LAWYERS OR GRAVE ROBBERS?

I engaged a lawyer to communicate with the lawyer/executor on my behalf in the naive hope that common sense would prevail. Unfortunately I found myself faced with a combatative individual who had no compassion for my own family or the family of my late mother. It soon became apparent that his sole objective was to play out an adversarial role which did not take into consideration the imperative for preserving long term relationships between members of my mother's family and would force me into expensive litigation, the outcome being increased legal fees against the estate. This action would have left no alternative but to pursue the matter in the Supreme Court at a cost of $200,000 to the estate. The result would have significantly reduced the share my brother and my two sisters would have received from the estate. It would have also reduced the share available to my own children. As a responsible family member and father to my children I was eventually forced to abandon the legal process as I discovered it does not cater for beneficiaries of moderate estates in Australia. I discovered that lawyer/executors are not accountable and there are no quality standards in place to assure their accountability to the beneficiaries of a deceased estate.

I discovered that the law as it stands regarding deceased estates permits the lawyer executor to hide critical information from the beneficiaries. Information such as the notes relating to the construct of a will or for that matter any correspondence the lawyer/executor may have in his possession sent to him by the deceased in relation to their wishes. This is despite the fact that it is a criminal offence to hide or destroy a person's will. I discovered that even when all the beneficiaries join together to request an outcome that would be beneficial to the long term wellbeing of the family unit (both financial and from the perspective of maintaining long term family relations), the law allows the lawyer/executor to maintain an adversarial role, a role that can destroy a family and can only benefit the legal profession as has occurred to my mother's family.

I was under the naive impression that when one appointed an executor to one`s estate one was appointing a representative who was a trusted friend, not a fiend. I always thought an executor would take on the role of a friendly aunt or uncle and would make decisions taking into consideration the long term wellbeing of the deceased's family and would make decisions based on the long term wellbeing of this family.

I did not expect to encounter a person who used highly combatative tactics whilst managing my mother's estate: tactics that I have not ever encountered, and would be considered inappropriate in the highly competitive world of local and international business, with which I am familiar. These tactics include, delaying, hiding crucial information, spreading misinformation, using information that is out of date or is actually misinformation to further their own point of view. If a person were to use these methods in business, commercial relationships between parties would become non-existent and the ability to develop trusting partnerships would not exist.

From my own experience in doing business with one of the most competitive and quality-conscious cultures in the world, that is with the Japanese, I have found that sharing information, speaking the truth and responding immediately are the keys to creating long term healthy relationships. I have found that these components are the fundamentals for the development of trust between parties and individuals and form the basis for long term, progressive outcomes. They are the basis for developing quality standards between commercial entities which enables our modern globalised society to function.

I am disgusted by the behaviour of the lawyer/executor of my mother's estate and have serious concerns: concerns that go beyond the handling of her affairs. The individual concerned is a senior partner in a legal firm that writes standards for the age care industry and sells these standards to government. These standards advocate a system of continued quality improvement.

From my own experience in business I realise that the key to successful continual quality improvement revolves around:

1. the free exchange of information in order that decisions can be made with access to all of the information by all people who are involved.
2. access to information without delay.
3. making truthful statements based on verified facts.
4. the participation of all parties in the decision making process.
5. the utilisation of negotiation through mediation and alternative dispute resolution techniques.

I find it difficult to see how a firm that allows its senior partner to behave in an adversarial manner when dealing with a bereaved family and has no written quality standards to prevent such behaviour, would have the insight to be able to write standards for the care and wellbeing of our ageing population.

The following are a series of letters written between my lawyer referred to as Ping and the lawyer/executor referred to as Pong. Hence the sad game of Ping Pong $$$$; a game that is played to benefit the legal profession not the beneficiaries of deceased estates.