useful for addressing administrative inefficiencies, tax planning, or beneficiary needs, provided the trustee’s actions remain within fiduciary duties. Careful documentation and clear communication with beneficiaries help reduce the risk of dispute when using trustee powers to implement changes.
Comprehensive legal steps become necessary when beneficiaries disagree, the trust language is ambiguous, or the settlor is unavailable to consent to amendments. In these situations, filing a petition provides a formal forum to resolve disputes, seek reformation for drafting errors, or obtain declaratory relief from the court. The litigation path may involve discovery, hearings, and judicial findings, and it aims to produce a binding resolution that clarifies rights and responsibilities for all parties involved. A strategic, thorough legal approach is critical to present persuasive evidence and protect client interests throughout the process.
When modifications relate to complex tax planning, asset protection strategies, or interactions with retirement accounts and insurance trusts, a comprehensive legal approach helps ensure compliance and favorable outcomes. These matters can implicate federal and state tax rules, beneficiary rights, and creditor considerations, requiring coordinated legal and financial planning. A petition may be part of the solution to achieve a legally sound structure that aligns with the settlor’s intent while minimizing unintended tax consequences and guarding against future litigation or claims by creditors or disgruntled beneficiaries.
A comprehensive approach that includes court involvement can yield definitive, enforceable outcomes when informal options are unavailable or contested. Court orders provide clarity on modified terms, reduce the risk of future disputes, and create an official record that trustees and beneficiaries must follow. For families with complicated dynamics or significant assets, judicial approval can bring finality and predictability, ensuring distribution and administration proceed according to updated directives rather than conflicting interpretations or piecemeal resolutions.
Another benefit of a comprehensive approach is the opportunity to address collateral issues in a single proceeding, such as appointing successor trustees, clarifying fiduciary powers, or resolving competing claims. This consolidated handling conserves resources and reduces the chance of multiple, overlapping disputes. By presenting a well-documented petition with clear factual and legal support, parties increase the likelihood of obtaining an order that faithfully reflects the settlor’s intent and provides sustainable guidance for trustees administering the trust going forward.
One important benefit of pursuing a comprehensive approach through the courts is finality. When a court issues an order modifying or clarifying trust terms, that order establishes binding authority that discourages future challenges and reduces uncertainty about administration. This finality helps trustees carry out duties with confidence and provides beneficiaries with a clear understanding of their rights. By resolving disputes and ambiguities in a single action, parties can avoid repetitive litigation and the additional costs and emotional strain associated with ongoing conflicts.
A comprehensive court-based approach allows multiple related issues to be resolved together, such as appointing a new trustee, modifying distribution terms, or confirming the inclusion of certain assets. Addressing these matters holistically helps prevent piecemeal decisions that could create inconsistencies or leave open questions for future dispute. Consolidated resolution promotes administrative efficiency and ensures all interested parties are heard and bound by the resulting order, which contributes to a smoother long-term administration of the trust.
Before initiating any formal action, gather all trust documents, amendments, related wills, and communications that shed light on the settlor’s intent. Clarifying goals—such as correcting a drafting error, updating distributions, or changing trustees—helps determine whether an amendment, decanting, or petition is most appropriate. Early clarity reduces unnecessary steps and allows focused discussions with other interested parties. Complete documentation and a clear objective also strengthen your position if a court filing becomes necessary, helping the process move more efficiently from the outset.
When a petition is contemplated, assemble clear evidence supporting the requested change, including drafts, correspondence, and witness statements that illustrate the settlor’s intent or the circumstances justifying modification. Explore alternatives like trustee decanting or nonjudicial settlement agreements when appropriate under California law. Being prepared with a well-documented case and a consideration of nonlitigated paths increases the likelihood of an efficient outcome and helps set realistic expectations about timelines, costs, and possible results.
Consider a trust modification petition when the trust contains ambiguous terms, unintended drafting errors, or when life changes—such as births, deaths, divorce, or relocation—make existing provisions inappropriate. A petition may also be necessary when beneficiaries disagree on interpretation or when assets were not properly transferred into the trust and require judicial recognition. Seeking court relief ensures that changes are legally binding, helping trustees administer the trust with clear authority and beneficiaries to receive distributions consistent with the settlor’s updated intentions.
Other common reasons include resolving tax planning concerns, correcting conflicts with retirement accounts or insurance trusts, and addressing creditor or creditor-protection issues that require authoritative resolution. When informal solutions are impractical or contested, a judicial petition can settle competing claims and provide an enforceable roadmap for future administration. If you are unsure whether a petition is the best path, an early review of the trust documents and goals will identify available alternatives and the likely benefits and risks associated with court intervention.
Typical circumstances prompting trust modification petitions include ambiguous beneficiary designations, drafting mistakes that misstate the settlor’s intent, failure to include assets meant for the trust, and changes in family dynamics. Additionally, if a trustee lacks clear authority to act or if statutory changes affect trust administration, petitioning the court can provide needed clarity. These situations often arise when trust documents are older, when multiple drafts exist, or when the trustee and beneficiaries interpret provisions differently, creating conflict that informal negotiation cannot resolve.
When trust language is unclear or internally inconsistent, trustees and beneficiaries may disagree about how to interpret terms. Ambiguity can lead to stalled administration and disputes over distributions or trustee duties. Filing a petition to clarify or reform the trust helps establish a uniform interpretation that courts can enforce. The petition should present evidence of the settlor’s intent and explain why clarification or correction is needed to carry out that intent. Resolving ambiguity through a judicial order provides a dependable foundation for ongoing trust administration.
Assets intended to be part of a trust but never retitled or formally transferred can create administrative complications after the settlor’s death. A petition, such as a Heggstad petition, can request that the court recognize those assets as trust property to ensure they are distributed according to the trust terms rather than through probate. This process often requires evidence showing the settlor’s intent to include assets in the trust, such as beneficiary designations, statements of intent, or contemporaneous documents, to support the court’s acceptance of the claimed trust property.
Life events like remarriage, the birth of a child, divorce, beneficiary incapacity, or significant financial changes may make original trust provisions outdated or unfair. In such cases, a petition can address distribution schedules, trustee powers, or trust terms that no longer serve the settlor’s goals. Courts evaluate petitions in light of the settlor’s intent and the equities among beneficiaries. A well-supported petition seeks to update the trust in a way that balances present needs with the settlor’s documented wishes and applicable legal standards.
The Law Offices of Robert P. Bergman serves clients in Burlingame and throughout San Mateo County, offering dedicated assistance with trust modification petitions and related trust administration matters. We help clients assess the best path forward, whether that means negotiating a resolution, pursuing a trustee-based solution, or filing a petition with the court. Our focus is on clear communication, careful preparation, and achieving outcomes that honor the settlor’s intent while protecting the legal and financial interests of trustees and beneficiaries alike in the local community.
Our firm brings a practical, client-centered approach to trust modification petitions. We begin with a detailed review of trust documents and related materials to identify legal options and likely outcomes. That review guides a recommended strategy that considers negotiation, trustee powers, and court petitions as needed. We prioritize transparency about timelines and costs, and work to minimize conflict through early engagement with interested parties while preserving strong representation when litigation is required.
Clients benefit from personalized attention to the facts and objectives of their case. We explain legal standards in plain language and prepare persuasive documentation to support petitions or settlement proposals. Whether the matter can be resolved by agreement or requires court proceedings, we focus on achieving durable resolutions that reduce future disputes. Practical planning and thorough preparation are central to our approach, helping trustees and beneficiaries move forward with confidence in the administration of the trust.
Working with our office means access to local knowledge of San Mateo County procedures and a commitment to responsive client service. We assist with all aspects of the process, including notifying interested parties, coordinating evidence, and presenting arguments in court when necessary. Our goal is to reach fair, well-supported outcomes that reflect the settlor’s intent and protect client interests, while keeping clients informed at every stage of the process and striving for efficient, cost-effective resolution.
Our legal process begins with a consultation to review the trust and identify the issue requiring change. We then gather documents, prepare a case plan, and attempt to resolve matters through negotiation when feasible. If a petition is necessary, we prepare pleadings, serve interested parties, and assemble evidence to support the requested relief. We keep clients informed about timing and potential outcomes and represent them at hearings, striving for efficient resolutions that faithfully reflect the settlor’s intent and protect client interests during administration.
The first step is a comprehensive review of the trust, any amendments, related estate planning documents, and relevant communications. We evaluate whether alternatives to court involvement are available and identify the legal basis for modification or reformation. This review includes assessing trustee authority, beneficiary positions, and the factual evidence needed to support a petition. From there, we develop a strategy that balances the desired outcome with considerations of cost, timing, and the likelihood of contested litigation versus negotiated settlement.
Collecting and organizing trust documents, wills, amendments, and contemporaneous communications is essential to building a persuasive petition. We evaluate drafts, correspondence, and witness statements that illuminate the settlor’s intent or demonstrate mistakes in the written trust. This evidence forms the backbone of any petition or settlement proposal and helps define the scope of issues to be addressed. Accurate, well-organized documentation increases the chance of a favorable outcome and helps streamline court proceedings if litigation is necessary.
Before filing a petition, we explore nonjudicial alternatives such as trustee decanting, informal amendments by the settlor if available, or settlement agreements among beneficiaries. When parties can reach consensus, these options often resolve issues more quickly and at lower cost than court action. We evaluate the legal feasibility of such options under California law and the trust’s terms, and we advise clients on the benefits and potential drawbacks so they can make informed decisions about whether to pursue a nonjudicial path or proceed to court.
If court action is required, we prepare and file the petition in the appropriate county court and serve notice on all interested parties. The petition outlines the requested relief, the factual basis for modification or reformation, and any supporting legal authority. Proper notice and adherence to procedural rules are essential to ensure the court has jurisdiction and to provide parties an opportunity to respond. Early engagement and clear pleadings help set the stage for either settlement or a well-focused hearing.
Preparing a persuasive petition involves drafting concise pleadings and supporting declarations that explain the factual and legal basis for modification. We include relevant excerpts of trust documents, witness declarations, and exhibits that demonstrate the settlor’s intent or the presence of a mistake. Clear and well-documented pleadings improve the court’s ability to evaluate the request and can encourage settlement by making the petitioner’s position understandable to other parties and the judiciary.
After filing, all required parties must receive proper notice in accordance with California procedural rules. We manage service of process, track responses, and address any procedural challenges promptly. Interested parties may file objections or propose settlements, and early responses often shape the trajectory of the case. Timely, organized handling of notices and responses preserves procedural rights and helps avoid delays or jurisdictional issues that could impede resolution of the petition.
Following filing and service, we often engage in negotiation to narrow disputes and explore settlement possibilities. If settlement is not possible, we prepare for hearings or trial by taking discovery, preparing witnesses, and submitting legal briefs. The court will evaluate the evidence and legal arguments and issue an order granting, denying, or shaping the requested relief. Once an order is entered, it provides a binding framework for trust administration and can be enforced by the court if future disputes arise.
Settlement and mediation can be effective even after a petition has been filed, offering a path to resolution that avoids prolonged litigation. We facilitate discussions among interested parties and consider neutral mediation if helpful. A mediated agreement may be submitted to the court for approval, providing binding resolution without the time and expense of a contested hearing. When parties reach agreement, it is important to document terms carefully to ensure enforceability and to address potential future contingencies.
If the matter proceeds to a hearing, we present evidence and legal arguments to the judge, focusing on clear proof of the settlor’s intent or the necessity of modification. After the court issues an order, we assist with implementing the changes, updating trust records, and advising trustees on compliance with the new directives. Proper execution of the court’s order is essential to avoid future disputes and to ensure trustees administer the trust in accordance with the clarified or modified terms.
A trust modification petition is a formal court filing that requests a judge to modify, reform, or clarify the terms of an existing trust. You should consider filing a petition when informal amendments are not possible, when the settlor is unavailable to sign changes, or when beneficiaries and trustees disagree about the meaning or administration of the trust. Common grounds include ambiguous language, drafting mistakes, or changed circumstances that make the original provisions impractical. The petition sets out the requested relief, factual support, and legal basis for the court to act. Before filing, it is advisable to explore alternatives such as trustee decanting or settlement with interested parties. If those options are impractical or opposed, a petition provides a binding remedy. The court evaluates evidence of the settlor’s intent and the equities among parties when deciding whether to grant relief. Filing a petition typically involves drafting documents, serving interested parties, and presenting proof to the court, so careful preparation is important to maximize the likelihood of a favorable outcome.
In some circumstances a trustee may be able to modify trust administration through powers granted in the trust instrument, such as decanting or exercising discretionary authority. When state law and trust provisions permit, trustee-initiated changes can adjust distribution provisions, appoint successor trustees, or address administrative issues without court involvement. This path can be quicker and less costly than litigation if the trustee acts within fiduciary duties and provides appropriate notice to beneficiaries. However, trustee powers are limited by the trust language and applicable law, and some changes—especially those that affect beneficiary rights or correct drafting errors—may require court approval. When beneficiaries dispute the trustee’s actions or when the trust lacks necessary authority, a petition may be the only reliable way to obtain an enforceable modification or clarification.
The timeline for a trust modification petition in San Mateo County varies depending on case complexity, the number of interested parties, and whether the matter is contested. Uncontested petitions that are supported by documentation and agreement among parties can move relatively quickly, sometimes resolved in a matter of months. Contested matters that require discovery, witness testimony, or multiple hearings may take significantly longer, potentially extending over many months or into a year or more. Early engagement with all interested parties and thorough preparation of pleadings and evidence can shorten the process. Mediation or settlement negotiations often resolve disputes faster than a full hearing, while contested hearings require scheduling with the court and adherence to procedural timelines, which can add to the overall duration of the matter.
To support a reformation request, petitioners typically present documents and testimony that show the trust’s written terms do not reflect the settlor’s intent due to a mistake or drafting error. Useful evidence includes prior drafts of the trust, correspondence discussing the settlor’s wishes, contemporaneous notes, and declarations from witnesses who can attest to the settlor’s intent. The stronger and more direct the evidence of the intended terms, the more persuasive the petition to the court. Legal standards for reformation vary, and courts may require clear and convincing proof or statutory showings based on jurisdiction. It is important to compile a comprehensive evidentiary record and to present a coherent narrative explaining why reformation is necessary to effectuate the settlor’s documented objectives while respecting the interests of beneficiaries.
Yes. Interested parties, including beneficiaries and certain family members, must be notified when a trust modification petition is filed so they have an opportunity to respond or appear in court. Proper notice ensures due process and allows the court to hear objections or consider stipulated agreements. The exact notice requirements depend on the nature of the petition and California procedural rules, and failure to provide required notice can affect the court’s ability to grant relief. Providing early notice and attempting to engage in dialogue with interested parties can sometimes lead to settlement and avoid contested hearings. Even when parties are notified and choose to contest the petition, the notice process ensures that all perspectives are considered and that any court order is binding and enforceable with full knowledge of who was given the chance to be heard.
Alternatives to filing a court petition include trustee decanting, informal amendment by the settlor if alive, or nonjudicial settlement agreements among interested parties. Decanting allows a trustee to transfer assets into a new trust with different terms when the trust instrument and law permit. When the settlor is available and able, executing a formal amendment is often the simplest route to change trust terms without court intervention. Nonjudicial settlement agreements can resolve many disputes if all interested parties consent, and such agreements can then be implemented without a court order. However, when parties cannot agree or when the change sought affects substantive rights that only a court can alter, a petition may be necessary to obtain a binding and enforceable resolution.
Yes, changes can sometimes be made after the settlor’s death through mechanisms like petitions for reformation, Heggstad petitions, or other court actions that correct mistakes or recognize intended trust assets. A Heggstad petition, for example, seeks court recognition that assets not formally transferred into the trust were intended to be trust property. Courts can also reform terms that do not reflect the settlor’s intent when supported by appropriate evidence. Post-death changes generally require court approval because the settlor can no longer execute amendments. Petitioners must present clear evidence and legal grounds to demonstrate that modifications reflect what the settlor intended or that correction is necessary for fair and practical administration. Courts are mindful of preserving testamentary intent while balancing beneficiaries’ rights.
Costs for filing a trust modification petition vary with the complexity of the case, attorney time, filing fees, and whether the matter is contested. Simple, uncontested petitions can be relatively economical, while contested litigation involving discovery, expert witnesses, or multiple hearings will increase expenses. It is important to obtain a clear fee estimate and understand components like court costs, service fees, and potential costs for document retrieval or expert declarations. Many clients find that early negotiation or mediation helps control costs compared to protracted litigation. Our office discusses fee structures, provides cost estimates based on the specific facts, and explores alternatives that may reduce expense while protecting client interests. Transparent budgeting and strategic planning help clients make informed decisions about proceeding with a petition.
A Heggstad petition is a specialized petition seeking recognition that certain assets not formally titled in the trust nonetheless were intended by the settlor to be trust property. It often arises when assets were meant to be included but administrative oversight prevented formal transfer. A Heggstad petition asks the court to honor the settlor’s intent and to treat those assets as trust property for distribution and administration purposes. Other trust modification petitions may seek to reform ambiguous terms, correct drafting mistakes, or modify provisions for changed circumstances. While Heggstad petitions focus specifically on asset recognition and inclusion, other petitions address substantive changes to trust language or administration that directly affect beneficiary rights or trustee powers.
Courts generally strive to honor the settlor’s original intent when deciding trust modification matters, but they also consider equitable factors and statutory requirements. If clear evidence shows that the written trust does not reflect the settlor’s intent due to mistake or oversight, a court may reform the document accordingly. When ambiguity exists, the court interprets the trust in light of available extrinsic evidence to determine what the settlor intended. However, the court will not grant changes that contravene applicable law or that unfairly prejudice beneficiaries without justification. The strength of documentary and testimonial evidence, the clarity of the settlor’s objective, and the legal basis for modification all influence whether the court will honor a requested change.
Criminal Defense
Homicide Defense
Manslaughter
Assault and Battery
Assault with a Deadly Weapon
Battery Causing Great Bodily Injury
Domestic Violence
Domestic Violence Protection Orders
Domestic Violence Restraining Order
Arson Defense
Weapons Charges
Illegal Firearm Possessions
Civil Harassment
Civil Harassment Restraining Orders
School Violence Restraining Orders
Violent Crimes Defense
Estate Planning Practice Areas