Naming a solicitor as an executor

[Gilgongo]

My mother is re-jigging her will, and the solicitor she's using advised naming (another) solicitor as an executor. Obviously, it's her will, but I'm named as the other one (there are just two). There is a clause that says all due fees to the solicitor must be paid out of the estate. I'm a little worried that the (I assume) joint & several nature of the executorship might mean the solicitor could start acting without me on her death and then charge the estate a big lump of fees.

Should I be worried? As it is, I'd be OK to do the probate myself (with perhaps some tax consulting along the way) since I know all about my mother's property and finance position having taken over (and vastly simplified) when my father died.

Moderator Message:
Edited for typo in title (chas49)

[scrumpyjack]

My mother is re-jigging her will, and the solicitor she's using advised naming (another) solicitor as an executor. Obviously, it's her will, but I'm named as the other one (there are just two). There is a clause that says all due fees to the solicitor must be paid out of the estate. I'm a little worried that the (I assume) joint & several nature of the executorship might mean the solicitor could start acting without me on her death and then charge the estate a big lump of fees.

Should I be worried? As it is, I'd be OK to do the probate myself (with perhaps some tax consulting along the way) since I know all about my mother's property and finance position having taken over (and vastly simplified) when my father died.

Moderator Message:
Edited for typo in title (chas49)

Yes you should be worried. IMO it is better not to name a solicitor as executor. You can always ask one for help if you need it. I have experience of this as my sister was 'taken to the cleaners' over her husband's estate by a solicitor who had been a family friend!

I would resist it strongly if you can.

[BigB]

My mother is re-jigging her will, and the solicitor she's using advised naming (another) solicitor as an executor. Obviously, it's her will, but I'm named as the other one (there are just two). There is a clause that says all due fees to the solicitor must be paid out of the estate. I'm a little worried that the (I assume) joint & several nature of the executorship might mean the solicitor could start acting without me on her death and then charge the estate a big lump of fees.

Should I be worried? As it is, I'd be OK to do the probate myself (with perhaps some tax consulting along the way) since I know all about my mother's property and finance position having taken over (and vastly simplified) when my father died.

Moderator Message:
Edited for typo in title (chas49)

Yes you should be worried. IMO it is better not to name a solicitor as executor. You can always ask one for help if you need it. I have experience of this as my sister was 'taken to the cleaners' over her husband's estate by a solicitor who had been a family friend!

I would resist it strongly if you can.

Fully agree! And there have been cases where the fee will have been not a fixed fee, but a percentage of the estate. My MIL had signed such an agreement at one point. When my wife/SIL discovered it, they worked with their mum to update her will and agreed to remove the solicitor as executor.

[Gilgongo]

OK thanks that makes sense.

[Gerry557]

My mother is re-jigging her will, and the solicitor she's using advised naming (another) solicitor as an executor. Obviously, it's her will, but I'm named as the other one (there are just two). There is a clause that says all due fees to the solicitor must be paid out of the estate. I'm a little worried that the (I assume) joint & several nature of the executorship might mean the solicitor could start acting without me on her death and then charge the estate a big lump of fees.

Should I be worried? As it is, I'd be OK to do the probate myself (with perhaps some tax consulting along the way) since I know all about my mother's property and finance position having taken over (and vastly simplified) when my father died.

Moderator Message:
Edited for typo in title (chas49)

Yes you should be worried. IMO it is better not to name a solicitor as executor. You can always ask one for help if you need it. I have experience of this as my sister was 'taken to the cleaners' over her husband's estate by a solicitor who had been a family friend!

I would resist it strongly if you can.

What he said! ^

[pochisoldi]

An executor can instruct a solicitor to carry out tasks, and because they are alive can badger them and query the costs. The deceased doesn't have the same powers over a solicitor acting as executor, and the beneficiaries will waste a shed load of money challenging the (solicitors) executors accounts, when they realise how much money they've spanked...

[DrFfybes]

When MrsF's parent's died the sols who prepared their will offered to be Executors for a precentage fee, plus VAT. We went to the firm we used for my dad, who did it all for fixed fee (as we had all the account details and had PoA the it was relatively simple).

They came in about £48,000 (yup £48k) cheaper.

Paul

[rhys]

My parents had mirror wills, both appointing their solicitor as executor, as well as my sister and I. Sister had no input, I did as much as I coud in collating values and checking figures. I have no experience in this field, and couldn't have done this work without professional assistance.

Estate value was just over £1M. Probate after final death was granted after about 11 months, but we've only finally finished dealing with the estate last week; that's five years after second death. Professional fees (valuations as well as solicitor & accountant) have amounted to about £50k.

[RockRabbit]

My parents had mirror wills, both appointing their solicitor as executor, as well as my sister and I. Sister had no input, I did as much as I coud in collating values and checking figures. I have no experience in this field, and couldn't have done this work without professional assistance.

Estate value was just over £1M. Probate after final death was granted after about 11 months, but we've only finally finished dealing with the estate last week; that's five years after second death. Professional fees (valuations as well as solicitor & accountant) have amounted to about £50k.

The issue isn't whether 'professional assistance' is required, its whether you appoint a solicitor as an executor. There is nothing to stop the executors appointing a solicitor to assist them with the probate process but that is very different from appointing a solicitor as an executor. As others have said, it is much easier to control costs, and generally MUCH cheaper, if the executors employ a solicitor rather than the solicitor being an executor.

In my experience, the 'family' executors generally end up doing most of the work (which is collating information etc) whether there is a solicitor involved or not. Unless the estate is very complicated, the solicitor generally does little more than enter the collated information onto the relevant official forms.

[Dod101]

My parents had mirror wills, both appointing their solicitor as executor, as well as my sister and I. Sister had no input, I did as much as I coud in collating values and checking figures. I have no experience in this field, and couldn't have done this work without professional assistance.

Estate value was just over £1M. Probate after final death was granted after about 11 months, but we've only finally finished dealing with the estate last week; that's five years after second death. Professional fees (valuations as well as solicitor & accountant) have amounted to about £50k.

Does not sound a very complicated couple of Wills. I would have been horrified if it took five years to complete and cost anything like £50,000.

Dod

[stewamax]

The issue isn't whether 'professional assistance' is required, its whether you appoint a solicitor as an executor. There is nothing to stop the executors appointing a solicitor to assist them with the probate process but that is very different from appointing a solicitor as an executor. As others have said, it is much easier to control costs, and generally MUCH cheaper, if the executors employ a solicitor rather than the solicitor being an executor.
In my experience, the 'family' executors generally end up doing most of the work (which is collating information etc) whether there is a solicitor involved or not. Unless the estate is very complicated, the solicitor generally does little more than enter the collated information onto the relevant official forms.

Exactly. Have a rec.

The probate process is generally straightforward; IHT may or may not be, and for complex estates a tax accountant may be needed.
Use lawyers for legal advice. The estate pays.
Use accountants for monetary (mainly tax) advice. The estate pays.
Project-manage the process yourself/selves as executors. And ideally - to avoid stalemates - there is an odd number of executors (one or three or...). Much of the grunt-work (locating bank accounts and investments and so on) you will have to do anyway

[CliffEdge]

Horrifying thought to appoint a solicitor as an executor, almost as bad as a bank or a charity like the RSPCA for example. Vultures the lot of 'em.

[DrFfybes]

Horrifying thought to appoint a solicitor as an executor, almost as bad as a bank or a charity like the RSPCA for example. Vultures the lot of 'em.

Ironically the RSPCA don't accept Vultures (or other Wildlife).

[stewamax]

Horrifying thought to appoint a solicitor as an executor, almost as bad as a bank or a charity like the RSPCA for example. Vultures the lot of 'em.

If you leave money to charity, leave a numerically fixed sum (say £1000) or a sum inflated by some unarguable (or at least less arguable) measure such as the UK bank rate. If not, especially if you leave a % of the estate's residue, the charity Vultures will hound the executors for minute details of the estate's expenditure and the other legacies in order to maximise their share. It may be their job, but the process can become singularly unpleasant so is best pre-empted.

[Lootman]

Horrifying thought to appoint a solicitor as an executor, almost as bad as a bank or a charity like the RSPCA for example. Vultures the lot of 'em.

If you leave money to charity, leave a numerically fixed sum (say £1000) or a sum inflated by some unarguable (or at least less arguable) measure such as the UK bank rate. If not, especially if you leave a % of the estate's residue, the charity Vultures will hound the executors for minute details of the estate's expenditure and the other legacies in order to maximise their share. It may be their job, but the process can become singularly unpleasant so is best pre-empted.

Absolutely correct.

But that said I would consider making substantial PETs to my kids, and then leave a small residual bequest to a charity AND crucially appoint that charity as executor.

The PETs will use up the IHT nil rate band. And there is always a chance that the flunky at the charity won't even discover the PETs! But either way the charity would be taking on the risk of being held liable and not my kids.

[scrumpyjack]

Horrifying thought to appoint a solicitor as an executor, almost as bad as a bank or a charity like the RSPCA for example. Vultures the lot of 'em.

If you leave money to charity, leave a numerically fixed sum (say £1000) or a sum inflated by some unarguable (or at least less arguable) measure such as the UK bank rate. If not, especially if you leave a % of the estate's residue, the charity Vultures will hound the executors for minute details of the estate's expenditure and the other legacies in order to maximise their share. It may be their job, but the process can become singularly unpleasant so is best pre-empted.

Yes, don't make any Charity a residual beneficiary. Also advisable not to name the Charity in the Will. You can specify the amount going to Charity in the Will but then list the specific charities in a separate letter of wishes. That way the Charity will not know they are a beneficiary and so cannot interfere in the Estate Administration.

[Clitheroekid]

At the risk of my office being firebombed by fellow members of my profession I'm afraid that I agree with the other posters - that in most cases there's no need to appoint a solicitor as executor, and that unfortunately many solicitors persuade testators to do so as a way of contributing to their pension fund!

There are some case where it may be appropriate, for example if the estate is being left between a group of beneficiaries who dislike each other, so that appointing any of them as executors would probably lead to conflict. Although non-beneficiary lay executors could be appointed I've often found that executors who aren't themselves beneficiaries have little or no interest in administering an estate for other people's benefit, and will often renounce probate, potentially leaving the estate with no executors.

But for the large majority of people they can, as has been said, simply appoint solicitors as advisers on an ad hoc basis if they need to do so, and this will almost always cost less than if the solicitors are actually acting as executors.

Also, doing it this way means that the fees can be agreed in advance, which means that the executors can shop around. I recently dealt with a case where the solicitors had appointed themselves as executors and not only charged 4% of the estate but hourly rates on top! They justified this by saying the Will authorised them to charge these fees, but the total amount of the fees was frankly scandalous. After much negotiation, including threats to have the fees assessed by the court and to report them for professional misconduct, they eventually agreed a reduction of nearly 60% (though I recommended my clients to report them anyway!)

It's a sad fact of life that a lot of the solicitors' bread and butter work that used to be reasonably profitable has disappeared over recent years, and many High Street solicitors are struggling to survive. Another factor is that many legal services firms are now owned by large commercial organisations that are basically greedy, and far more profit-driven than many small practices. Consequently, any potential source of income, even if it's a bit dodgy on ethical grounds, is more attractive than it might have been 20 years ago.

[Loup321]

My will appoints three people to act as executors, and if all of them refuse to act appoints the solicitor's firm as executor. That seemed fine with me. If all three either refused or had predeceased me, the next person would be a 1-year-old baby (at the time of writing the will). She is still only 12, and there is no one else (other than the three I appointed) that I would trust to do it properly.

[niord]

I have had to appoint my solicitor as executor as my beneficiarys are either the other side of the planet or are not really capable of doing it. The solicitor I appointed was a little one man band type in my little North Yorkshire town and a really nice guy to boot, unfortunately now retired and his practice has been taken over by a large company and just checking their pricing structure I notice quite an uplift so having to rethink what to do for the best.

[Lootman]

I have had to appoint my solicitor as executor as my beneficiarys are either the other side of the planet . . .

Maybe not "the other side of the planet " but I have given thought to naming a foreign national as my executor. The big risk of being an executor is being held personally liable for any mistakes or omissions made. But in practice it would be much harder for a foreign national to be held liable in this way, so acting would actually be less risky. Also less likely to be successfully deemed to have intermeddled, should they perform some tasks and then withdraw.

And probate is essentially conducted by post, so location is less important.

Of course they may just choose to use a UK solicitor anyway.