|
Why Use a Gay or
Lesbian Attorney?
by
Paul Jeselsohn
Consulting an
attorney should be a situation where one can be honest as to the reasons for
making choices, or to ascertain what options are available, without any
reservations as to particular choices. Many Americans choose their attorneys
based on ethnic or religious affiliation, or even vocational bases, but for a
gay or lesbian person, choosing a gay or lesbian attorney provides a zone of
comfort to be able to speak freely about one’s goals.
Often gay or
lesbian client couples have purchased an apartment or house together but not
adequately protected each other by purchasing with rights of survivorship,
sometimes using the attorney representing tenants in a co-op conversion, but
being shy or ignorant about the implications of the wording of ownership; and
often the attorney representing them in a transaction does not advise them as to
potential conflicts in representing both parties. These complications if not
properly addressed can have an adverse impact on a surviving domestic partner at
the death of one of the owners or even at the break-up of a relationship.
Sometimes tax
considerations enter into ownership decisions by gay or lesbian couples,
ignoring the legal implications of the death of one of a couple who holds title
simply to take advantage of income tax deductions; this could expose the
surviving member of a couple to entire loss of the property, even if left to him
or her in a will. The issue is being appropriately advised so that choices and
the risks involved can be adequately explained.
And when it
comes to estate issues, gay or lesbian clients might feel intimidated to explain
to an attorney why they are not leaving their estate to a family member,
especially if they wish to make bequests to gay or lesbian organizations. And
frequently, a business partner is also more than just a business partner, so
there are considerations which should enter into the formation of the business
or the running of it.
In short even
when a gay man or lesbian is not sure whether there are legal implications in
something he or she is undertaking, in consulting a professional, he or she
should feel comfortable in talking about a particular situation, and how it
impacts on their lives, whether it involves property issues, citizenship and
immigration issues, marital and custody, or business, employment, housing. If
nothing else, everyone should have a Will (drafted by an attorney in order to
avoid errors), and an attorney who can at least recommend or refer a client to
another attorney who might have more expertise in a certain area of the law.
|
|
Article about me as co-op board president at:
http://www.habitatmag.com/archive/f6262000.shtml
The Man Who Hated Meetings
By Tom Soter
Paul Jeselsohn hates board
meetings. Yet, as president of 41 Fifth Avenue on 11th Street, he has been
successfully running them for three years. And, in the process, he has overseen
a remarkable turnaround at the 88-unit Manhattan cooperative.
“There really has been a big
transformation here,” says Mitchell Berg, vice president at Maxwell-Kates, the
co-op’s manager. “There has been a selling boom. We are getting a lot of very
substantial people buying. The apartments are hot.”
For that, much credit can go to
Jeselsohn’s no-nonsense approach. “Paul is a great leader,” Berg observes. “He’s
an attorney and thinks like an attorney. He listens to both sides. We used to
have meetings that went for two-and-a-half to three hours. They were not really
effective. But since Paul became president, that has changed. He keeps
everything very focused; he doesn’t let us get off on tangents. He still listens
to everyone and then brings the discussion to a place where a decision can be
made.”
Jeselsohn is matter-of-fact and
modest: “I think everybody on the board understands their fiduciary
responsibility. There are no bad guys. We go around and discuss things and don’t
allow cross-discussion or personal attacks.”
One of Jeselsohn’s key steps came
soon after he had been elected president. He introduced e-mail meetings in order
to become more efficient – and also as a way to avoid his own impatience with
the meeting process.
“I didn’t feel we actually needed
monthly meetings,” he explains. “I just find most meetings boring. Basically, my
philosophy is if nothing is happening, you don’t meet. If one board member wants
a meeting, however, we’ll have one. I’ve been on boards [of
non-cooperative-related groups] that were horrors. Sometimes they were
contentious because people felt that it was more like a debating society. So
everything became political and factional. But with e-mail, we have a very
focused discussion.”
“We primarily communicate by e-mail
now,” Berg adds. “We have maybe six or seven actual meetings a year and the rest
of the time it’s done by e-mail. It’s a lot more effective. Paul was one of the
first that I know of to push for e-mail meetings. He recognizes that people have
other things to do. They don’t want to waste time.”
Jeselsohn got involved in 41 Fifth
soon after he bought an apartment there in 1985. His reasoning is simple: he was
asked, so he answered the call. “I was an attorney doing insurance defense law,”
recalls the New Jersey-born lawyer. “I didn’t know anything about co-ops, but I
was an attorney, so when they asked me to run, I said, ‘Sure. If I can help.’”
He found a property with
challenges. Built in 1923, the building was in need of repair. But that was made
difficult because just under 50 percent of the property was occupied by renters
in investor-owned apartments, so the board had to deal with the sponsor on many
issues. There were also constant heat and hot water problems, the underlying
mortgage on the property was, in Jeselsohn’s opinion, “too high,” and the three
elevators were (and still are) manually operated.
Jeselsohn, in various positions on
the board before he became president, soon helped in the search for solutions.
One of the most remarkable ones landed him — along with vice president George
Vellonakis and manager Berg — a 1998 Habitat Management Achievement Award
winner. The co-op actually bought, marketed, and sold an apartment in the
building.
Two years ago, an out-of-state bank
decided it could no longer carry a perennially delinquent shareholder at the
co-op and decided to foreclose on her shares. The foreclosure threatened the
co-op’s fiscal well-being: the bank was reselling the shares for the one-bedroom
apartment at $144,000 – less than half the market value, which could dangerously
lower the price of the co-op’s other shares. In addition, the financial state of
the prospective purchaser did not meet the co-op’s standards because he would
have had to devote at least 60 percent of his income to maintenance and mortgage
payments. The unrenovated apartment also needed anywhere from $5,000 to $50,000
worth of work.
The board decided that the co-op
corporation should buy and then resell the apartment itself. To do so, it would
first need to buy the shares from the bank. Jeselsohn says that the board
realized that, given the bank’s low purchase price and the strong real estate
market, even if they sold the shares for half their market value they could make
some profit and protect property values. The directors also decided to show the
apartment themselves so the co-op could retain the 10 percent broker’s
commission.
Their efforts paid off. Within a
week of the co-op’s purchase from the foreclosing bank, the board sold the
apartment on the open market in a bidding war for $326,110 – over $45,000 more
than the record-breaking sale of a one-bedroom at the co-op only two months
before. A subsequent one-bedroom sale has brushed the $300,000 mark, an
indication that the threshold has been raised.
Jeselsohn says many choices are
dictated by circumstances, but adds that the quality of selection is helped by
who you have on the board and how they interact with each other.
“You want to get a multi-faceted
group of people working together who bring special expertise to the table,” he
explains, pointing to the board at 41 Fifth, which includes two lawyers, a
commodities trader, an architect, and a photographer. Joselson himself is, notes
Berg, “a real estate attorney, so he is familiar with how boards operate. He
brings a lot of experience to the table and is well-qualified to be board
president.”
Jeselsohn added to the “experience
menu” by recently becoming a real estate broker (although he does not handle
apartments in his building). That, combined with his legal background, helps:
“My work makes me knowledgeable about the market. I’m able to review other co-op
prospectuses and minutes and that gives me a good perspective on issues. I can
see what to expect, how much reserves should be [based on what other properties
have].”
Jeselsohn says that the three “Cs”
are paramount: communication, consensus, and congeniality. “We’ve never had any
dissension. We do everything by consensus. I would say it’s important for the
board to have good relations with other shareholders and it should never
hesitate to ask for the expertise of professionals. We never shy away from
talking to our counsel, accountant, or engineer.
“We try to be sensitive to human
issues,” he adds, “but we also try to be professional and responsible. My goal
is to make being on the board as painless as possible. That’s the only way you
can get good people to be willing to take the time. If you make serving a
painful experience, you’ll only get people who have an agenda. I think we have
very nice people. I could spend an afternoon with them.”
|
