The point is, the client has to understand the plan, be comfortable with it, and really digest it. I’ve encountered this situation throughout my career, and just a few days ago, I had an experience that I think is worth discussing. The issue revolves around what to do when you receive contradictory legal advice.
My practice focuses on multi-jurisdictional estate planning, with an emphasis on using the best trust laws available for clients. We do a lot of South Dakota trust planning—not every client opts for it, but it’s something we offer because we have conversations around flexibility, privacy, and asset protection. Depending on their situation, it may not make sense for them to do all their planning in their current jurisdiction.
Recently, I had a conversation with a prospective client about South Dakota trust planning. They were really excited because we had developed a plan that would accomplish exactly what they wanted. This client has many relationships in the financial planning world, including asset management, estate planning, tax planning, and trust companies. Through those connections, they received feedback suggesting a few things: first, that the plan we proposed could be done in their current jurisdiction (which simply isn’t true), and second, that the fees we were charging were exorbitant.
Interestingly, the trust company proposed an alternative plan and even recommended another attorney who could handle the work. I suggested we circle back, discuss what they were told, and go through it together.
What I gathered from our conversation was that the person at the trust company didn’t fully understand the discussion I had with the client. They proposed a different plan and claimed it could be done locally for less money. Ironically, the plan they suggested was so basic that I would have charged even less for it than what they were quoting.
One thing to keep in mind is that you often get what you pay for, and not all estate planning attorneys are the same. Ultimately, when you receive contradictory legal advice, you need to flesh it out and have hard conversations with the people offering different perspectives. As the client, you must decide who you trust, and sometimes that means bringing everyone together.
I offered to hop on a call or Zoom with the trust company or any other attorneys the client spoke to, so we could figure out where the discrepancies were. Any attorney who genuinely wants to serve their client should be happy to do this. I’ve had situations where clients brought up concerns based on feedback from someone else, and I’ve always been willing to have those discussions. But often, the other party backs down and tells the client to go where they feel they’re getting the best deal or advice.
This behavior raises questions about the integrity of the advice being given. I’m always willing to have multiple conversations with a client because a bad estate plan is one the client doesn’t understand. For clients with significant wealth, estate plans are complicated, sophisticated, and nuanced. Sometimes, it takes months to develop a plan, with a substantial educational component involved.
The best estate plans are those where the client fully understands what’s in place. Typically, the client who comes in with a clear idea of what they want and need has already done some research or received advice from someone else. However, they need to be open to having a conversation with a competent attorney who can provide the services they truly require. If a client isn’t willing to engage in this process, it’s not going to be a good fit.