Can Regulatory Uniformity Drive Interest in E-Wills?
E-wills could receive a boost from the new Electronic Wills Act released online by the Uniform Law Commission, but that doesn't guarantee that every state or law firm will be eager to go along for the ride.
October 07, 2019 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
E-wills may be coming soon to an estate planning near you. On Friday morning, the D.C. chair of the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) published the Electronic Wills Act online, a template for any and all states considering folding a statute for the practice into their regulatory framework.
The potential spread of e-wills across the land may be good news to virtual or small law firms accustomed to conducting their business with clients remotely without the added expense of gas, airfare or other travel-related costs.
"I do think it's something that lawyers will embrace," said Patrick Hicks, legal counsel at the online estate planning service Trust & Will. "I think it will start with solo lawyers or small firms. I think it kind of meshes in well there."
However, the extent to which his theory will be tested remains to be seen, since the act published by the ULC serves as more a template for a state law than an actual mandate.
But it's not as if there's zero enthusiasm on the table. Interest in e-wills has been brewing at the state level since at least 2018, with Florida, Arizona, Virginia and Indiana all introducing bills with the intent of bringing those documents into the legal framework.
Sandra Glazier, a partner at Lipson Neilson, believes the Uniform Law Commission was attempting to get out in front the possibility that several wildly conflicting statutes would be introduced.
Those gaps could lead to some conflict or confusion if, say, a person files their will in Michigan and then eventually relocates to Florida where they peacefully live out the rest of their golden years before passing away on a shuffleboard court.
"When it comes to estate planning there is some benefit to uniformity because we live in a very mobile society," Glazier said.
However, don't expect e-will legislation to be identical from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. While the commission can provide a framework for a statute, states are free to either adopt that template wholesale or make modifications as they see fit.
Still, Glazier expects that action from the Uniform Law Commission will benefit the spread of e-wills if for no other reasons than free publicity.
"Creation of statutes is going to create a marketing opportunity for a lot of these [e-will] companies," Glazier said.
On the legal side, simple economics may also play a role. Hicks pointed out that most people have become accustomed to being able to trigger actions through the use of an electronic signature.
Blockchain tech of course plays a major role in facilitating those transactions and Hicks expects most major e-will providers to —eventually — incorporate that architecture into their products.
After all, one of the major attractions of blockchain is that allows for a digital and immutable record of a transaction that is unalterable by any of the parties involved. That's not such a bad safeguard to have when dealing with the entirety of a person's estate.
Hicks, however, doesn't think that clients will be too dazzled by the underlying sophistication of the blockchain technology involved. Instead, they'll be more focused on the convenience of being able to execute something as substantial as a will remotely, potentially setting a new standard of expectation in the process.
And where clients go, lawyers usually follow. Hicks indicated that the digital records afforded by blockchain may also appeal to firms tired of cramming paper records into filing cabinets.
But that transition may not happen all at once.
"I think that larger law firms are going to be slow to adopt, and I do think that some attorneys will be slow to adopt. They have a process set up and it works for them," Hicks said. "I do think there's going to be a little bit of friction in the change and embracing new opportunities.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Sterlington Brings On Former Office Leader From Ashurst
- 2DOJ Takes on Largest NFT Scheme That Points to Larger Trend
- 3Arnold & Porter Matches Market Year-End Bonus, Requires Billable Threshold for Special Bonuses
- 4Advising 'Capital-Intensive Spaces' Fuels Corporate Practice Growth For Haynes and Boone
- 5Big Law’s Year—as Told in Commentaries
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250