Something is "sustainable" if it can be used repeatedly without depleting. This implies renewability and regeneration, not just inexhaustibility. Many legal solutions, however, are inherently unsustainable, effective only until they fail. Laws and people change, rendering many legal solutions obsolete.
To create sustainable solutions, we must first identify what fails. The core of short-lived legal solutions often lies in how estate planning Trusts are established and used. Here’s an example drawn from real-life experiences:
Broken Trust: A Trust That Failed
Bob and Sue had a Trust they believed was sound. They paid well for it, hired a respected attorney recommended by their trusted financial advisor, and followed professional advice meticulously. They had every reason to trust their Trust. Yet, they were blindsided.
Litigation didn’t wipe them out, but the losses were steep. They learned too late that their Trust didn’t protect their assets. Sue was grateful they could still support their children, who needed what little remained.
In his final years, Bob faced age-related decline, enduring an expensive, intrusive Conservatorship and Guardianship. The court’s declaration of incompetence was humiliating.
After their passing, their estate languished in probate for over a year. Owning property in multiple states triggered multiple probates. Their Trust and Wills, based on the laws of their original state, caused costly complications in the state where they retired.
Federal and state estate taxes eroded much of their wealth, amplified by their substantial retirement accounts. Bob and Sue had believed growing these funds tax-free would build wealth for their children. Instead, taxes left the family with pennies on the dollar.
Their children, disagreeing with Bob and Sue’s decisions and each other, ended up in court. Significant portions of the Trust were altered or discarded. Legal fees, though substantial, seemed a small price to the children for immediate, unrestricted access to funds.
The dependency Bob and Sue fostered grew worse after their deaths, as did resentment. The children and their lawyers sold the estate’s properties and businesses, dividing the proceeds.
Flush with cash and no need to work, the children drifted apart, chasing expensive toys, travel, alcohol, drugs, gambling, casual sex, and get-rich-quick schemes. Family traditions and values faded. Most who married divorced, with ex-in-laws claiming their share.
The grandchildren, raised in this environment, squandered the inherited wealth. What wasn’t wasted on futile attempts to buy connection was lost to savvy entrepreneurs preying on impatient third-generation wealth. Convinced of their entitlement, with no resources or drive to be self-sustaining, the grandchildren joined the ranks of those demanding government support, embracing victimhood.
Is this a worst-case scenario or simply typical? We’re witnessing the largest generational wealth transfer in history. What is it producing? There must be a better way.
What About the Trust?
If Trusts are meant to prevent such outcomes, why do some fail so spectacularly? Despite their Trust, Bob and Sue’s family faced litigation, incompetency proceedings, multiple probates, taxes, lawsuits, and wealth destruction, damaging relationships in the process.
Aren’t Trusts supposed to prevent this? What went wrong? Some might conclude planning is futile. Yet, after decades of working with generational wealth, I’ve found that while people plan to avoid probate and taxes, their deeper concern is how wealth affects loved ones.
Focusing estate planning on assets overlooks a key truth: people, not wealth, endure. Wealth is fleeting; people are sustainable. Without people, wealth has no purpose. Nature doesn’t favor the rich—everyone is mortal.
Whether leaving assets to family, charity, or, by default, to lawyers and politicians, people matter more than property. Preserving wealth that harms its recipients is no success. To protect wealth, we must first protect people.
For a Trust to safeguard people, it must be sustainable beyond assets. People and wealth must coexist healthily across generations, requiring a framework to manage their relationship.
Is this possible? Bob and Sue’s friends, with similar Trusts, saw their wealth and families thrive three generations later. What made the difference?
The Sustainable Legal Paradigm
As John Maynard Keynes quipped, “In the long run, we are all dead.” Planning focused on death won’t prevent it or the problems of unstructured wealth transfers.
This shouldn’t paralyze us. Sustainable legal solutions exist, designed to protect and preserve what matters most—living people—over the long term. This segment of the Generational Wealth newsletter explores such solutions, including:
- Single-use vs. renewable dynasty Trusts
- Why solid estate plans can still fail
- When a Trust alone isn’t enough and what tools complement it
- Types and uses of Trusts: business, charitable, and abusive schemes
- Integrating estate, financial, business, tax, charitable, and family succession plans
- When simple Wills, Trusts, or beneficiary designations suffice
- Full toolbox vs. multi-tool approaches to legal solutions
- Aligning legal planning with family dynamics
- Estate planning for tax efficiency and personal fulfillment
This article includes excerpts from the forthcoming book “Trust Issues.”
Sustainable Legal Solutions © 2025 by Rick Durfee is licensed under CC BY 4.0 
Sustainable Legal Solutions