That's a fallacy. It's true that America's wealthiest families were traditionally 'the deep pocket' defendants who were most concerned about shielding their wealth. The social elites of past eras sheltered their massive wealth with trusts, family corporations and other protective entities to privatize or lawsuit-proof their property; however, they seldom referred to their financial strategies as 'Asset Protection'. But the super-rich are no longer the only lawsuit targets. Virtually every American with any assets now needs protection. So Asset Protection isn't only for the affluent. In fact, most of our clients have only modest wealth. However, their modest wealth is precious to them! That's what counts. How would you feel if you lost your assets; your home, car, savings? Wealth is relative. It is not only the rich and affluent who need protection. Anyone with any assets needs protection! Here's an example. An airport shoe-shiner was sued for $100,000 on a bank loan he guaranteed for his son. He owned only his Bronx home with a $100,000 equity. Many people don't consider $100,000 serious wealth. They would hate to lose it, but this loss wouldn't hurt their lifestyle. That's not how our shoe-shine client saw it. His $100,000 home equity was his entire life savings. How many more shoes must he shine to replace his $100,000? He will have a harder time recouping his $100,000 than a millionaire would his millions. That's why we take every case serious.