Rule 1.14 And Dementia Clients

We break down the 2026 update to Rule 1.14 and why a dementia diagnosis does not automatically mean a client loses the right to sign legal documents. We share real stories from nursing homes and hospitals, then translate the rule comments into practical steps that help clients keep as much autonomy as possible while we still manage risk and undue influence. 

• why presuming incapacity because of dementia violates ethical duties 
• how the renamed “decision-making limitations” standard narrows when Rule 1.14 applies 
• when protective action is allowed and why it is a last resort 
• how capacity can be situational and improve with timing, supports, and accommodations 
• why we do not rely exclusively on a doctor’s diagnosis or letter 
• practical conference room tactics for using family support without letting family take over 
• how to think about document risk and substantive fairness 
• least restrictive alternatives first such as durable powers of attorney 

If you just want to ask me questions, please email me, Todd at theelderlawcoach.com. 
I would love to be your coach, Todd at theelderlawcoach.com, or Trisha D-R-I-S-H-A at the Elderlawcoach.com. 
For more resources, training, and coaching, visit the ElderLawcoach.com. 

Check out our new website www.TheElderLawCoach.com.

Transcript

Why Rule 1.14 Matters

SPEAKER_00 0:19

Joining more than two decades of experiments. Here's practical insights to help you grow your practice, serve your families, and become a trusted elderlum authority in your community. And now here's Todd.

SPEAKER_01 0:30

That's right. This is the Elder Mall Coach Podcast, and I am Todd Whatley. So today, if if if you knew that Rule 1.14 has been updated, you probably knew that I was going to do a podcast on it. And I just in a quick summary, don't leave me. Yes, this is an ethics rule podcast, but it is something that we deal with all of the time. As elder law attorneys, this is something that I say, I mean, probably half of my clientele have some level of dementia. And if you're not familiar with my position on this, just a real quick history. If you've heard this before, just bear with me for just one second.

The Nursing Home Signing Myth

SPEAKER_01 1:13

I will make it quick. When I first started this back in 1999, 2000, um, a case really brought this to light where um a lady came to me saying her sister was her dad's power of attorney and she was basically stealing money. And she wanted to change the POA. Dad wanted to change the POA. He was in a nursing home, he had some physical debilitation things going on. And if you know my history, I worked as a physical therapist in nursing homes and worked with a lot of people who some had dementia, some didn't. You know, I knew in my head that a person with dementia, you know, can still make decisions, can still say what they want, can still do things. And so just dumb me. I was like, okay. So I go to the nursing home, I'm I met with a guy and he said, Yeah, I I want to change um powers of attorney. I said, Great. So I go back to the office, I draw it up, I go back out, go back out there and sign it, and I'm done. I I don't think anything else about it, just a another day at the office. And the sister that we had kicked out, her attorney was the big attorney in town. You know, been there the longest. Well, maybe not the longest, but he was just the big, big attorney. And he called my office and Todd, I know you're brand new at this, but you may not understand that what you did today wasn't right. I said, What? And he said, On Mr. So-and-so, you went out to a nursing home and had him sign a power of attorney. I said, Yeah. And he said, Well, you can't do that. And I was like, why? And he said, Well, he's in a nursing home. He can't sign a power of attorney. And I was like, he did no. And you know, he was just going on and on, and I hung up thinking, man, did did I do something wrong? And I was like, but this doesn't make sense. Why just because someone's in a nursing home, or even worse, just because someone has a diagnosis of dementia, why does that mean that they can't sign documents anymore? And so I kind of blew that off. And then as I saw people, as I started doing more and more elder law, I started seeing more people, and it's like, yeah, they have dementia, but they know exactly what what's going on. And they're like, yeah, this attorney said I can't sign documents anymore because I have a diagnosis of dementia. I was like, but that makes no sense. And the medical part of me was like, this really doesn't make sense. And the lawyer part of me, not working in a big firm, just just thinking this can't be the way this is, I dove in. Okay, I grabbed the rules, started going through this, and rule 1.14 was the the rule. And I started, I read the rule, I read the comments, and just dove in and figured out that I was right. I'll say it today, I am still right. But me thinking that I'm right and me knowing I'm right doesn't mean that everyone else follows in my footsteps. Okay. I started doing this, and I mean, I was getting blasted by attorneys and even sometimes judges. They're like, why did you not follow guardianship? I was like, because we didn't need to, okay? And it just was one of those things that became a huge issue with me, and one that, you know, it's it's still huge. And I think there is still a prevailing mindset out there among attorneys and judges, and absolutely among the medical profession, that if someone has a diagnosis of dementia, they need a guardianship. They can't sign documents. And just to reinforce this, just it's been two weeks now. My associate went out to a hospital, met with someone, had short-term memory loss, but wanted to change their documents. And so we did the documents. And my associate's in there, she's the notary, she was in there going through this, doing this, and a nurse came in there and just blasted her. What are you doing? I I'm here to protect the rights of my patient. And you can't, you know, they can't sign documents. They have a diagnosis of dementia. And what do you think you're doing? And Lauren, you know, having done this for enough time and heard me go through this enough time, she she bowed up on her. She was like, No, you you're wrong. I'm doing this, this is not right. And so just think about the nurse's perspective was this person can't sign documents. You need to spend thousands of dollars and go to court where we're going to take away that person's rights and give it to someone else in a guardianship. And so this nurse, in protecting the patient's rights, was advocating for the loss of their rights, that they can no longer make any more decisions, that they have a diagnosis of dementia, so therefore they are gone. They can't make decisions. And that's just wrong, just absolutely incorrect. And so, what made this even worse was once Lauren got back to the office, she got a phone call from the hospital administration type thing saying, Yeah, we need to schedule an appointment and discuss this. Well, Lauren got a little bit nervous, came to me and said, Hi, and I said, I'll be there. I will be on that phone call, trust me. Well, the phone call never occurred. I don't know if the lawyers, I don't know what happened, but apparently someone intervened and said, We don't need to do a phone call. And it's just that is the prevailing mindset in medicine that people need to go get a guardianship if they have a diagnosis of dementia. But rule 1.14 now clears this up and says, no, uh no, no, no. Yes, there is a point when someone can't sign documents, but that point is way further down the line than we're being taught or that the mindset is. Okay.

The 2026 Update And New Name

SPEAKER_01 7:07

So if you are driving, you know, make a mental note, but I would suggest go and print out the newest rule 1.14, February 17 17th of 2026 is the new rule. And they've even changed the name of it. It's client with decision making limitations. And so they've changed the name from diminished capacity, and now it's decision making limitations. And uh I just want to, you know, make sure that everyone understands this is important, particularly with elder law. It is extremely important that you understand this rule. And I'm going to go through this very clear and make sure that you understand this. Okay? Let me get my paperwork in order here. Rule 1.14 client-lawyer relationship is the first section. A. A lawyer shall, as far as reasonably possible, maintain an ordinary client relationship with the client with decision-making uh limitations. So just the first sentence right there says we should not treat this client any differently than we would any other client. We need to go into the meeting, and the notes actually say later on we are to assume that they have capacity. The assumption is they have capacity, and that's exactly opposite of what a large portion of attorneys do right now is they're like, oh, they have dementia. We're going to assume that they can't do it. And that is wrong. You are violating your ethical duties if that's how you go into a meeting thinking or assuming this person can no longer handle their affairs. Okay. And so Section A says this, okay? Now, I like this in paragraph A, it actually gives us the definition of a person with decision-making limitations. And I think this will surprise you. Okay. So this rule is dealing with people with decision-making limitations. The definition of someone with decision-making limitations is if the person has substantial difficulty receiving and understanding information, evaluating information, or making or communicating decisions even with appropriate supports and accommodations. So this rule is when we are dealing with someone who has substantial difficulty receiving and understanding information. Not just a little bit, not just they forgot what they have for breakfast, or they don't recall who the president is, or they don't know what day it is. This is for someone with substantial difficulties. And I think up to this point, if someone doesn't have substantial difficulties receiving and understanding information, this rule doesn't even apply. We're to treat them just like any other client. Absolutely. Bring them in, ask them what they want, do what they want, make sure there's no undue influence, make sure that you are being you are looking out for your client's best interests. That's everybody. And then this rule point one four only deals with people who have substantial difficulty receiving and understanding information. Okay? Does that make sense? And so then B goes in when a lawyer lawyer reasonably believes that the client has decision-making limitations, fits within this. That's one. Two, is at a risk of substantial physical, financial, and other harm unless action is taken. And three, cannot adequately act in the client's own interest to address the risk. The lawyer may take reasonably necessary protective action to address the risk. Okay. So they're they do have decision-making limitations, they're at a substantial physical, financial, or other harm and cannot adequately act in the client's own interest. That's when we go to protective measures, which is guardianship, I'm assuming under the language of this. Okay. All right. So let's go. That the rest of this talks about the emergency action. Let's go to the comments. That's where the gold is, okay? And this is where it tells us how to do this rule, how to implement this rule, things we need to consider. And I think it's very strong. I think the comments are very persuasive, and they have changed these, I think, quite a bit. And to be honest, I think it it helps my position of saying we shouldn't be doing as many guardianships. We should be helping our clients. We should be going above and beyond helping our clients be able to maintain their independence, maintain their ability to make decisions.

Capacity Can Shift With Time

SPEAKER_01 12:16

So, comment one: a client's decision-making limitations do not diminish the lawyer's obligation under the rules or the importance of treating the client with attention and respect. Number two, decision-making limitations can be situational in nature and can vary in degree over time. This is the thing. This is what I hear all the time. Well, a doctor said they can't make decisions. Okay. Well, that was at the point that person was in the doctor's office, and at the point the doctor evaluated them. At that point, they had decision-making limitations. But those vary. Okay. Real interesting case that I saw just last week. Okay. Lauren, my associate, met with him by phone, had him on the phone, had the son on the phone, was doing what seemed to make total sense was it was a late-in-life marriage. He had three sons. The wife had at least one child. And dad wanted to protect, he had no estate planning documents, I don't think. Maybe power of attorney. But he wanted to do something to protect his estate, to make sure that his fairly new wife was able to live in the house, benefit from things. But then at her death, things went to his kids. Very common estate plan that we see in later in life marriages. Her child was a little questioning, wondering, you know, just I think just making sure mom was protected and was calling the office asking what was going on. Dad has dementia. He shouldn't be making decisions, the normal thing. But Lauren said on the phone call, he was very clear, very adamant what he wanted made total sense. And so she drew up the documents. And they came in and I met with him at four o'clock, and that matters. At four o'clock, he came in, whole family came in, the wife, her kid, one of the sons, and they came in. And since it was somewhat controversial, and I don't do this every time, but since it was somewhat controversial, I sent the family outside of the room. I and my assistant sat down with him and started asking questions. He could not answer my questions. He could not adequately explain to me what he wanted. He did not remember the phone call Tuesday. He was not in a position at that point in time to sign those documents. And so I went back out to the lobby, sat down with the family, and explained. It's like, hey, right now he can't sign these documents. What would most attorneys do at that point? Have a conversation about guardianship. Okay. He can't sign documents. We need to file a guardianship. Let's go on. Let's take away his rights and let's file guardianship. Which I think is not correct. I think based on these rules, okay, I am to treat him with respect, and taking away his rights in a guardianship is not respecting him. Okay. And so this was four o'clock. And if you know anything about dementia, there's this thing called sundowners. And the sun doesn't have to be down for this to be occurred, but the later in the day that it goes, the less competent a person can become. And it was my position that this guy may do better in the morning. And I'll get to that in just a second. The comments in the tell us to do what I'm about to tell you that I did. Okay. Just to, you know, give you a fact pattern here that that shows how these rules apply. I met with them and asked, I said, is he better in the morning? And they said, Yeah, sometimes he is. I said, Great. Let's get in. His sons had been there, or a son had been there visiting, and it had been kind of a stressful week. And this was now four o'clock in the afternoon on a Thursday, and he was tired and was not doing well at that point. I said, Hey, let's not come back next week, but a week from Monday at nine o'clock, come in, let's see how he's doing. So therefore, I am taking steps, I am doing things to help increase his level of capacity, since the rules say that it can be situational in nature and can vary in degree and over time. And so I'm going the extra step, say, hey, we're going to redate all these documents and you're going to come back on Monday morning and let's see how you're doing. And I I hope and kind of expect him to be doing much better Monday morning. Okay. So Feather in paragraph or comment number two says some adults with substantial decision-making limitations, including those due to intellectual development or cognitive disabilities, mental health conditions, or substance abuse disorder, can make legal decisions. It is clear, it is in black and white. Comment number two. People with substantial, again, we're not the minimal to moderate level of dementia. That this rule doesn't even step in for them. Absolutely they can do it. This is someone with substantial decision-making limitations that can make legal decisions. In addition, even if unable to make some or all decisions, persons with decision-making limitations, including even very young minors, may have preferences and values that can guide the lawyer's representation. Okay. Number three, comment number three. A client's decision-making limitations can be affected by multiple factors. Sometimes decision-making limitations can be alleviated or eliminated by using supports or making accommodations to enhance the client's decision-making abilities. Okay. Again, I feel very vindicated because I've been saying this for 20 plus years, and people, some people have looked at me saying, Todd, you just lost your mind. This person has dementia. They can't sign documents. The doctor has said and it even addresses that later on. Stick with me, okay? Stick with me. We're going to get to the issue of a doctor diagnosing this person with dementia. And so here's a little practice pointer. If you're going to take your SEALA exam, I still grade quite a bit. And I will tell you, there is almost always a decision-making limitation question. Okay. And I will tell you, I try to pick those answers because I'm very particular about the answer. And when someone puts in their answer, when the the fact pattern is this person has dementia, they have limited decision-making capabilities. When the person says, I would definitely send them to the doctor and see what the doctor says before I proceed, that is a failing answer. Okay? Is a failing answer because of comment number three, and there are other comments coming up that further explain that is a failing answer. That is not what we are supposed to do. We as attorneys, we know the legal standards, and you don't need a medical degree to be able to understand if someone has the legal standard to sign a document or not. Okay? Comment number four. Lawyers are required to maintain, as far as reasonably possible, an ordinary client-lawyer relationship with clients with decision-making limitations. There it is. In writing, telling us it is our job. Skip down further in for an ordinary client-lawyer relationship is based in part on the assumption that the client, when properly advised and assisted, can make and communicate reasoned informed decisions about important matters. Okay. The assumption is that the client can make informed decisions. If you're assuming a client can't, just because they have dementia, you are wrong. Okay. Come at me. Okay. Send me emails. I will point you back to our ethical rules and the comments within those to say the assumption that a client can't sign documents simply because they have dementia, you are wrong. Okay. In particular, the very last sentence of comment for is in particular, a client with decision-making limitations may have limited ability to make or communicate legally binding decisions. May. And again, decision-making limitations. The definition is substantial issues with making those decisions. Okay. Do you hate me yet or do you love me? Comment number

Family In The Room Done Right

SPEAKER_01 21:17

five. The client may wish to have family members or other persons participate. So when I first got into Elder Law, they're like, oh, with your client, you need to send everybody out of the room and meet with the client by yourself. That didn't sit with me 27 years ago, and it still doesn't sit well with me today. Client, this many, many times have never met with an attorney in their life. And they are one of the few groups out there that still really respect attorneys, really honor the degree, honor the profession. And many times they're nervous. They're like, oh, we're going to see a lawyer. Yeah, you're you're going to see a lawyer. And they take that very seriously. And I have found that if you send the family outside of the room and meet with them by themselves, you're not going to get much information. And particularly if they do have decision-making limitations and they have short-term memory issues, you really need the family there to verify what's going on. And so ideally, just a real quick practice pointer, when you're setting up your conference table or when your staff is seating people, I like to sit at the end just so I can look and see everybody. I like to have the client, the older person, the one that we're doing documents for, sitting next to me. And then just past them is a family member that I can look just barely past the person's face and see their response. And it's like, Miss Jones, have you ever done documents before? And she's like, no. And the family's like, yeah, she has. And are have you mispaying bills? Is someone involved in your life? And they're answering you, but you can see the family member just passed them correcting those answers many times. Okay. And so it is rare. In my example that I just used, yes, I did send the family out because I wanted to verify what the phone call previously, but had this been our first meeting, I I would not have sent them out. Once the wife's daughter started making objections or start doing things, at that point, that might throw up a red flag, and I'm like, okay, y'all need to leave. But that's after I've gained some rapport with the client, I've let them know that I'm not some big, mean, nasty lawyer. I'm just here to talk. And once you can develop that relationship with the client, then if needed, send the family out. But to be honest, I rarely send the family out. Just understand the lawyer must keep the client's interest foremost and except for protective action, must look to the client and not family members or other persons to make decisions on the client's behalf. We all know that. Okay. They just reiterate it. Okay. Comment number six. When family members are another seeks lawyer services on behalf of an individual who may have decision-making limitations, the lawyer should identify who the client is. Here's another point that is not universally agreed upon. My position is in my office, the older client is almost always the client. The older person, the one we're doing things for, is almost always the client. I just found out yesterday if you haven't seen the um or heard the podcast with the Florida State University professor, I would highly recommend it. I think it was good. It was fun. And she told me, she said, your podcast on who is the client is required listening for all of my students. She said, that makes total sense. And I I do a whole podcast on who is the client. So if if you have questions, go go find that podcast and listen to it. Comment seven. Okay. So when the client has granted an agent authority, okay, including the agent acting under the power of attorney, the lawyer nevertheless should take direction from the client and maintain communication with the client to the extent feasible unless the client has uh otherwise directed. I think that's a minor point here. It's an issue, but just remember, and again, making the older person the client helps clear your thinking, helps us make sure that everything that's being done is in the client's best interest. Okay? All right, let's go down to some good stuff. Better stuff. Comment 11. A lawyer representing a client with decision-making limitations can employ a variety of techniques to ensure that the lawyer's representation is competent. Okay? You need to be very familiar with dementia. You need to understand how it works, like me understanding sundowners. Meeting an older person with dementia at four o'clock is probably not the best idea. We were trying and we got them in quickly. She met with them by phone on Tuesday. The son was flying out on Friday, and he wanted to be here for that meeting. And I said, I'm sorry, but he can't sign today. I know that you're leaving tomorrow, but we'll get this done. You don't have to be here. Dad still wants to be the trustee, so you don't have to be here to to sign anything. And he really understood. And so that's us. So the only time we had to get him in before Friday when the son left was Thursday at four. Not the best thing, and particularly it didn't work, but I think it will work. And so further down in comment 11, the attorney may employ or invite the client to use supports and accommodations that make it easier for the client to understand and communicate information. There's a lot of techniques. Okay. Sometimes going to their house is better. I don't like to do that. I like to get them out of their house, but sometimes it just works better. And here's one thing that I was really surprised when I read this in the comments was lawyers can seek guidance from resources developed by professional associations and others with expertise in working with individuals with decision-making limitations. Get dementia training. Okay. In your town, there are some places around that will do dementia training. Typically, it's for caregivers. And I would highly recommend if you want to do elder law and do it well, take a day off and go to a dementia training. You will learn so much about how dementia works, how to work with someone with dementia. I think it's it's important. And here, comment 11 actually says lawyers can, and I think it should say should seek guidance from other resources. Okay. All right, taking protective action. Comment number 12. If a lawyer reasonably believes that a client is at risk of substantial fiscal, financial, or other harms unless action is taking, and that an ordinary client relationship, client lawyer relationship cannot be maintained as provided it permits the lawyer to take protective measures. Okay, but that's at the very end of the road, okay, that the client is at risk of substantial fiscal, financial, and other harm. Not just a little bit, not just some, but substantial. Okay. Then it further goes in and says such measures could include consulting with family members, using a reconsideration period to permit clarification or improvement of circumstances, what I just did, using voluntary surrogate decision-making tools such as durable powers of attorney. I don't know how much more clearly it could be said. So it's telling us even if we believe a client is at risk of substantial physical, financial, or other harms, we should consider using surrogate decision-making tools such as durable powers of attorney. Okay. All right, let's go on. 13. Lucky number 13 has some really interesting

Doctors Do Not Set Legal Capacity

SPEAKER_01 29:35

things. This is where we get in to the doctor. In determining the extent of the client's decision-making limitations, the lawyer should consider and balance such factors as the client's ability to articulate reasoning leading to a decision, variability, state of mind, and the ability to understand consequences of a decision, appreciation of the substantive fairness of the decision, the consistency of a decision with a long-term commitment and values of the client. This is the language that back 20 years ago got me thinking that sounds very interesting. That is not lawyer language, that's more medical language. And this list of things that we are supposed to look at came from a conference in the late 1990s, conference of physicians, typically psychiatrists, and attorneys who did a lot of guardianships, coming together to say there's too many guardianships. We are going toward guardianship too frequently. This was almost what 30 years ago now. And I think we're still doing it. But they came together to say, look, the things we we as attorneys need to be looking at clients is reasoning, fairness. And if you've heard me speak on this before, I I am telling you that I think this language right here allows us to look at the risk of the document. And that just this makes some some people's head explode. When I say we not only need to evaluate the client and can they meet that very strict standard of, oh yeah, they have contractual level of capacity, is what's the fairness of this document? Okay. Appointing your daughter who's a CPA as your financial power of attorney kind of makes sense. That's a very low risk document. It's the daughter, she knows finances, and it's what most people do anyway, as opposed to appointing the caregiver that's been in your house for two weeks as your financial power of attorney. That's a high risk document. And so I think the risk of the document comes into play many times. All right. Love it halfway down through paragraph 13 or comment 13 says a lawyer should ordinarily not rely exclusively on a medical diagnosis. SILA exam. If you're pushing this off onto the physician to say, you tell me what to do, you are wrong. So, but rather should consider the client's functional abilities and whether the limitations in the client's abilities could be alleviated by the use of accommodations or supports. Again, we are to accommodate, we are to support, we are to do things to help our client have better capacity to be able to sign these documents. So, okay, what about the letter from the doctor? There is a letter from the doctor. Great, let me look at it. The rule says, the comment to the rule says, a lawyer who is aware of a healthcare professional's evaluation of the client's current abilities and limitations should take such evidence into consideration. Okay, I get that. Very next sentence. However, the lawyer should recognize that the evaluation may have been done for a different purpose and that the evaluator may have evaluated the client based on standards that differ from the relevant legal standard, and at a time when the client's abilities differed from the present. How much more clear can I be? Absolutely. How much I don't think they could have written that in better. That takes it from the presumption of, oh, there's a letter from a doctor, so we can't our only option is a guardianship. Okay. I and this is comment 13. Again, if you're driving down the road listening to this, hopefully I'm getting this across to you. But if if you have this in front of you, I would suggest highlighting it and adapting your practice to take this into consideration. It is that important. Okay. Comment 14. A determination that a client has decision-making limitations, again, go back to the definition, need not have been made by healthcare or professional court for a lawyer to form a reasonable belief that the client has such limitations. Okay? It's up to us. Okay. Comment 14 says you have determined this person meets the qualifications of decision-making limitations, substantial problems. Nevertheless, the second sentence, nevertheless, in appropriate circumstances, the lawyer may seek guidance from a healthcare professional with relevant expertise or with knowledge of the client's abilities or limitations. May. Okay. And I may be a little harsh on the person answering the SEALA exam that says, Oh, I would do that and rely. That's not may, that's them saying, in every situation, I'm going to wait and see what the doctor says. Comment 13, just above that, says, No, no, no, no, no. However, lawyers should recognize that the evaluation may have been done for a different purpose and that the evaluator may have evaluated the client based on standards that differ from the relevant legal standard and at a time when the client's abilities differed from the present. All right, we're almost through. Okay, stick with me. Comment 15. A lawyer reasonably believes that the client meets the criteria set forth in paragraph B of this rule, the lawyer may consider whether appointment of a guardian ad lightum, conservative, guardian is necessary. Okay, so even at the very worst, this is saying, yes, we we can file a guardianship. Okay, I'm not saying never file a guardianship. I'm just saying it should be a very last resort. And then f further down in 15, and here's routinely, every guardianship that I've reviewed does not do what the rules tell us to do. About two-thirds of the way down on paragraph 15. In considering alternatives, however, the lawyer should generally advocate the least restrictive action on by behalf of the client and be aware of any law that so requires. A power of attorney is always less restrictive than a guardianship. All right. So I feel vindicated, okay? I've been fighting this for 27 years from my from one of my very first elder law cases when an attorney told me I was absolutely wrong to say to sign documents in a nursing home. That was just the thing. You just can't go to a nursing home and sign documents. That is wrong. And I am telling you, based on the rules, get the rule out and read it yourself and realize that we need to work with older clients. We need to go above and beyond. We need to reschedule appointments. We need to bring in family members. We need to assume that this client can make decisions and only at the very end of this process they can't make decisions. Then we go to court, then we take drastic actions. But up until the very end, we are to work with our clients and help them maintain their freedoms.

Least Restrictive Help And Closing

SPEAKER_01 37:31

Okay? I've tipped over a lot of sacred cows today. I get it, I understand, but I am very adamant that I am correct. If you just want to ask me questions, please email me, Todd at theelderlawcoach.com. I would love to be your coach. I would love to work with you on this issue, on Medicaid, on VA, helping you get your office doing very good elderlaw work and doing what I think is absolutely the best job in the world. Okay. I would love to be your coach, Todd at theelderlawcoach.com, or Trisha D-R-I-S-H-A at the Elderlawcoach.com. She is the one who schedules phone calls with me. You just want to chat, email Trisha, tell her you want to have some time with me. I would love to talk with you and discuss this, or you can email me. But most of all, I would love to be your coach and help you do the best job in the world. Okay? Thanks for listening, and I will see you next time.

SPEAKER_00 38:28

Thanks for joining us on the Elder Law Coach Podcast. For more resources, training, and coaching, visit the ElderLawcoach.com. I'm Tim McWhumley, and I'll see you next time as we continue helping attorneys build successful elder law practices and better serve the families who depend on them.