Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named executors*,
is there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus VAT.
Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?

'license to print money' springs to mind here..

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named executors*, is
there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?

Thsi ahppened to my mate about a year ago. Dad named solicitor as executor
and then 25 years later he snuffed it. AMte couldn't find any way out of it.
Solicitor just said "I am following the wishes of the deceased".

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus VAT.
Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?

A few hours work isn't fair but it is likely to be very remunerative.

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:11:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named executors*,
is there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus VAT.
Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?

'license to print money' springs to mind here..

A solicitor is entitled to reasonable fees for the work, not a
ridiculous one.

The 1.5% was probably set when it was a small amount and the hourly
rate needed to bring it up.

The only thing you can do is wait for the work to be completed and
then go to the Law Society with the facts and ask: Is a fee of £x
satisfactory for the amount of work done on this case?

It will be a simple matter for them to decide as fees are a mechanical
process item per item.

Mike Lewis wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named executors*, is
there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?

Thsi ahppened to my mate about a year ago. Dad named solicitor as executor
and then 25 years later he snuffed it. AMte couldn't find any way out of it.
Solicitor just said "I am following the wishes of the deceased".

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus VAT.
Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?

A few hours work isn't fair but it is likely to be very remunerative.


Mmm. A quick look at the law society guide to non contentious work
suggests this is at the upper end of 'fair charges'..

What I want to know is what recourse, if any, there is, before I sign
the letter of engagement.

EricP wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:11:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named executors*,
is there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus VAT.
Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?

'license to print money' springs to mind here..

A solicitor is entitled to reasonable fees for the work, not a
ridiculous one.

The 1.5% was probably set when it was a small amount and the hourly
rate needed to bring it up.

The only thing you can do is wait for the work to be completed and
then go to the Law Society with the facts and ask: Is a fee of £x
satisfactory for the amount of work done on this case?

It will be a simple matter for them to decide as fees are a mechanical
process item per item.
Sadly the Law society seems to say that 1.5% up to a million plus hourly
ates is 'fair and reasonable'. At least in one place it does.In another
it suggests 1% for probate plus 0.5% for dealing with property disposal
of the house kind.

EricP wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:11:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named executors*,
is there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus VAT.
Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?

'license to print money' springs to mind here..

A solicitor is entitled to reasonable fees for the work, not a
ridiculous one.

The 1.5% was probably set when it was a small amount and the hourly
rate needed to bring it up.

The only thing you can do is wait for the work to be completed and
then go to the Law Society with the facts and ask: Is a fee of £x
satisfactory for the amount of work done on this case?

It will be a simple matter for them to decide as fees are a mechanical
process item per item.

Mmm. In this article, it says that you can in fact sack a professional
executor and appoint another in their place.


http://www.andrew-hamilton.co.uk/roo...article_01.htm

Is this true?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Mike Lewis wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named executors*, is
there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?

Thsi ahppened to my mate about a year ago. Dad named solicitor as executor
and then 25 years later he snuffed it. AMte couldn't find any way out of it.
Solicitor just said "I am following the wishes of the deceased".

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus VAT.
Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?

A few hours work isn't fair but it is likely to be very remunerative.


Mmm. A quick look at the law society guide to non contentious work
suggests this is at the upper end of 'fair charges'..

What I want to know is what recourse, if any, there is, before I sign
the letter of engagement.


If you have a trusted family solicitor who you have used before, for
example for conveyancing, why not ask them if they consider the figure
you have been quoted to be reasonable or too high?

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mike Lewis wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named executors*,
is there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?

Thsi ahppened to my mate about a year ago. Dad named solicitor as
executor and then 25 years later he snuffed it. AMte couldn't find any
way out of it. Solicitor just said "I am following the wishes of the
deceased".

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus VAT.
Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?

A few hours work isn't fair but it is likely to be very remunerative.
Mmm. A quick look at the law society guide to non contentious work
suggests this is at the upper end of 'fair charges'..

What I want to know is what recourse, if any, there is, before I sign the
letter of engagement.

Why would you be signing a letter of engagement? He is appoiunted according
to the will. Will he decline to do the work if you refuse to sign?

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
EricP wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:11:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named executors*,
is there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus VAT.
Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?

'license to print money' springs to mind here..

A solicitor is entitled to reasonable fees for the work, not a
ridiculous one.

The 1.5% was probably set when it was a small amount and the hourly
rate needed to bring it up.

The only thing you can do is wait for the work to be completed and
then go to the Law Society with the facts and ask: Is a fee of £x
satisfactory for the amount of work done on this case?

It will be a simple matter for them to decide as fees are a mechanical
process item per item.

Mmm. In this article, it says that you can in fact sack a professional
executor and appoint another in their place.


http://www.andrew-hamilton.co.uk/roo...article_01.htm

Is this true?

Well it says that the other executors can fire one of their own. It doesn't
say anything about a non-executor firing an executor. I did hear of a case
where a co-executor told a solicitor executor that the solicitor was welcome
to stick around and help on condition he also worked for free. Solicitor
resigned.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mmm. In this article, it says that you can in fact sack a professional
executor and appoint another in their place.


http://www.andrew-hamilton.co.uk/roo...article_01.htm

Is this true?


Just a thought but... An executor's duly is to consider the interest of the
deceased's estate as a whole so perhaps you could argue that they are
obliged to stand down and allow someone cheaper to do it. back it up with a
cheaper quote. They might agree to match it.

I couldn't google much.. .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006...ritancetax.tax
"..they will not sack themselves and are virtually impossible to remove."

http://www.apww.co.uk/Your%20questions.htm

"Solicitors and banks have a terrible habit of refusing to be fired as
executor unless they are paid their FULL fee, even if they have done
nothing. Not all will do this, but you should never appoint one without
written confirmation that they will stand down if requested and charge only
for the time spent."

Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named executors*,
is there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus VAT.
Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?

'license to print money' springs to mind here..

A solicitor is entitled to reasonable fees for the work, not a
ridiculous one.

The 1.5% was probably set when it was a small amount and the hourly
rate needed to bring it up.

The only thing you can do is wait for the work to be completed and
then go to the Law Society with the facts and ask: Is a fee of £x
satisfactory for the amount of work done on this case?

It will be a simple matter for them to decide as fees are a mechanical
process item per item.
Sadly the Law society seems to say that 1.5% up to a million plus hourly
ates is 'fair and reasonable'. At least in one place it does.In another it
suggests 1% for probate plus 0.5% for dealing with property disposal of
the house kind.


I don't believe that a percentage fee in such circumstances can be
justified. Why exactly are you being asked to OK the fee? If you are a joint
executor and can deal with matter why not ask the solicitor to resign his
post?

Peter Crosland

Mike Lewis wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mike Lewis wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named executors*,
is there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?
Thsi ahppened to my mate about a year ago. Dad named solicitor as
executor and then 25 years later he snuffed it. AMte couldn't find any
way out of it. Solicitor just said "I am following the wishes of the
deceased".

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus VAT.
Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?
A few hours work isn't fair but it is likely to be very remunerative.
Mmm. A quick look at the law society guide to non contentious work
suggests this is at the upper end of 'fair charges'..

What I want to know is what recourse, if any, there is, before I sign the
letter of engagement.

Why would you be signing a letter of engagement? He is appoiunted according
to the will. Will he decline to do the work if you refuse to sign?


That is an interesting point: Teh firm of solicitors is co executor to
my sister, who is passing me power of attorney to act as executor.

No fees are mentioned in the will.
\

"Solicitors and banks have a terrible habit of refusing to be fired as
executor unless they are paid their FULL fee, even if they have done
nothing. Not all will do this, but you should never appoint one without
written confirmation that they will stand down if requested and charge
only for the time spent."

My brother had his solicitor an myself as joint executors (and trustees). He
suggested that I did the easy stuff (utility bills, house clearance and
sale) while he dealt with probate, the tax, and distribution. He was
charging an hourly rate and gave me a pretty accurate up-front estimate. It
all worked very well, I always felt sufficiently in control, and they were
always quick, responsive, and helpful. After the estate was proved they were
more than happy to resign and appoint another family member as the second
trustee for a legacy to a minor. I'd certainly consider doing this myself if
I wanted to give my family some choice.

Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named executors*,
is there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?
Thsi ahppened to my mate about a year ago. Dad named solicitor as
executor and then 25 years later he snuffed it. AMte couldn't find any
way out of it. Solicitor just said "I am following the wishes of the
deceased".

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus VAT.
Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?
A few hours work isn't fair but it is likely to be very remunerative.
Mmm. A quick look at the law society guide to non contentious work
suggests this is at the upper end of 'fair charges'..

What I want to know is what recourse, if any, there is, before I sign
the letter of engagement.

Why would you be signing a letter of engagement? He is appoiunted
according to the will. Will he decline to do the work if you refuse to
sign?


That is an interesting point: Teh firm of solicitors is co executor to my
sister, who is passing me power of attorney to act as executor.

No fees are mentioned in the will.

If there is no charging clause in the will then the solicitor cannot be paid
out of the estate unless the other executor agrees. I suggest you ask them
to resign their executorship and act yourself. I am surprised the solicitor
is trying to get paid in this way.


Peter Crosland

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named executors*,
is there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus VAT.
Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?

'license to print money' springs to mind here..



It is possible that the nominated solicitors will renounce their role,
provided that all beneficiaries agree and are able to nominate someone
else, preferably one of their number rather than another firm of
solicitors. We were successful in doing this when Lloyds Bank were
nominated as executors of a family friend. They were very cooperative
and charged a very nominal fee for their admin.

Otherwise, I suggest sitting down with the solicitors and dividing the
work: they will probably be only too pleased for someone to deal with
humdrum tasks like house clearance, and settling trivial bills, much of
which you'd probably rather do anyway. Who needs a solicitor to pay the
milkman?

Applying for probate isn't particularly difficult, and I found the
Probate Registry staff extremely pleasant to deal with.

One possible advantage of involving solicitors would be if Deeds of
Variation are a possibility, for example to enable bequests to skip a
generation, or to set up Trusts with a view to reducing the
beneficiaries' estates' eventual IHT, but these can be arranged quite
separately from applying for Probate.

If only people realised that an amateur executor can always call in
professional assistance...

--
Kevin Poole
****Use current date to reply (e.g. )****

"Kevin Poole" wrote in message
...


The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named executors*, is
there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus VAT.
Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?

'license to print money' springs to mind here..



It is possible that the nominated solicitors will renounce their role,
provided that all beneficiaries agree and are able to nominate someone
else, preferably one of their number rather than another firm of
solicitors. We were successful in doing this when Lloyds Bank were
nominated as executors of a family friend. They were very cooperative and
charged a very nominal fee for their admin.

Otherwise, I suggest sitting down with the solicitors and dividing the
work: they will probably be only too pleased for someone to deal with
humdrum tasks like house clearance, and settling trivial bills, much of
which you'd probably rather do anyway. Who needs a solicitor to pay the
milkman?

Applying for probate isn't particularly difficult, and I found the Probate
Registry staff extremely pleasant to deal with.

One possible advantage of involving solicitors would be if Deeds of
Variation are a possibility, for example to enable bequests to skip a
generation, or to set up Trusts with a view to reducing the beneficiaries'
estates' eventual IHT, but these can be arranged quite separately from
applying for Probate.

If only people realised that an amateur executor can always call in
professional assistance...

In fact, handling probate on an average uncomplicated estate is very very
easy. I've handled it personally on my father's and my mother-in-law's
estates and it was not at all difficult. Why people feel they have to get
solicitors involved beats me.

My mother in law was charged £150 by a solicitor for setting up a simple
power of attorney. All this involved (at the time) was completing a simple
'pro-forma' and getting the applicant to sign it. When my father wanted one
setting up I downloaded the pro-forma off the internet, got him to fill it
in and sign it - and that was it, job done for nothing.

Ret.

if theyre getting an hourly rate for their work
(as my solicitors did for 3 probates)
what justification do they have for a percentage of the estate?

it's more than a few hours work.

--

[george]

~ [g] ~
~ george at dicenews dot com ~
~ 07970 378 572 ~
~ www.dicegeorge.com ~
~ (c)2008 ~
~ ~

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named executors*, is
there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus VAT.
Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?

'license to print money' springs to mind here..

On Jun 17, 7:05 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Sadly the Law society seems to say that 1.5% up to a million plus hourly
ates is 'fair and reasonable'. At least in one place it does.In another
it suggests 1% for probate plus 0.5% for dealing with property disposal
of the house kind.

In such cases if one thinks the fee is too high, an appeal to the
'Taxing Master' (nothing to do with Inland Revenue) at the court is
possible.

In Property Reversionary and Investment Company v Secretary for the
Environment, the Secretary thought that legal fees associated with
taking land for a public work was too high. the Taxing Master's
decision was appealed, and the judgment included:
"The object of the exercise, whether a solicitor ois preparing a bill
of costs in relation to non-contentious business, or the Law Society
is certifying such a bill, or the court is taxing (re-assessing) it,
is to arrive at a sum which is fair and reasonable, having regard for
all the circumstances. It is an exercise in assessment, an exercise
in balanced judgmentb - not an arithmetical calculation. It is wrong
always to start by assessing the direct and indirect expenses of the
solicitor, represented by the time spnt on the business. This must
always be taken into account, but it is not necessarily, or even
usually, a basic factor to which all others are related. Thus,
although the labour included will usually be directly related to, and
reflected by, the time spent, the skill and specialised knowledge
involved may vary greatly for different parts of that time. Again not
all time spent on a transaction necessarily lends itself to being
recorded, although the fullest possible records should be kept."

This supports basing the fee partly on value of the work, even for non
contentious matters.

What is more important, is to make sure all the beneficiaries sing
with one voice. If beneficiaries squabble, legal fees will go through
the roof. This happened in New Zealand. A, B, C and D shared
equally. 'A' lived in the family home and wanted to buy the others
out (C and D agreed). 'B' was adamant she wanted to have the family
home. A trustee company was the executor and the fees went through
the roof with the squabbling. A, C and D wanted to remove the
executor for not agreeing with the majority of the beneficiaries.
That was not the executor's duty - the executor's duty is to
distribute the estate in accordance with the testator's wishes. I do
not know what the company did, but the obvious answer would have been
to put the house on the market and let A and B make offers in the
usual way.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named executors*,
is there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus VAT.
Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?

'license to print money' springs to mind here..

A trap my brother and I are in too. Neither of us like the solicitor we
are stuck with! We are sure he told my mother that naming him woukd save
hassle later.

We tried to ue another solicitor to do the conveyancing. Whereupon the
named solicitor mumbled things about causing him extra work, so extra
charges. He eventually got quite tetchy about it so we gave in!

Moral is, never name a solicitor as your executor.

BTW: his charges are £190.00 per hour. No percentage. He reckoned 20-30
hours.

--
Richard Torrens -
This time limited email address and must not be added to any mailing list: A charge will be invoiced for handling any unsolicited mailing list emails received.
www.4qd.co.uk www.4qdtec.com www.torrens.org.uk

In fact, handling probate on an average uncomplicated estate is very very
easy. I've handled it personally on my father's and my mother-in-law's
estates and it was not at all difficult. Why people feel they have to get
solicitors involved beats me.

Absolutely. The probate system almost encourages you to d-i-y. Even the
IHT issues on larger estates are usually pretty straightforward, saving
you probably another 1.5% in accountants fees.
As soon as someone asks you for a percentage of the value of the estate,
you know you're being taken for a ride because extra noughts on the end
of a figure don't make it more complicated or more time consuming.

One possible advantage of involving solicitors would be if Deeds of
Variation are a possibility, for example to enable bequests to skip a
generation, or to set up Trusts with a view to reducing the
beneficiaries' estates' eventual IHT, but these can be arranged quite
separately from applying for Probate.

And they're quite easy too. Print the declaration, have all the
beneficiaries sign it, and stick it in a drawer. The Revenue aren't
interested one way or the other unless the total IHT liability is affected.

It's a shame, and slightly illogical, that the executor can't be removed
if all the beneficiaries agree.

It's also a shame that there isn't a later will lying around somewhere
naming a different executor....:-)

George (dicegeorge) wrote:
if theyre getting an hourly rate for their work
(as my solicitors did for 3 probates)
what justification do they have for a percentage of the estate?

it's more than a few hours work.


And most of it is donkey work that anyone can do, like sending off
certificates to all and sundry

Richard Torrens wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named
executors*, is there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus
VAT. Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?

'license to print money' springs to mind here..

A trap my brother and I are in too. Neither of us like the solicitor
we are stuck with! We are sure he told my mother that naming him
woukd save hassle later.

We tried to ue another solicitor to do the conveyancing. Whereupon the
named solicitor mumbled things about causing him extra work, so extra
charges. He eventually got quite tetchy about it so we gave in!

Moral is, never name a solicitor as your executor.

BTW: his charges are £190.00 per hour. No percentage. He reckoned
20-30 hours.

I did all the probate work myself for the father inlaws estate ,
simple estate just a few investments , about 8 hours timewise in total

It all depends on the size of the estate though and how complecated it
is

--

stuart noble wrote:

It's a shame, and slightly illogical, that the executor can't be
removed if all the beneficiaries agree.

No it isn't. For whatever reason, it was the testator's wish that the named
executor should act, and it's his estate that's being distributed.

What if all the beneficiaries agreed that they shouldn't pay any tax on the
estate? Would you then say they should be allowed to do that?

Hang on, ... you may have a point.

Richard Torrens wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named executors*,
is there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus VAT.
Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?

'license to print money' springs to mind here..

A trap my brother and I are in too. Neither of us like the solicitor we
are stuck with! We are sure he told my mother that naming him woukd save
hassle later.

We tried to ue another solicitor to do the conveyancing. Whereupon the
named solicitor mumbled things about causing him extra work, so extra
charges. He eventually got quite tetchy about it so we gave in!


Moral is, never name a solicitor as your executor.

People think it will save the beneficiaries the trouble, but it would be
more considerate to give them the choice as to whether to employ a
solicitor. I doubt if 1.5% would be mentioned if they didn't think they
had you by the balls.
IMO sorting out the details is kind of therapeutic, and a necessary part
of the grieving process.

BTW: his charges are £190.00 per hour. No percentage. He reckoned 20-30
hours.

Norman Wells wrote:
stuart noble wrote:

It's a shame, and slightly illogical, that the executor can't be
removed if all the beneficiaries agree.

No it isn't. For whatever reason, it was the testator's wish that the
named executor should act, and it's his estate that's being distributed.

It's not, you know. Let's say (as a fictional situation) that the
decedent made the will 25 years ago, when someone he trusted ran a local
solicitors' chambers. That firm is now run by someone regarded locally
as somewhat of a charlatan, certainly not someone the decedent would
remotely have trusted with his estate. Because he didn't update his
will in time, the original PR arrangements stand.

The beneficiaries, including the testator's surviving spouse, and the
joint-named PR, now agree that the law firm is not acceptable as a PR.
Why should they not be able to contest or decline the firm's appointment
as joint PR?

What if all the beneficiaries agreed that they shouldn't pay any tax on
the estate? Would you then say they should be allowed to do that?

That's not a relevant comparison.

Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.

On Jun 16, 10:21 pm, "newshound" wrote:
"Solicitors and banks have a terrible habit of refusing to be fired as
executor unless they are paid their FULL fee, even if they have done
nothing. Not all will do this, but you should never appoint one without
written confirmation that they will stand down if requested and charge
only for the time spent."

My brother had his solicitor an myself as joint executors (and trustees). He
suggested that I did the easy stuff (utility bills, house clearance and
sale) while he dealt with probate, the tax, and distribution. He was
charging an hourly rate and gave me a pretty accurate up-front estimate. It
all worked very well, I always felt sufficiently in control, and they were
always quick, responsive, and helpful. After the estate was proved they were
more than happy to resign and appoint another family member as the second
trustee for a legacy to a minor. I'd certainly consider doing this myself if
I wanted to give my family some choice.

Surely the best way to give your family some choice is to not appoint
a solicitor, bank, etc., as executors in the first place. They can
appoint one of their choosing when it becomes neccessary.

MBQ

On Jun 16, 11:32 pm, "Ret." wrote:
"Kevin Poole" wrote in message

...





The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named executors*, is
there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus VAT.
Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?

'license to print money' springs to mind here..

It is possible that the nominated solicitors will renounce their role,
provided that all beneficiaries agree and are able to nominate someone
else, preferably one of their number rather than another firm of
solicitors. We were successful in doing this when Lloyds Bank were
nominated as executors of a family friend. They were very cooperative and
charged a very nominal fee for their admin.

Otherwise, I suggest sitting down with the solicitors and dividing the
work: they will probably be only too pleased for someone to deal with
humdrum tasks like house clearance, and settling trivial bills, much of
which you'd probably rather do anyway. Who needs a solicitor to pay the
milkman?

Applying for probate isn't particularly difficult, and I found the Probate
Registry staff extremely pleasant to deal with.

One possible advantage of involving solicitors would be if Deeds of
Variation are a possibility, for example to enable bequests to skip a
generation, or to set up Trusts with a view to reducing the beneficiaries'
estates' eventual IHT, but these can be arranged quite separately from
applying for Probate.

If only people realised that an amateur executor can always call in
professional assistance...

In fact, handling probate on an average uncomplicated estate is very very
easy. I've handled it personally on my father's and my mother-in-law's
estates and it was not at all difficult. Why people feel they have to get
solicitors involved beats me.

Seconded.

MBQ

On Jun 16, 11:57 pm, "George \(dicegeorge\)"
wrote:
if theyre getting an hourly rate for their work
(as my solicitors did for 3 probates)
what justification do they have for a percentage of the estate?

it's more than a few hours work.

Are you comparing the fees or saying doing it yourself is more than a
few hours work? It certainly isn't in many, many cases.

MBQ

Norman Wells wrote:
stuart noble wrote:

It's a shame, and slightly illogical, that the executor can't be
removed if all the beneficiaries agree.

No it isn't. For whatever reason, it was the testator's wish that the
named executor should act, and it's his estate that's being distributed.

But the beneficiaries can agree to change who gets what, thereby
changing the will, and not complying with the deceased's wishes.


What if all the beneficiaries agreed that they shouldn't pay any tax on
the estate? Would you then say they should be allowed to do that?

Very difficult to not pay the tax when you don't get probate at all
until a hefty chunk of it is paid


Hang on, ... you may have a point.

Having handed over an eye-watering amount in IHT on behalf of a
relative, I still regard it as essentially a voluntary tax, paid mostly
by those who don't trust their children to take care of the money.

Mike Lewis wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mike Lewis wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named executors*,
is there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?
Thsi ahppened to my mate about a year ago. Dad named solicitor as
executor and then 25 years later he snuffed it. AMte couldn't find any
way out of it. Solicitor just said "I am following the wishes of the
deceased".

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus VAT.
Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?
A few hours work isn't fair but it is likely to be very remunerative.
Mmm. A quick look at the law society guide to non contentious work
suggests this is at the upper end of 'fair charges'..

What I want to know is what recourse, if any, there is, before I sign the
letter of engagement.

Why would you be signing a letter of engagement? He is appoiunted according
to the will. Will he decline to do the work if you refuse to sign?




Because in case where the soicitors have been sued for such, the law
society reccomends that they get a schedule of charges deemed fair and
reasonable (and this is exactly at the maximum) to be presented.

To be an executor is one thing: to actually process probate, is another.

Jon Green wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
stuart noble wrote:

It's a shame, and slightly illogical, that the executor can't be
removed if all the beneficiaries agree.

No it isn't. For whatever reason, it was the testator's wish that
the named executor should act, and it's his estate that's being
distributed.

It's not, you know. Let's say (as a fictional situation) that the
decedent made the will 25 years ago, when someone he trusted ran a
local solicitors' chambers. That firm is now run by someone regarded
locally as somewhat of a charlatan, certainly not someone the
decedent would remotely have trusted with his estate. Because he
didn't update his will in time, the original PR arrangements stand.

If you rely on the length of time since making the Will as an indication
that it's not what he really wanted when he died, then you should also
accept that the named beneficiaries of his estate may not be what he really
wanted either. I don't think you can adopt a pick 'n' mix approach,
accepting everything you like and rejecting anything you don't.

If he wanted to change his Will or merely negate the old one, he had plenty
of opportunity to do so. Since he didn't, it's perfectly reasonable to
assume that he thought it perfectly satisfactory. The law will assume that
anyway, regardless of what you think. It's the only practical way the law
can work.


The beneficiaries, including the testator's surviving spouse, and the
joint-named PR, now agree that the law firm is not acceptable as a PR.
Why should they not be able to contest or decline the firm's
appointment as joint PR?

Because it's his estate and his expressed will that the solicitor should
handle it. The beneficiaries have no status whatever in the matter other
than to hold the executor to account in the event that he gets it wrong..

Since the solicitor has been appointed by the Will, he can act if he wants,
and he probably will because it's work and money. All you can do is ask the
solicitor if he would be willing to renounce his authority to act in favour
of the next-of-kin or whoever you all agree should act instead.

Norman Wells wrote:

Jon Green wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
stuart noble wrote:

It's a shame, and slightly illogical, that the executor can't be
removed if all the beneficiaries agree.

No it isn't. For whatever reason, it was the testator's wish that
the named executor should act, and it's his estate that's being
distributed.

It's not, you know. Let's say (as a fictional situation) that the
decedent made the will 25 years ago, when someone he trusted ran a
local solicitors' chambers. That firm is now run by someone
regarded locally as somewhat of a charlatan, certainly not someone
the decedent would remotely have trusted with his estate. Because
he didn't update his will in time, the original PR arrangements
stand.

If you rely on the length of time since making the Will as an
indication that it's not what he really wanted when he died, then you
should also accept that the named beneficiaries of his estate may not
be what he really wanted either. I don't think you can adopt a pick
'n' mix approach, accepting everything you like and rejecting
anything you don't.

If he wanted to change his Will or merely negate the old one, he had
plenty of opportunity to do so. Since he didn't, it's perfectly
reasonable to assume that he thought it perfectly satisfactory. The
law will assume that anyway, regardless of what you think. It's the
only practical way the law can work.


The beneficiaries, including the testator's surviving spouse, and
the joint-named PR, now agree that the law firm is not acceptable
as a PR. Why should they not be able to contest or decline the
firm's appointment as joint PR?

Because it's his estate and his expressed will that the solicitor
should handle it. The beneficiaries have no status whatever in the
matter other than to hold the executor to account in the event that
he gets it wrong..

Since the solicitor has been appointed by the Will, he can act if he
wants, and he probably will because it's work and money. All you can
do is ask the solicitor if he would be willing to renounce his
authority to act in favour of the next-of-kin or whoever you all
agree should act instead.

The executors position can be challenged if you feel that they are
inappropriate or that a conflict of duty may occur.

--

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Mike Lewis wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Mike Lewis wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named
executors*, is there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?

Thsi ahppened to my mate about a year ago. Dad named solicitor as
executor and then 25 years later he snuffed it. AMte couldn't find
any way out of it. Solicitor just said "I am following the wishes of
the deceased".

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus
VAT. Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?

A few hours work isn't fair but it is likely to be very remunerative.

Mmm. A quick look at the law society guide to non contentious work
suggests this is at the upper end of 'fair charges'..

What I want to know is what recourse, if any, there is, before I sign
the letter of engagement.


Why would you be signing a letter of engagement? He is appoiunted
according to the will. Will he decline to do the work if you refuse to
sign?


That is an interesting point: Teh firm of solicitors is co executor to
my sister, who is passing me power of attorney to act as executor.

No fees are mentioned in the will.
\




I was in a similar position as co-executor with a solicitor for my
mother in law (no jokes please ;=) ) When she died I simply asked the
solicitor for her will and informed them that I would be dealing with
the estate. I had to obtain probate as there was her share of the house
we jointly owned involved but there were no problems IIRC all that
probate invoved was finding out the assets and liabilities and listing
them on the form (copius notes accompanied it). There was then a trip
to the County Court to swear on oath that what was declared on the form
was correct. After a suitable fee changed hands Probate was granted.
If you can work carefully and logically it is easy. The solicitor will
be asking you about the assets and liabilities anyway.

Malcolm

Norman Wells wrote:
Jon Green wrote:
It's not, you know. Let's say (as a fictional situation) that the
decedent made the will 25 years ago, when someone he trusted ran a
local solicitors' chambers. That firm is now run by someone regarded
locally as somewhat of a charlatan, certainly not someone the
decedent would remotely have trusted with his estate. Because he
didn't update his will in time, the original PR arrangements stand.

If you rely on the length of time since making the Will as an indication
that it's not what he really wanted when he died, then you should also
accept that the named beneficiaries of his estate may not be what he
really wanted either. I don't think you can adopt a pick 'n' mix
approach, accepting everything you like and rejecting anything you don't.

I appreciate those points, but we do have a conflict of interest,
without a means of resolving it. The decendent's Personal
Representative is just that, and should have the final say on who acts
as executor. Unfortunately, because the two are one and the same, if
everyone touched by the Will (including all but the contested PR)
believes that the PR is not appropriate, there has to be a higher
authority that can step in and rule.

What shocks me is that there appears to be none such. The Court Service
ought to be able to hear appeals against appointment of PR, but I can't
see evidence of the statutory authority. It seems to me that this is
somewhat of a hole in the Probate provisions.

If he wanted to change his Will or merely negate the old one, he had
plenty of opportunity to do so. Since he didn't, it's perfectly
reasonable to assume that he thought it perfectly satisfactory. The law
will assume that anyway, regardless of what you think. It's the only
practical way the law can work.

I disagree. A quarter of a century (in our fictional example) is a long
time, and many things change. In that time, he may have forgotten that
he had made out a Will, or with whom he'd lodged it. He may have had
the intention of changing it, but went under a car before he could. He
may not have been aware of who is running the Chambers now, and their
reputation. More children may have arrived, with valid claims on the
Estate.

Furthermore, it is not usually possible for the beneficiaries or the
other PRs to know what was said in the solicitor's Chambers between the
testator and the solicitor. It's entirely feasible that a wily lawyer
could have misled the testator into believing that it was necessary to
have a professional named as PR - we just can't tell if that appointment
was based on sound advice or mis-selling.

It's another conflict of interest: the solicitor helping draft the Will
is in a position to influence its contents in their favour.

It is possible to appeal to an impartial arbiter in respect of clear
omissions in a Will, or for variation of provision, or indeed to have
the whole Will invalidated in some circumstances. It goes against the
grain for there to be no recourse to replace a PR or to force their
removal, and I find it hard to believe there is not. Someone
_impartial_ has to be able to speak on behalf of the decedent!

If there is such an appeal, though, the danger is of course that the
court or arbitration costs could easily outweigh the losses incurred if
the dratted PR had been appointed anyway. I guess it's a balance of
benefits - or an expression of principle.

Since the solicitor has been appointed by the Will, he can act if he
wants, and he probably will because it's work and money. All you can do
is ask the solicitor if he would be willing to renounce his authority to
act in favour of the next-of-kin or whoever you all agree should act
instead.

So -- what if TNP declines to sign the appointment papers, as the
solicitor is so keen (desperate, even) for him to do?

Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Jun 16, 11:57 pm, "George \(dicegeorge\)"
wrote:
if theyre getting an hourly rate for their work
(as my solicitors did for 3 probates)
what justification do they have for a percentage of the estate?

it's more than a few hours work.

Are you comparing the fees or saying doing it yourself is more than a
few hours work? It certainly isn't in many, many cases.

In one of mine, it was. Lots and lots of small shareholdings. I filled
a filing cabinet drawer (and then some) with folders on each company,
and there was a _lot_ of correspondence. Mind you, I didn't mind too
much: if I'd paid a lawyer to do it, I'd have been charged a ton an hour
or more for an unarticled clerk to do the same. No thanks!

Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.

stuart noble wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
stuart noble wrote:

It's a shame, and slightly illogical, that the executor can't be
removed if all the beneficiaries agree.

No it isn't. For whatever reason, it was the testator's wish that
the named executor should act, and it's his estate that's being
distributed.

But the beneficiaries can agree to change who gets what, thereby
changing the will, and not complying with the deceased's wishes.

If you think about it, as soon as any beneficiary receives anything, he can
pass it on to whoever he likes, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
There's a limit to how far the deceased's wishes can extend. If you're
talking about a Deed of Variation, that's no different, but just comes with
the possibility of a tax break.


Having handed over an eye-watering amount in IHT on behalf of a
relative, I still regard it as essentially a voluntary tax, paid
mostly by those who don't trust their children to take care of the
money.

Yup, but it's his money to spend as he wishes, not theirs. And it may be
that he was quite right not to trust them.

Anyway, look on the bright side. Your IHT payments have helped reduce the
tax burden on the rest of us!

"stuart noble" wrote in message
...
Norman Wells wrote:
stuart noble wrote:

It's a shame, and slightly illogical, that the executor can't be
removed if all the beneficiaries agree.

No it isn't. For whatever reason, it was the testator's wish that the
named executor should act, and it's his estate that's being distributed.

But the beneficiaries can agree to change who gets what, thereby changing
the will, and not complying with the deceased's wishes.


Err. no they can't. They can exchange things amongst themselves afterwards.
That's different, by that stage it's their property. Any liabilities etc.,
associated with a bequest, for example, will reside with who it is legally
left to, not who they decide to give it to.


What if all the beneficiaries agreed that they shouldn't pay any tax on
the estate? Would you then say they should be allowed to do that?

Very difficult to not pay the tax when you don't get probate at all until
a hefty chunk of it is paid


Hang on, ... you may have a point.

Having handed over an eye-watering amount in IHT on behalf of a relative,
I still regard it as essentially a voluntary tax, paid mostly by those who
don't trust their children to take care of the money.

Indeed and ditto. £40k in our case, when not a penny need have been paid.
Moral, don't use the friendly family solicitor to draw up a will, use
someone who understands IHT.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

Malcolm wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Mike Lewis wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Mike Lewis wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named
executors*, is there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?

Thsi ahppened to my mate about a year ago. Dad named solicitor as
executor and then 25 years later he snuffed it. AMte couldn't find
any way out of it. Solicitor just said "I am following the wishes
of the deceased".

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus
VAT. Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?

A few hours work isn't fair but it is likely to be very remunerative.

Mmm. A quick look at the law society guide to non contentious work
suggests this is at the upper end of 'fair charges'..

What I want to know is what recourse, if any, there is, before I
sign the letter of engagement.


Why would you be signing a letter of engagement? He is appoiunted
according to the will. Will he decline to do the work if you refuse
to sign?


That is an interesting point: Teh firm of solicitors is co executor to
my sister, who is passing me power of attorney to act as executor.

No fees are mentioned in the will.
\




I was in a similar position as co-executor with a solicitor for my
mother in law (no jokes please ;=) ) When she died I simply asked the
solicitor for her will and informed them that I would be dealing with
the estate. I had to obtain probate as there was her share of the house
we jointly owned involved but there were no problems IIRC all that
probate invoved was finding out the assets and liabilities and listing
them on the form (copius notes accompanied it). There was then a trip
to the County Court to swear on oath that what was declared on the form
was correct. After a suitable fee changed hands Probate was granted. If
you can work carefully and logically it is easy. The solicitor will be
asking you about the assets and liabilities anyway.

Malcolm

I have no issues with any of that, I have no issues with the solicitors
don it all for us and making a couple of grand : I do object to nearly
20 grand though.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Ho hum.

Given the situation that a *firm of lawyers has been named executors*, is
there ANY way to limit the fees they will charge?

currently 1.5% of the gross estate value plus hourly rates plus VAT.
Probably around 18 grand for a few hours work?

'license to print money' springs to mind here..
#
Can anyone justify why it is reasonable to charge a percentage of the value
of the estate. Unless the estate is very significantly enormous or complex
(in which case very careful arrangements will have been made in advance
by those who can afford to make them), surely the amount of work in
processing an estate does not vary significantly with its value?

Whether I die with 500 in my bank account or 500000, surely the solicitor
does essentially the same amount of work. Why should he be getting away
with ripping my descendants off for an extra 7000 for doing b-all?

Chris