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
© 2025 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
- 1How Alzheimer’s and Other Cognitive Diseases Affect Guardianship, POAs and Estate Planning
- 2How Lower Courts Are Interpreting Justices' Decision in 'Muldrow v. City of St. Louis'
- 3Phantom Income/Retained Earnings and the Potential for Inflated Support
- 4Should a Financially Dependent Child Who Rejects One Parent Still Be Emancipated?
- 5Advising Clients on Special Needs Trusts
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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