I fundamentally disagree with that philosophy. I view my job as my clients’ attorney and counselor at law, to help them fully understand all their options and choose how to create an estate plan with which they feel most comfortable to provide for and protect their families. Moreover, I believe it’s critically important for young, healthy people to plan *now* while they can do so best. Clients who engage a lawyer when their families are just starting out can work with that lawyer throughout their lifetimes to help create and grow their wealth reviewing and updating the plan as their families change and grow too.

Lately, with the challenging economic circumstances most people are currently facing, I have heard a lot of initial resistance to spending money *now* to create solid estate plans. In my opinion, that is like playing Russian Roulette. Sure, you can get lucky 5 out of 6 times and not need your estate plan to work as best as possible, but what about that 6th time? Personally, I’d rather be safe than sorry, especially for my own young children. That means spending a little more now to avoid depriving your children a whole lot more later. Or, to use that old but apt expression, don’t be “penny wise and pound foolish.”

I think the point you make is that the attorney doesn’t set the fees – the court does. I appreciate the clarification.

I still think that the attorney owes the client an effort to try to reduce fees as much as possible and I know you agree. That being the case, if an attorney does not present the trust when it’s appropriate to do so, the client should find a different attorney – hopefully they’ll come to you.

I am not saying your post was wrong, actually it is correct, and more comprehensive in nature than most attorneys can explain this stuff – I am just saying there are other options.

a. how can a will “safeguard” the estate tax exclusion without using a trust? I’ll look at your link.
b. for the money attorney’s charge, I think they should follow up to make sure instructions are followed. They could have their paralegal follow up. I mean. damn…they know the clients forget to do it all the time. It’s like selling a car that you know is defective…right?

Just my two cents. Wealth Pilgrim is better with you in the boat! Thanks!

http://www.myjourneytomillions.com/articles/tax-sensitive-will-aka-by-pass-will/

That set up is irrelevant of whether you are working with a trust or a will. But you are 100% correct the A-B set up is a MUST for wealthier individuals, and you would be shocked about how many lawyers don’t even understand it. It should be noted that I have seen revocable trusts that were simple in nautre where all assets would pass to surviving spouse and then to children.

Again, I really have to emphasize I am not against a Revocable Trust, I just felt the need to explain that it is not a cure all.

I would make sure if we went this route that assets would be moved, I don’t think its malpractice if an Attorney doesn’t proactively move the assets into the trust. Two main reasons, (1) brokerage accounts need people like you to help, an attorney is more or less worthless for those assets; and (2) Sometimes the relationship is transactional in nature and the Attorney warns and guides what to do…it then is in the client’s court.

Just some thoughts.

I have personally seen many cases where a revocable living trust helped clients avoid estate taxes by use of an A-B trust. Again, I’m not an attorney but in California this has been a very powerful tool. I don’t know about NY law.

On the funding, I agree that some attorneys fail to do their job in making sure the trust is funded. This should be a punishable offense. But I’ve helped clients get this done and it’s really not a big deal – at least for investments. In California, the re-titling is fairly easy and doesn’t trigger a tax (real estate).

Most of the trusts I’ve seen have explicit instructions for clients and all they have to do is go to the bank or see their broker. The attorney should follow up and the lawyers I’ve dealt with have done so.

You are right again – even a good idea can be executed poorly. The same goes with trusts.

To your final point, again, the A-B provision can save hundreds of thousands in estate tax but even if it doesn’t, I’ve tried to mention that it can save lots of money and time versus probate.

Are their problems with a trust? You’ve done a good job in pointing some out. But pound for pound, I’d take a trust over probate any day.

What I take away from our exchange is that – as always – it depends on the situation of the client.

I would never recommend that Everyone get a trust – and I hope I didn’t give that impression. But in the 25 years I’ve been in this business, I’ve never met a client who regretted having a trust – nor have I met a beneficiary who has.

I really appreciate your arguments though. And thanks for the plug in idea. Still learning over here…..