Elder and Succession Law Conference 2023 Program and Materials

Elder and Succession Law

Acknowledgement to Country

Proudly hosted by the Elder and Succession Law Committee

This committee currently meets monthly. It has been the winner of the Law Society of Tasmania Outstanding Committee Award in 2021 and 2022.

Questions for the Committee to info@lst.org.au

Program

09:30 Registrations open

10:00 Welcome

10:05

Year Ahead, Year in Review

Kimberley Martin, Director, WMM Law with Alison Wiss, Senior Lawyer, McMullen Law

11:05 Morning Tea

11:15

Contested Probate: Knowledge and Approval in Estate Litigation - The How, What and When

Angela Cornford-Scott, Director, Cornford-Scott Lawyers

12:15

Lawyers as Executors: Lessons from Recent Cases

Carolyn Sparke KC, Barrister, Svenson Barristers, Owen Dixon Chambers

1:15 Lunch

1:55

ChatGPT and The Future of AI in the Legal Industry

Sam Nickless, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin with Francesca Beattie, Deputy Executive Officer, Law Society of Tasmania

2:55

The intersection of Family Law and Succession Law

Mary Anne Ryan, Barrister, Derwent & Tamar Chambers with Christine Smyth, Christine Smyth Estate Lawyers

3:55 Afternoon Tea

4:05

Legal Ethics and The Use of AI/ChatGPT in the Context of Practising in Elder and Succession Law

Shane Budden, Special Counsel, Ethics, Queensland Law Society

5:05 Closing Remarks

5:10 Networking + Canapes

Bios

Kimberley Martin, Director, WMM Law

Ms Martin is a senior estate planning, commercial, tax and trusts lawyer experienced in all aspects of Estate Planning, including Wills, Enduring Powers of Attorney, Instruments Appointing Enduring Guardians, trust law and superannuation law Her LLB is from UTAS, and she has an LLM (Masters) in Wills & Estates. Kimberley is a member of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP), an international group of professionals involved in trusts and estates. Through STEP, she is a member of the STEP Digital Asset Special Interest Group, a global group that provides an international forum of debate, education and support on digital issues

Kimberley won the Law Society of Tasmania’s Young Lawyer Award in 2016 and was awarded international Young Practitioner of the Year at the STEP Private Client Awards in London in 2018.

Alison Wiss, Senior Lawyer, McMullen Law

Ms Wiss is a senior lawyer at McMullen Lawyers Alison has many years of experience in estate planning law and administration of deceased estates Her practice involves the preparation of wills, testamentary trusts, enduring powers of attorney and enduring guardianship. Alison also has an extensive knowledge when it comes to dealing with probate applications and letters of administration

Alison is immediate past chair for the Society’s Elder and Succession Law Committee and has contributed to a Charter for Human Rights and is also a member of the Golden Key International Honour Society for her work on human rights.

Angela Cornford-Scott, Director, Cornford-Scott Lawyers

Ms Cornford-Scott is the founding director of her firm. Angela has over 25 years of experience in wills and estate matters and is recognised as one of Queensland’s pre-eminent lawyers in these matters She is an accredited specialist in succession law and specialises, and practices, exclusively in the area of succession law She has extensive experience across all areas of estate planning, trust and estate administration and litigation relating to trusts and estates.

Angela is regularly appointed by the court to take over and complete the administration of estates where the executors have been removed as a result of a dispute Angela has a Bachelor of Laws from Queensland University of Technology, and a Bachelor of Business, University of Southern Queensland In 2022, Angela was named Market Leader – Wills & Succession Planning, and Wills & Estates litigation, Doyle’s Guide Queensland.

Bios

Carolyn Sparke KC, Barrister, Svenson Barristers, Owen Dixon Chambers

Ms Sparke KC graduated from Melbourne University in 1987 with LLB, B Sc Carolyn specialises in equity and trusts and in wills and probate law. She has a wider practice in general commercial work, including superannuation disputes, property law, corporations matters, guardianship/administration/power of attorney disputes and family law matters which involve commercial or trust property issues She has appeared in a number of cases involving testators family maintenance claims (both for executors and for children and various other claimants) and testamentary capacity and other estate and trust-related matters. She also has extensive experience as a mediator.

Carolyn holds a diploma in international commercial arbitration from CIArb She is a co-author of Butterworths loose-leaf service Wills Probate and Administration Service Victoria She has been a member of the editorial committee, Wills and Probate Bulletin and the Trust Quarterly Review. She is a member of the Society for Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP) and sits on their policy subcommittee. She is an advocacy instructor with the Victorian Bar, the Australian Advocacy Institute and the Australian Bar Association

Francesca Beattie, Deputy Executive Director, Law Society of Tasmania

Ms Beattie graduated from UTAS with an LLB (Hons) in 1997 and was admitted in 1999 After several years in private practice she worked in inhouse positions in risk management, litigation and insurance including solicitors’ professional indemnity insurance (Aon, UK). During her career Francesca took a family-focused sabbatical period from the law, venturing into adult education as well as children's interactive digital media, founding Minimedia Productions Pty Ltd and earning the Australian Businesswomen’s Network’s 'Successful New Business' Award in 2005

Francesca commenced as Deputy Executive Director with the Law Society of Tasmania in 2013. Her role includes co-management of organisational operations; external stakeholder and committee/counsel engagement; strategic counsel; policy and law reform work; and continuing legal education program development and oversight Her key interests include driving systems and IT solutions to streamline delivery of membership and regulatory services; and supporting competency, excellence, wellbeing and prosperity in the business of law. Francesca also serves as a longstanding committee member of the Australian Law Management Group in the Legal Practice Section of the Law Council of Australia

Bios

Sam Nickless, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin

Mr Nickless is a partner and the Chief Executive Officer at Gilbert + Tobin. He is responsible for the firm’s operational functions and plays a leadership role in the development and implementation of the firm’s strategy. With a focus on technology and innovation, Sam drives the firm to challenge the status quo, particularly in the delivery of legal services Sam also represents the firm on the board of LegalVision, a technology-based legal start-up which is partly owned by Gilbert + Tobin

Before joining Gilbert + Tobin in 2015 as Chief Operating Officer, Sam was Head of Property Innovations at GPT Group, steering its response to the disruptive threats to its retail and office portfolios. Sam has also worked as an executive at Aristocrat Leisure, National Australia Bank and as a partner at McKinsey & Company, where he served a range of clients in financial services, retail, agribusiness and telecommunications, with a focus on strategy and organisation Sam has Economics and Law degrees from the University of Adelaide, and a Bachelor of Civil Law degree from the University of Oxford, where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar.

Mary Anne Ryan, Barrister, Derwent and Tamar Chambers

Ms Ryan joined the Tasmanian Independent Bar in 2015 after 13 years as a barrister and solicitor engaged in civil, criminal, family law and child protection litigation Mary Anne has had carriage of and appeared as Counsel in multiple ground-breaking and innovative family law cases in the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia which have made significant contributions to the development of case law. Mary Anne is regularly appointed as an Independent Children’s Lawyer in the family law jurisdiction and as the Separate Representative in the child protection jurisdiction Mary Anne is a member of the Ethics Committee of the Australian Bar Association; and the Chair of the Family Law Committee of the Law Society of Tasmania

Mary Anne is a past member of the Family Law Practitioners Association of Tasmania; the Litigation Committee of the Law Society of Tasmania; Chair and Board Member of Hobart Women’s Shelter; President and member of Australian Women Lawyers; President of Tasmanian Women Lawyers; and member Equal Opportunity Committee of the Law Council of Australia

Bios

Christine Smyth, Christine Smyth Estate Lawyers

Ms Smyth draws on 25 plus years’ experience to be a specialist in succession law, undertaking work in deceased estate administrations; deceased estate litigation; estate planning; grants of probate/administration; funeral law; and elder law – powers of attorney disputes, family accommodation disputes, family financial disputes; and conflict resolution. She is a Queensland Law Society (QLS) accredited specialist in succession law, and has corresponding expertise in elder and funeral dispute law.

When President of the QLS in 2017, Christine developed an Elder Abuse Aware campaign that received national recognition In respect of her expertise in funeral law, Christine was the first lawyer to be a member of the Australian Funeral Directors Association Her ongoing commitment to excellence in client service and technical skill, has seen her recognised with the prestigious Doyle’s Guide awarding her Leading Wills and Estate Litigation Lawyer and Queensland’s Leading Wills, Estates and Succession Planning Lawyer in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 Christine is one of three Queensland Court appointed Estate Account Assessors

Shane Budden, Special Counsel, Ethics, Queensland Law Society

Mr Budden is a Special Counsel at the Queensland Law Society's Ethics Centre, providing ethical guidance and instruction to practitioners as well as a contributing significantly to Proctor, the journal of the Queensland Law Society. Admitted in 1992 Shane commenced work in general practice, focusing on criminal law, before moving to in-house work including running the internal legal team at the Queensland Building Services Authority/Queensland Building and Construction Commission internal legal team

Shane is also former Chair of the Society’s government lawyers committee. He has published articles in many newspapers and magazines and appears on television and radio delivering commentary in relation to contemporary legal issues.

The Day

Papers and slides, where available, are provided separately.

Session 1

Committee, Law Society of Tasmania

10:05 Session 1

Year Ahead, Year in Review

Legislation/Policy Update

Banks and Powers of Attorney – STEP Australia Policy and Advocacy Committee, Law Council of Australia and other professional bodies

Best Practice Guides from Law Council of Australia

Use of Electronic Signatures and Remote Witnessing

Guardianship and Administration Amendment (Advance Care Directives) Act 2021 (Tas)

Foreign Investor Updates (FIDS/FILTS/FIRB)

Intergenerational Rural Transfer Exemption Update

Guardianship and Administration Amendment Bill 2023 (5 of 2023)

Cases

Legal Services Commissioner v Pennisi [2023] QCAT 118

Williams v Williams [2023] QSC 90 (SMSF)

Williams v Duerinckx Enterprises Pty Ltd [2022] TASSC 32 (20 May 2022), In the matter of the George Hardi Family Trust [2021] NSWSC 1584 (26 November 2021) and Application of Walker Corporation Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1609 (28 November 2022)

Aretha Franklin’s ‘handwritten note’ found in her couch

Presented by:

Kimberley Martin, Director, WMM Law

Alison Wiss, Senior Lawyer, McMullen Law

Chair:

Megan Penno, Lawyer, TFR Lawyers; Member, Elder and Succession Law Committee, Law Society of Tasmania

CPD Guide: 1 PM, PS, SL

Contested Probate: Knowledge and Approval in Estate Litigation - The How, What and When

The case of Lewis v Lewis highlighted the challenges of overturning the presumption of knowledge and approval, even where capacity may not be an issue. This session examines the important lessons from this case for succession lawyers, including:

Why testamentary capacity is only part of the equation. Key elements of knowledge and approval

Rebutting the presumption – what evidence is required?

Consequences of failure to prove knowledge and approval, including will invalidity and severance

Is it enough that the will-maker has read the will?

Court assessment of knowledge and approval in the event of: Mental acuity and comprehension issues.

Suspicious circumstances

Unsophisticated will-makers. Complex financial circumstances and arrangements. How can advisers best ensure that knowledge and approval by their client is satisfied?

Tips for client management, record keeping and will drafting A discussion of recent cases.

resented by:

ngela Cornford-Scott, Director, Cornford-Scott Lawyers

hair:

imberley Martin, Director, WMM Law; Chair, Elder and uccession Law Committee, Law Society of Tasmania

CPD Guide: 1 PS, SL

Session 3

This session considers matters such as:

Removal of executor applications - what the court will consider and the costs implications of successful and unsuccessful applications; Legal and ethical obligations that executors and attorneys need to be aware of, including the extent and the limitations of the powers of attorney and identifying conflicts of interest

If you are going to act as an executor, how should you do it: disclosure letters; charging clauses; separate executor file to estate file; estate admin – inhouse or external lawyer/firm; what to charge for – legal v domestic and administrative; what if there is a Trust – should you also act as Trustee; how to avoid conflicts; and, what if you had drawn up the will (Makripoulias v Arhontovasilis [2022] VSC 53)

Key Takeaways

Be independent. Charge properly and carefully Stay away from litigation were possible.

Presented by:

Carolyn Sparke KC, Barrister, Svenson Barristers, Owen Dixon Chambers

Chair: Alison Wiss, Senior Lawyer, McMullen Law; Member, Elder and Succession Law Committee, Law Society of Tasmania

CPD Guide: 1 PS, SL

Session 4

1:55 Session 4

ChatGPT and The Future of AI in the Legal Industry

Session Outline

This dynamic seminar will delve into the world of Generative AI and ChatGPT, explore the transformative potential of AI technology in the legal profession, and discuss why it is crucial for lawyers to stay ahead of the curve.

The session will cover:

Introduction: Generative AI and ChatGPT

A Drive Behind the Wheel

Navigating an Evolving Legal Landscape - The Importance of Staying Ahead in this New AI Era

Showcase Time - In an interview we invite Gilbert + Tobin's CEO, Sam Nickless, to share his insights and perspectives

Audience Q&A

Presented by: Sam Nickless, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin

Francesca Beattie, Deputy Executive Officer, Law Society of Tasmania

CPD Guide: 1 PM, PS

Session 5

2:55 Session 5

The Intersection of Family Law and Succession Law Session Outline

The Family Court is seeing more cases involving elderly parties from a second and third relationship. Often adult children of the parties have a vested interest in the proceedings, the outcome of which can affect the estate available for distribution and the extent of provision which can be made for adult children by their wills. From this fire-side discussion, acquire some essential tips and strategies to consider and implement This discussion will explore:

Potential issues and difficult situations that can arise during matrimonial property proceedings where one party lacks capacity or dies during proceedings.

How the Family Court is dealing with these issues

What happens when applications in both jurisdictions are on foot. Factors considered by the Family Court when dealing with a property settlement compared with those considered by a State court when dealing with a family provision application

Presented by:

Mary Anne Ryan, Barrister, Derwent & Tamar Chambers

Christine Smyth, Christine Smyth Estate Lawyers

Chair:

Shelby Llewellyn, Lawyer, Butler McIntyre and Butler; Member, Elder and Succession Law Committee, Law Society of Tasmania

CPD Guide: 1 PM, PS, SL

Legal Ethics and The Use of AI/ChatGPT in the Context of Practising in Elder and Succession Law

Session Outline

ChatGPT and large language models - what they are (and what they aren't)

How to use them ethically, and to avoid the pitfalls

11:45

Recent cases dealing with the use of AI in the legal profession

Threats, challenges and opportunities related to AI in the succession law/estate planning sphere

Presented by: Shane Budden, Special Counsel, Ethics, Queensland Law Society

Chair: Kimberley Martin, Director, WMM Law; Chair, Elder and Succession Law Committee, Law Society of Tasmania

CPD Guide: 1 E

5:05 Closing remarks

Kimberley Martin, Director, WMM Law; Chair, Elder and Succession Law Committee, Law Society of Tasmania

Prize draws

For a chance to win, registrants want to be in the room at draw time.

CPD Assist prize offers a night's accommodation for practitioners travelling from the north and north west)

Lucky Door prize offers all registrants a chance at winning.

legalsuper

Would you like to meet with your local Client Service Manager, David Rausa to discuss your super in more detail? Appointments with our Client Service Managers are complimentary.

David can help you understand super & learn what to expect on your path. Topics David can assist with include:

How super works

How to find lost super and consolidate accounts

Contribution and investment options

Insurance and beneficiary options

Retirement planning

You can book an appointment with David directly via this link: CSM Appointment Bookings or provide your details to David at drausa@legalsuper.com.au

Session Materials

Session 1

Year Ahead, Year in Review

Kimberley Martin, Director, WMM Law

Alison Wiss, Senior Lawyer, McMullen Law

Session materials:

Slides

YearAhead, YearinReview

KimberleyMartin,WMMLaw AlisonWiss,McMullenLawyers

Legislation/PolicyUpdate

1.BanksandPowersofAttorneySTEPAustraliaPolicyandAdvocacy Committee,LawCouncilofAustraliaandotherprofessionalbodies.

Jointbodysubmissiononanissueaffectingmanypractitionersandtheirclientsin enforcingtheoperationsofpowerofattorneydocumentationwiththebank community.

Thoseproblemshaveincludedthebankrequiringtheincapacitatedadulttoattend thebranchandconfirmthattheyauthorisetheattorneytomakesuchtransactions orthebankrequiringmultipleattorneys(whenappointedjointly)toattendatthe samebranch,despitetheattorneyslivingindifferentpartsofthecountry. Ifyouhaveastorywhereyouoryourclientshaveencountereddifficultieswitha bankinginstitutionwhenendeavouringtoundertaketransactionsastheaccount providingthosestoriesviathefollowingform https://forms.gle/RZPXt13e97XnMYSh8.

Legislation/PolicyUpdate

2.BestPracticeGuidesfromLawCouncilofAustralia

TwobestpracticeguideswerelaunchedonWorldElderAbuseAwarenessDaybythe

Bestpracticeguideforlegalpractitionersinrelationtoelderfinancialabuse providesbestpracticemeasurestobeadoptedbylegalpractitionerstomitigate risksofelderfinancialabuse,andtoidentifyandrespondtoclientswhoare potentiallysubjecttosuchabuse.

Bestpracticeguideforlegalpractitionersonassessingmentalcapacity providesbestpracticeguidelinesforlegalpractitionersinrelationtothe preparationandexecutionofwillsandotheradvanceplanningdocuments.

Legislation/PolicyUpdate

3.UseofElectronicSignaturesandRemoteWitnessing

Alltemporarylegislationhaslapsed.Onlythefollowingjurisdictionshaveimplemented permanentprovisions:

CorporationsAct2001(Cth)

companydocuments(includingdeeds)tobesignedusingelectronicsignature (from23February2022)

noticesanddocumentscanbeprovidedelectronically,andmeetingscanbeheld virtuallyprovidedthegoverningdocumentexpresslyallows(from1April2022)

Victoria

wills,powersofattorney(includingenduringpowersofattorney),deeds, affidavitsandstatutorydeclarationscanbesignedandwitnessedusingelectronic signaturesandviaremotewitnessing

Legislation/PolicyUpdate

NewSouthWales

wills,powersofattorney(includingenduringpowersofattorney),deeds, agreements,enduringguardianshipappointments,affidavitsandstatutory declarationscanbesignedandwitnessedviaremotewitnessing

Queensland

generalpowersofattorneyforbusinesses,deeds,affidavits,statutory declarationsandparticularmortgagescanbesignedandwitnessedusing electronicsignaturesandviaremotewitnessing

Legislation/PolicyUpdate

4.GuardianshipandAdministrationAmendment(AdvanceCareDirectives) Act2021(Tas)

AdvancedCareDirectives

newform

currentlyfreetoregisterwithTASCAT InstrumentsAppointingEnduringGuardians

newdeclarationaboutAdvancedCareDirective

Legislation/PolicyUpdate

5.ForeignInvestorUpdates

TheTasmanianForeignInvestorLandTaxSurcharge(FILTS)isanadditional2%of landtax whichis: acquiredbyaforeignpersononorafter1July2022;or ownedbyacompanyortrustwhichbecomesforeignonorafter1July2022;and maybe,oriscapableof,beinglawfullyusedsolelyorprimarilyforresidential purposes.

TheTasmanianForeignInvestorDutySurcharge(FIDS)isanadditionalamountof dutychargedwhenresidentialorprimaryproductionpropertyisacquired(either directlyorindirectly)byaforeignperson.Thisincludesvacantlandwhichmaymeet thedefinitionofresidentialorprimaryproductionproperty.

8%ontheproportionofthedutiablevalueofresidentialpropertydirectlyor indirectlyacquiredbyaforeignperson;and

1.5%ontheproportionofthedutiablevalueofprimaryproductionproperty directlyorindirectlyacquiredbyaforeignperson.

Legislation/PolicyUpdate

TheobligationtoseekForeignInvestmentReviewBoard(FIRB)clearanceappliesto inAustraliaaswellascorporationsandtrustsinwhichindividualsnotordinarilyresident inAustraliaholdasubstantialinterest.

ForeignAcquisitionsandTakeoversAct1975(Cth)andForeignAcquisitionsand TakeoversRegulation2015(Cth).

TheActrequiresaforeignpersonwhoacquiresaninterestincertaintypesof Australianland(includingresidentialland)oraninterestincertaintypesofsecurities inentitiestonotifytheRegistrar.Penaltiesapplyforthosewhodonotcomply. From1January2021,anacquisitionofaninterestinsecurities,assets,atrust,or AustralianlandthatisacquiredbywillisnolongerexemptfromtheFIRBRegime. IfassetscaughtbytheFIRBRegimeareotherwisetopassintoatestamentary discretionarytrust(TDT)setupinaWill(ratherthandirectlytoabeneficiary)and future)includeanyonewhoisaforeignperson,thenthetrusteeoftheTDTwill automaticallybedeemedtobeaforeignpersonaswell.

Legislation/PolicyUpdate

6.IntergenerationalRuralTransferExemption

TheStateRevenueOfficehasreleasedanupdatedGuidelinefors225oftheDutiesAct 2001(Tas).

Thetransfereetrustmustbeincapableofremovingbeneficiaries.

SeeupdatedGuidelinehttps://www.sro.tas.gov.au/property-transferduties/concessions-exemptions/intergenerational-rural-transfer-exemption

Legislation/PolicyUpdate

6.GuardianshipandAdministrationAmendmentBill2023(5of2023)

Proposedamendmentsinclude:

updateapproachestotheappointmentofguardiansandadministratorsbythe TASCAT

applyaframeworkfordeterminingdecision-makingabilitytothewholeofthe GuardianshipAct

insertrequirementstoprovidepersonswithimpaireddecision-makingabilitywith accesstothesupportnecessarytoenablethepersontoasfarasispracticable makeandparticipateindecisionsandpromotetheirowndecision-makingability

relationtopeoplewithimpaireddecision-makingabilityandpreferences-ofapersonwithimpaireddecision-making providesubstitutedecision-makersshouldonlyoverridethewishesand preferencesofpersonsinnarrowcircumstances,includingpreventingserious harm

Legislation/PolicyUpdate

providenewobjectsandprinciples,includingapplyingtheprinciplesofthe UnitedNationsConventionontheRightsofPeoplewithDisabilities removethecriteriaofdisabilityasastand-alonetestofimpairment providefortheregulationofhealthandmedicalresearchincircumstanceswhere apersonhasimpaireddecision-makingabilityandisunabletogiveorrefuse consent,suchasclinicaltrialsthataresubjecttonationalethicalresearch guidelines,inordertoallowaccessbythisgrouptothebenefitsofparticipating intrials

provideforcircumstanceswhereprotectedinformationcanbedisclosed, includingwhereapersonconsentstotheirinformationbeingpublished amendconflictofinterestprovisionswhichcancurrentlypreventclosefamily membersfrombeingappointedasprivateguardiansoradministrators amendstandingprovisionsandappealprocedures

insertrequirementsinrelationtotheresolutionofdisputesandthehandlingof complaints

CaseUpdate

1.LegalServicesCommissionervPennisi[2023]QCAT118

Intheaboveproceedings,disciplinaryproceedingswerecommencedagainstalegal practitionerfortwocharges:

thelegalpractitionerfailedtomaintainreasonablestandardsofcompetencewhen preparingawillandenduringpowerofattorneywheretheclientdidnothavethe capacitytoexecutethedocuments(Charge1);and

thelegalpractitionerfailedtomaintainreasonablestandardsofcompetenceand diligenceincarryingouttheirrolewhenengagedtoactintheadministrationofthe estateofaclient(Charge2).

AhearingwasheldbeforeaJudicialMemberwithbothaPractitionerPanelMemberanda LayPanelMemberassisting.

InrelationtoCharge1,itwasheldthattheapplicantfailedtoestablishtotheBriginshaw standardthattheconductofthelegalpractitionerfellshortofthestandardtobeexpected ofasolicitor.

InrelationtoCharge2,theallegationswereadmittedbythelegalpractitionerandhis conductwasfoundtoamounttounsatisfactoryprofessionalconduct.TheTribunalordered thattherespondentbepubliclyreprimanded,payapecuniarypenaltyof$5,000andpaythe TheTribunalmadenoorderforcoststothecomplainant,whoseparatelymadesubmissions onthispoint.Thedecisionthoroughlydetailed,andwortharead.

CaseUpdate

2.WilliamsvWilliams[2023]QSC90(SMSF)

Theabovecaseconcernedwhether:

thenoticeoftheBDBNwasgiventothetrusteesinaccordancewiththegoverningrules thetrusteeswerevalidlyappointedinaccordancewiththegoverningrules thetrusteeshadbehavedinawaythatjustifiedtheirremoval

Thefollowingkeyprinciplesarenotedfromtheabovecase: aBDBNonlyneedstobegiventoalltrusteesifso rules(oftenreferredtoasthedeed).PursuanttoHillvZuda,ifthedeedstatesthat theBDBNdoesnotneedtobegiventoanytrusteetobevalid,thentheexactreverse ofwhatoccurredinWilliamsvWilliamswouldbethecase:namely,theBDBNcouldbe ifamemberisconcernedaboutgivingaBDBNtoatrustee,themembershould probablyurgentlyconsiderrestructuringtheirsuperannuation.Suchaconcernis probablyasuggestionthattheremaywellbeadeathbenefitdispute anychangeoftrusteemuststrictlycomplywiththetermsofthedeed trusteesmustnotactwheninaposition(orpotentialposition)ofconflict

CaseUpdate

3.WilliamsvDuerinckxEnterprisesPtyLtd[2022]TASSC32(20May2022),Inthe matteroftheGeorgeHardiFamilyTrust[2021]NSWSC1584(26November 2021)andApplicationofWalkerCorporationPtyLtd[2022]NSWSC1609(28 November2022)

Eachofthesecasesconcernedanapplicationforrectificationofthetermsofa discretionarytrustdeedtorectifythevestingdate.

Thefollowingkeyprinciplesarenotedfromtheabovecase: alwayscheckthevestingdateofalltrusts donotassumethatthe80-year

ifthevestingdateisapproaching,ensureclientsarewarnedandgivenadviceto starttoprepareforthetaxandotherimplicationsofthis

CaseUpdate

4.EstateofArethaFranklin

willandthe2014

overUS$1.1Min2018)tohersonKecalfFranklinandhergrandchildren. InTasmaniancontext,itispossiblethatthedispensingpowersins10oftheWillsAct 2008(Tasmania)wouldapply.

It appears from the decisions, that in some circumstances knowledge and approval of the contents of the will might be sufficient to discharge the burden of proof, whereas in others, knowledge and approval of the effect of the terms of the will, will be required.

This will depend on the type of client you have and the level of vulnerability and complexity of the will itself. It may not be enough to merely read the will to the will maker to satisfy the knowledge and approval requirement.

Session 2

Contested Probate: Knowledge and Approval in Estate Litigation

-The How, What and When

Angela Cornford-Scott, Director, Cornford-Scott Lawyers

Session materials:

Paper

ContestedProbate:WhenReadingOverisNotEnough-TheHow,WhatandWhen KnowledgeandApprovalinEstateLitigation

By AngelaCornford-Scott Cornford-ScottLawyers

Thereappearstobeanincreasingnumberofwilldisputes,particularlyinvolvingsituations wherethereisaquestionaroundthecircumstancessurroundingtheinstructionsforand executionofthewill.

Thecreationoftestamentaryandenduringdocumentswhichmightbenefitonepersonover andaboveothers,usuallyresultinallegationsthatthepersonwasinfluencedintomaking thedocuments,orthattheydidsimplynotunderstandorapproveofthetermsofthe documents.

Asadvisers,itisimportantforustounderstandwhatcauseofactionarisesfromsuch circumstancesandwhethertheallegationsofinvalidityarebasedonincapacity,wantof knowledgeandapprovalorundueinfluence.Thispaperfocusesonissuesarisingwherethe claimisbasedonwantofknowledgeandapproval.

Whatisknowledgeandapproval

KnowledgeandapprovalwasdescribedbyMcMillanJinVukoticvVukotic(2013)12ASTLR knowthesubstantive

ThehistoricalprinciplewasenunciatedbyBreretonJinTobinvEzekiel,EstateofLily Ezekiel[2011]NSWSC81asfollows-

"Inmyview,however,(1)theconceptof"knowledgeandapproval"isconcernedwiththe contentsofthewill,andwhethertheyexpressthetestator'sintention,andnotwiththe processbywhichthetestamentaryintentionwasformed;(2)anyrelevantsuspicionmustbe onethatcastsdoubtonwhetherthetestatorknewandapprovedthecontents,andmust relatetothepreparationandexecutionofthewill,and(3)suspicionoffraudorundue influencedoesnotattractthe"suspiciouscircumstances"doctrine,thosebeingaffirmative defenceswhichassumethatthetestatorknewandapprovedthecontents(inthesensethat heorsheintendedtomakeawillintheforminwhichitwasmade)butchallengehowthat intentionwasprocured.

Thattheconceptof"knowledgeandapproval"isconcernedwiththecontentsofthewill,and thattherelevantsuspicionmustbeonethattheydonotaccordwiththetestator'sintention, appearsfrommanyauthoritativestatementsofwhataproponentmustprovewhen suspiciouscircumstancesareraised.InAttervAtkinson(1869)LR1P&D665,Lord Penzancesaid(at668)thatwherethemakerofawilltakesalargebenefit"Yououghttobe well-satisfied,fromevidence,calculatedtoexcludealldoubt,thattheTestatornotonly

InFullervStrum[2002]1,ChadwickLJstatedat[65]:

-redolentofmoralityasitnow seemstobe-isnottobetakenbythecourtasalicencetorefuseprobatetoadocumentof whichitdisapproves,whetherthatdisapprovalstemsfromthecircumstancesinwhichthe documentwasexecutedasawillorwhetheritstemsfromthecontentsofthedocument. Thequestionisnotwhetherthecourtapprovesofthecircumstancesinwhichthedocument wasexecutedoritscontents.Thequestioniswhetherthecourtissatisfiedthecontent [emphasisadded]Thatisnot, ofcourse,tosuggestthatthecircumstancesofexecutionorthecontentsmaynot,inthe particularcase,beofthegreatestmaterialityinreachingaconclusionwhetherornotthe testatordidknowandapproveofthecontentsofthedocument-anddidintendthatthey shouldhavetestamentaryeffect.Buttheirimportanceisevidential

However,thequestionastowhetherknowledgeandapprovalsimplymeansthatthewill makerunderstoodthecontentsofthewillorwhetheritrequiresthatthewillmaker understoodthatthewillactuallygaveeffecttotheirintentionshasbeenfurtherdeveloped.

At[47]ofTobinvEzekiel2MeagherJAreferredtotheevidencethatmightbenecessaryto provethetestator's"actualknowledgeofthecontentsofthewill",butwentontostatethatit tatorknewthecontentsofthewilland appreciatedtheeffectofwhatheorshewasdoingsothatitcanbesaidthatthewill containstherealintentionandreflectsthetruewillofthetestator(emphasisadded).

JusticeRobbinHobhousevMacarthur-Onslow[2016]NSWSC1831,onreflectinguponthe commentsmadebyMeagherJAinTobinvEzekiel3

whetherbyaddingthewords"andappreciatedtheeffectofwhatheorshewasdoingsothat itcanbesaidthatthewillcontainstherealintentionandreflectsthetruewillofthetestator" (emphasisadded),MeagherJAintendedtorecognisethepossibilitythatmereknowledgeof thecontentsofthewillmightnotalwaysbesufficienttoestablishthatthetestatorknewwhat heorshewasdoing,sothatthewillmaynotcontaintherealintentionandreflectthetrue

Ifitisthecasethatknowledgeandapprovalnotonlyrequiresthewillmakertounderstand thecontentsofthewillbutalsothatthewillreflectstheintentionofthewillmaker,thenthis wouldappeartoalsorequireadeterminationastowhatthoseintentionswereasreflectedin theirinstructions,andwhetherthewillinfactachievesthewillmakerintendedtoachieve.

Ofcourse,afailureofthewilltoreflectthetrueintentionsofawillmakercanbeaddressed inarectificationapplication.Butthatisnotthecircumstancewhichariseswherethereisa questionastowhetherthewillmakeractuallycomprehendedwhatthewillachievedbefore signingit.

Basicprinciples

Thebasicprincipleisthatthedueexecutionofawillcreatesapresumptionthatthewill makerknewandapprovedofthecontentsofthewill.Thispresumptioncanbedisplacedby suspiciouscircumstances,whichgiverisetoaconcernregardingthecreationofthewill.

Thepropounderofthewillisrequiredtoestablishonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatthewill makerdidknowandapproveofthecontentsofthewillanddisplacethesuspicious circumstances.

Thepresumptionandshiftingevidentialonusthatapplytoproofofknowledgeandapproval wereexplainedbyIsaacsJinNockvAustinatpage528:

1.

provisions

oftheinstrumentmaynothavebeenfullyknowntoandapprovedbythetestator,the mereproofofhiscapacityandofthefactofdueexecutionoftheinstrumentcreatesan assumptionthatheknewofandassentstoitscontents.

2.Whereanysuchsuspiciouscircumstancesexist,theassumptiondoesnotarise,andthe proponentshavetheburdenofremovingthesuspicionbyprovingaffirmativelyclearand satisfactoryproofthatthetestatorknewandapprovedofthecontentsofthedocument.

3.Ifinsuchacasetheconscienceofthetribunal,whosefunctionitistodeterminethefact uponacarefulandaccurateconsiderationofalltheevidenceonbothsides,isnot judiciallysatisfiedthatthedocumentdoescontaintherealintentionofthetestator,the courtisboundtopronounceitsopinionthattheinstrumentisnotentitledtoprobate.

4.Thecircumstancethatapartywhotakesabenefitwroteorpreparedthewillisonewhich shouldgenerallyarousesuspicionandcallforthevigilantandanxiousexaminationby thewill.

5.Buttheruledoesnotgofurtherthanrequiringvigilanceandseeingthatthecaseisfully approved.Itdoesnotintroduceadisqualification.

6.Nordoestherulerequireasamatteroflawanyparticularspeciesofprooftosatisfythe owners.

7.

whichfraudordishonestymaybereliedonwithoutdistinctlycharging

However,allegationsofundueinfluenceorfraudaredifferent.Theymustbeprovedby thosemakingtheallegation.

Suspiciouscircumstances,onceestablished,dispensewiththepresumptionofknowledge andapprovalthatarisesfromdueexecutionofaprimafacierationalwill,soastocastonthe proponenttheonusofremovingthesuspicionandproving,byclearandaffirmativeproof, thatthetestatorknewandapprovedthecontentsofthewill.Undueinfluenceandfraud, however,areaffirmativedefences,whichassumethatthetestatorknewandapprovedthe willintherelevantsensebutassertthatsuchknowledgeandapprovalwasimproperly procured-eitherbyfraud,orbyundueinfluence-inrespectofwhichtheopponentbears theonusofproof.Havingfailedtoestablishundueinfluence,thedaughterscannotbya

side-windcasttheonusofproofofknowledgeandapprovalonthesonsbyraisinga suspicionofundueinfluence."4

InReFenwick,Deceased[1972]VR646,MenhennittJrepeatedthewell-establishedrules. Hesaid-

"Istatethefollowingrelevantrulesorprincipleswhichappeartometobeestablishedbythe authorities:-

1.Thedueexecutionofawillraisesapresumptionthatthetestatorknewandapprovedof itscontents:BarryvButlin[1838]EngR1056;(1838)2MooPC480;12ER1089;Re Horrocks;TaylorvKershaw,[1939]P198,atp.216;[1939]1AllER579.

2.Inanappropriatecase,probatemaybegrantedinrespectofportiononlyofadocument executedasawill,omittingotherportionswhere,forexample,byfraud,mistakeor inadvertencetherehasbeenincludedintheinstrumentwordswhichintruthwerenotpartof thewillofthetestator:OsbornevSmith[1960]HCA89;(1960)105CLR153;[1961]ALR 831;ReDuane(1862)2SwandTr590;164ER1127;FultonvAndrew(1875)LR7HL448; [1874-80]AllERRep1240;RhodesvRhodes(1882)7AppCas192,atp.198,andRe Hemburrow,deceased,[1969]VicRp98;[1969]VR764.

3.Whilstprobatemaybegrantedinanappropriatecasewithwordsomittedfromawill,itis notpermissibletograntprobatewithwordsadded:ReHorrocks;TaylorvKershaw,supra, andReHemburrow,deceased,supra,althoughthislast-mentionedruleisqualifiedbythe rulesappliedinReTait,deceased,[1957]VicRp57;[1957]VR405;[1957]ALR862.

4.Theonusisonthosewhoseektohaveprobategrantedwithwordsomittedtorebutthe presumptionofknowledgeandapprovalofthosewordswhicharisesfromthedueexecution ofthewill.ItisstatedinWilliamsandMortimer,Executors,AdministratorsandProbate,atp. 158:"Butwherethewillwasnotreadovertothetestatorandthemistakeismadein circumstancesinwhichthecourtmayomitwordsordispositions,themistakemaybe establishedonabalanceofprobabilitiesandTaylorvKershaw,[1939]P198;[1939]1All ER579,iscitedinsupport.InTaylorvKershawtheCourtofAppealusestheexpressions "strictandconvincingproof"(atp.208)andevidenceof"cogency"(atp.216),buttheCourt doesnotstatespecificallyitsconclusionastowhetherornotthewillhadbeenreadtothe testatrix,althoughitdidstate(atp.215),thattheevidenceofthesolicitorthathewouldnot havereadtherelevantprovisiontothetestatrixwas"mostunsatisfactory".InRe Hemburrow,deceased,[1969]VicRp98;[1969]VR764,Gillard,J,usestheexpressions "persuasiveevidence"and"ifitcanbeclearlyestablished"(atp.764),buthisHonourdidnot discussthepossibilityofadifferentstandardofproofbeingapplicableaccordingtowhether ornotthewillhadbeenreadbyortothetestatrix.ReDuane,supra;MorrellvMorrell(1882) 7PD68;[1881-5]AllERRep642;IntheGoodsofBoehm,[1891]P247:IntheGoodsof Schott,[1901]P190;BriscovBaillieHamilton,[1902]P234,andReSmith,deceased, [1956]NZLR593,wereallcaseswhereitwasconcludedthatthewillhadnotbeenreadby ortothetestatorandinnoneofthemwasitstated,nor,Ithink,suggested,thattheonusis higherthantheordinarycivilonus.Accordingly,Iconcludethat,whereawillhasbeenduly executedbutnotreadbyortothetestator,theonusisonthoseseekingtohaveprobate 4 TobinvEzekiel,EstateofLilyEzekiel[2011]NSWSC81at[109]

grantedwithwordsomittedtoestablishonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatthosewordswere includedbyfraud,mistakeorinadvertence.

5.Whereitisestablishedthatawillhasbeenreadbyortoatestator,thepresumptionthat thetestatorknewandapprovedofthecontentsofthewillisaverystrongoneandcanbe rebuttedonlybytheclearestevidence:GregsonvTaylor,[1917]P256,atp.261.Iagree withthestatementinWilliamsandMortimer,Executors,AdministratorsandProbate,atpp. 157,158that"itis,however,goingtoofartosaythatitmustbeestablishedbeyondalldoubt thatthewordswhichapartyseekstohaveomitteddidnotformpartofthetestator'swill",as wassaidinGregsonvTaylor,supra.TheonuswasnotputashighasthatinReHorrocks; TaylorvKershaw,supra.Further,Iagree,withrespect,withtheconclusionofLatey,J,inRe Morris,deceased,[1971]P62;[1970]1AllER1057(andfollowedbyStirling,J,inRe Phelan,deceased,[1971]3WLR888;[1971]3AllER1256,that,insofarasGuardhousev Blackburn(1866)LR1PandD109;[1861-73]AllERRep680;AttervAtkinson(1869)LR1 PandD665,andHartervHarter(1873)LR3PandD11,p.22,mayhavelaiddownarule thatwhereawillhasbeenreadbyatestator,thereisaconclusivepresumptionthatheknew andapprovedofitscontentsexceptinthecaseoffraud,laterdecisions,onwhichLatey,J, relies,qualifiedthisruleandextendedtheexceptiontoincludemistake

Testamentarycapacity

Testamentarycapacityaddresseswhetherapersoniscapableofmakingawill.The elementsoftestamentarycapacityassetoutinBanksvGoodfellow5arewellknown, requiringawillmakertounderstandtheactofmakingawill,theirassetsandtheextentof anyclaimsontheirestate.

Knowledgeandapprovaldealswithwhetherthewillmakerwascapableofactuallymaking thewillinquestion.However,clearlythewillmakermusthavetestamentarycapacityin ordertoknowandapproveofthecontentsofthewill.

Testamentarycapacityisusuallyassessedatthetimeofprovidinginstructionsforthewill. However,thereisadifferencebetweencapacityandintelligenceaclientmayhave capacitytomakedecisionsabouttheirwillbutmaynotcomprehendthesignificanceorhave clarityontheconsequencesoftheirinstructions.Soitispossiblethatapersonmay possesstestamentarycapacitybutnotbeabletounderstandandapproveofthecontentsof thewillprepared.

InPetrovskivNasev,EstateofJanakievska[2011]NSWSC1275,JusticeHallensaid-

"

Inadditiontoshowingthatthedeceasedhadtestamentarycapacity,Alek,asthe propounderofthe2004Will,mustalsoshowthatsheknewandapproveditscontents.This requirementisconceptuallydistinct,andseparate,fromtestamentarycapacity,andmustnot beconflatedwithit:HoffvAtherton[2005]WTLR99,108(perPeterGibsonLJ)and117 (perChadwickLJ);PerrinsvHolland[2009]EWHC1945at[45]perLewisonJ

ThedecisionofSullivanvGreig6alsohighlightedtherequirementforthecourttobe satisfie approvalofthedocument.

5 (1870)LR5QB549 6[2023]QSC97

Theseissuesbecomemorepronouncedinsituationswhereawillmakerhasmoderate capacity.

InHobhousevMacarthur-Onslow[2016]NSWSC1831,JusticeRobbhadtodecideonthe validityofanOctober2004WillwhichpurportedlyrevokedthatmadeinJuly1988.The relevantissuesfordeterminationbytheCourtweretestamentarycapacity,knowledgeand approvaland,ofultimatesignificance,severance.Therewasclearevidencethatthe deceasedsufferedasignificantlevelofcognitiveimpairmentbywayofdementiaofatleast volving corporateandtruststructures.

JusticeRobbstatedat[433]

testamentarycapacity,itmaynonethelessimpairtheabilityofthetestatortogive instructionsastohisorheractualtestamentaryintention,ortounderstandanyadvicegiven, ortounderstandwhetherthewordingofhisorherwillactuallyreflectstheintention.Evenin therbyreadingitor orinpart,doesnotcontaintherealintentionofthetestator

InPetrovskivNasev,EstateofJanakievska[2011]NSWSC1275,JusticeHallensetoutthe approachtodealingwithknowledgeandapprovalmatters:

Traditionally,atwostageapproachtotheevidencemaybeadoptedwhereknowledgeand approvalisinissue.Thefirststageistoaskwhetherthecircumstancesaresuchasto "excitesuspicion"onthepartofthecourt.Ifso,theburdenisonthepropounderofthewillto establishthatthedeceasedknewandapprovedthecontentsofthatwill.Ifthe circumstancesdonot"excitesuspicion",thenthecourtpresumesknowledgeandapprovalin thecaseofawillthathasbeendulyexecutedbythedeceasedwhohadtestamentary capacity.

Whenconsideringwhethercircumstancesthatexcitesuspicionexist,thecourtlooksata numberoffactorsincludingthecircumstancessurroundingthepreparationofthe propoundedwill;whetherabeneficiarywasinstrumentalinthepreparationofthe propoundedwill;theextentofthephysicalandmentalimpairment,ifany,ofthedeceased; whetherthewillinquestionconstitutesasignificantchangefromapriorwill;andwhetherthe propoundedwill,generally,seemstomaketestamentarysense.Suspicionengenderedby extraneouscircumstancesarisingsubsequenttotheexecutionofthepropoundedwillisnot areasonforrebuttingthepresumptionarisingfromthedueexecutionofawillregularonits face:InreR(dec'd[1950]2AllER117,at121.

7 ThompsonvBella-Lewis[1977]1QdR429,McPhersonJA

Itisimportanttounderstandthatsuspiciouscircumstancesdoesnotgosofarasundue influence,whichrequiresthepartytoprovecoercionandthatthewillwascontraryto intentionsBoycevBunce[2015]NSWSC1924

Eachcaseisdifferent,anditmaynotalwaysraiseasuspicion.Anon-exhaustivelistwhere acircumstancemayexcitethesuspicionofthecourtinclude

-wherethepersonbenefitingunderthewilldoesnotleaveacopyofitwiththetestator

-wherethepersonwhobenefitsunderthewillarranges,orrelaysinstructions,forits preparation

-whereapersonwhobenefitsundertheWillisinapositionofinfluenceoverthetestator

-

particularlywherethesolicitorwhopreparesthewillisknowntothepersonwhobenefits underit

-wherethedispositionsmadebythewillinvolveasubstantialandunexplaineddeparture fromtestamentaryintentionsthatthetestatorhadlongadheredtoinearlierwills

-whenmistakesappearinthewillincludingbutnotlimitedtospellingofnamesandthese mistakeswouldbeseentobeunlikelytobemadebyatestator

-wheretheexistenceofthewilliskeptsecret,eitherbythetestatorortheperson benefitingunderit

Ifthecircumstancesgiverisetoasuspicion,thenthepropounderofthewillmustestablish thatthewillmakerknewandapprovedofthecontentsofthewill. KnowledgeandApprovaldecisions

TobinvEzekiel8

Thefactsinthismatterwereasfollows:

LilyandAbrahamweremarried.AbrahampredeceasedLily.Theapplicationbroughtby2 oftheir4childrensoughtforthegrantofprobate,whichhadissuedincommonform,tobe revokedonthebasisthattherewerecircumstanceswhichraiseddoubtastowhetherLily hadknownandapprovedofthecontentsofthewillandastowhethershehadtestamentary capacity.

DraftwillswerepreparedandsenttoAbrahamandLilyundercoverofaletterdated19 November1997.ThetermsofLily'sWillwerestraightforwardandthepartiesacceptedthe willwasrationalonitsface.Thewillswereexecutedon10December1997inthepresence

home.MrWoolleygaveevidencethathereadoutloudAbraham'swillandthenLily'sWill. Hethengavethewillstoeachofthemandaskedthemtoreadthemover.MrWoolleyalso gaveanexplanationofwhatthewillssaid.MrWoolleyaskedLilyandAbrahamwhetherthey hadanyquestionsandwhetherthewillswere"okay",towhicheachrepliedinthe affirmative.AbrahamandLilythensignedthewillsandMrMusrieandMrWoolleysignedas witnesses.On16December1997MrWoolleysentsignedcopiesofthewillstoAbraham andLily.

8 [2012]NSWCA285

TheprimaryjudgewassatisfiedthatLilyknewandapprovedofthecontentsofthewill, statingat[110]and[111]:

However,Ihavealreadyexplainedwhy,inthecircumstancesofthiscase,theWillwasnot irrational,northechangeintestamentaryintentionremarkable,soastoarousesuspicion. AndithasnotbeenprovedthatthesonswereinvolvedingivinginstructionsfortheWill. Merelysourcingasolicitorandconveyingthetestatrixtothesolicitor'sofficedoesnotof itselfestablishgivinginstructionstothesolicitor,orreasontodoubtthatthecontentsofthe willaccordwiththetestator'sintention.

Moreover,thesonswereclearlynotpresentwhenMrWoolleyreadoverandexplainedthe mutualwillstoLilyandAbraham,andtheyinturnreadandexecutedthem,asMrMusrie confirmed.Absentanyquestionoffraud,thefactthatawillhasbeenreadovertoorbya capabletestatorisordinarilyconclusiveevidenceofknowledgeandapprovalofitscontents

ThePrimaryJudgeindeterminingthatLilyknewandapprovedthecontentsofthe willasoutlinedat[110]and[111]wereasfollows:

makingarrangementsandgivinginstructionsforthewill;and(2)thechangeinalong-settled intentionastodispositionoftheparents'estates.However,Ihavealreadyexplainedwhy,in thecircumstancesofthiscase,theWillwasnotirrational,northechangeintestamentary intentionremarkable,soastoarousesuspicion.Andithasnotbeenprovedthatthesons wereinvolvedingivinginstructionsfortheWill.Merelysourcingasolicitorandconveyingthe testatrixtothesolicitor'sofficedoesnotofitselfestablishgivinginstructionstothesolicitor, orreasontodoubtthatthecontentsofthewillaccordwiththetestator'sintention.

Moreover,thesonswereclearlynotpresentwhenMrWoolleyreadoverandexplainedthe mutualwillstoLilyandAbraham,andtheyinturnreadandexecutedthem,asMrMusrie confirmed.Absentanyquestionoffraud,thefactthatawillhasbeenreadovertoorbya capabletestatorisordinarilyconclusiveevidenceofknowledgeandapprovalofitscontents[ ReHodges,ShortervHodges,705;ReFenwick[1972]VR646,651-5;GregsonvTaylor [1917]P256,261;PublicTrusteevPermanentTrusteeCompanyLtd;EstateofRintoul,[4142]].

Thedecisionwasthenappealed.The anddismissedtheappealontheissueofknowledgeandapproval.Leavetoappealthe decisiontotheHighCourtwasrefused.

MeagherJAstatedat[47]asfollows:

testatorissaidtobe"themostsatisfactoryevidence"ofactualknowledgeofthecontentsof thewill:BarryvButlinat484;1091;GregsonvTaylor[1917]P256at261;ReFenwick [1972]VR646at652.Whatissufficienttodispeltherelevantdoubtorsuspicionwillvary withthecircumstancesofthecase;forexampleinWintlevNye[1959]1WLR284the relevantcircumstancesweredescribed(at291)asbeingsuchastoimpose"asheavya burdenascanbeimagined".Thosecircumstancesmayincludethementalacuityand sophisticationofthetestator,thecomplexityofthewillandtheestatebeingdisposedof,the exclusionornon-exclusionofpersonsnaturallyhavingaclaimuponthetestator,and whethertherehasbeenanopportunityinthepreparationandexecutionofthewillfor

reflectionandindependentadvice.Particularvigilanceisrequiredwhereapersonwho playedapartinthepreparationofthewilltakesasubstantialbenefitunderit.Inthose circumstancesitissaidthatsuchapersonhastheonusofshowingtherighteousnessofthe transaction:FultonvAndrewat472;TyrrellvPaintonat160.Thatrequiresthatitbe affirmativelyestablishedthatthetestatorknewthecontentsofthewillandappreciatedthe effectofwhatheorshewasdoingsothatitcanbesaidthatthewillcontainsthereal intentionandreflectsthetruewillofthetestator:TyrrellvPaintonat157,160;NockvAustin at523-524,528;FullervStrum[2001]EWCACiv1879;[2002]1WLR1097at[33];Dorev Billinghurst[2006]QCA494at[32],[42]

Inthiscontextthestatementsprescribing"vigilance"and"carefulscrutiny"andreferringto thecourtbeing"affirmativelysatisfied"astotestamentarycapacityandknowledgeand approvalarenottobeunderstoodasrequiringanymorethanthesatisfactionofthe conventionalcivilstandardofproof:seeWorthvClasohmat453.Whatsuchstatementsdo isemphasisethatthecogencyoftheevidencenecessarytodischargethatburdenwill dependonthecircumstancesofeachcaseandinparticularthesourceandnatureofany doubtorsuspicioninrelationtoeitherofthesematters:KantorvVosahloat[22],[58];Dorev Billinghurstat[44].Theyalsorecognisethatdecidingwhetheradocumentisindeeda person'slastwillisaseriousmatter,soanydecisionaboutwhetherthecivilstandardof proofissatisfiedshouldbeapproachedinaccordancewithBriginshawvBriginshaw[1938]

Thecourtstatedat[67]:

Inthelightofthisevidence,theprimaryjudgedidnoterrinconcludingthatanydoubtasto whethertheinstrumentexpressedLily'strueintentionwasremovedbythecircumstancesin whichtheWillwasreceivedandexecuted.Beforeitwassigned,LilyhadadraftoftheWill foraboutthreeweeks.Itwasreadoutaloud,thenapparentlyreadbyheranditseffectwas explained.Therewasthenanopportunitytoaskquestions.Lilyorallyacknowledgedthatits contentswere"okay"andthensignedtheWill.AlbertandMorriswerenotpresentduring thisprocessandLily'searliertelephonecalltoMrMusrieindicatedthatsheunderstoodthat shewastosignawillonthatday.

LewisvLewis.9

LeemingJAoftheNewSouthWalesCourtofAppealstatedattheoutsettheissuestobe decidedinthismatteras:

aresuspiciouscircumstances?Isitsufficienttoshowthatthetestatorknewandapproved thecontentsofthewill,ormayitbenecessarytodemonstrateknowledgeandapprovalofits effect?

Therelevantfactsofthatdecisionwereasfollows:

PamelaLewisdiedin2017leavingasherlastwill,aWilldated19December2014withtwo codicilsmadein2015.4sonsand7grandchildrensurvivedher

Herearlierwillwasdated22June2011with4codicils

9 [2021]NSWCA168

sonDavidtransferredassetsheldinthefamilycompanytovariousintervivostrusts,asa resultoftaxationadvice.

Onceherson,Peter,foundoutaboutthis,hecommencedproceedingsagainstPamelaand hercompaniestorecoverassetswhichsheandhersonDavidhadtransferredintonewtrust structures.

foursons,withasharetobe dividedequallybetweenthegrandchildren;

(b)theydealtwithcertainfundswhichhadbeengiventothesonswhichhadbeen treatedasadvancesonatestamentarybequest,and

(c)thefourthcodicilandtheclausesofthe2014willanditscodicilswhichwerenot admittedtoprobateconferredpoweronDavidtocontrolthetrusteesofthetrusts, includingwidediscretionarypowerstoaltertheotherwiseequaldistributiononthebasis ofdamagessufferedorexpensesincurredbyreasonofthelitigationwhichhad culminatedintheappointmentoftheliquidatorandthefindingsofconstructivetrust.

Theclausesdirectedtothetrustswerelengthyandcomplicated,unliketheothertermsof thewillandcodicils.Theseclauseshadappearedinthefourthcodiciltothe2011will,but wereelaborateduponinthe2014and2015documents.

Peterpropoundedthe2011willandthreeofitscodicils

Davidpropounded2014willanditscodicils

Thetrialjudgefoundprovisionsinthelaterwillandcodicilshadinsubstancebeendrafted byDavid

TrialjudgefoundthatPamelahadtestamentarycapacitybuthadnotbeenshowntohave knownandapprovedtheclausesofthe2014willanditscodicilswhichconferredpowerson David

TheprimaryjudgewasnotsatisfiedthatPamelaknewandapprovedofthedeletedclauses inthe2014willanditssecondcodicilasaresultof:

(a)theabsenceofadmissibleevidenceconcerningPamela'sinstructions

(b)theverbalandlegalcomplexityofthoseclauses,and

(c)theabsenceofanyexplanationoftheeffectofthoseclausesbyMrRickard, notwithstandingthattheywerereadoutloudtoher.

Themainissuesintheappealwere:

Whetherthe2014willhadbeenreadoutloadtoPamelawhothenexecutedit;

Whether,ifso,theprimaryJudgehaderredinfailingtofindthatshehadknownand approvedofthecontentsofthewill;

WhethertheprimaryJudgehaderredinseveringthe2014andoneofthecodicils.

Davidappealedonthefollowinggrounds:

(1)HecontendedforafindingoffactthatthesolicitorMrRickardhadreadtheentiretyof eachtestamentaryinstrumenttoPamelawhohadindicatedherapprovalbeforeexecution.

(2)Hesubmittedthattheknowledgeandapprovalrequirementwastherebysatisfied,it beingsufficientforthetestatortohaveknowledgeofandtoapprovethecontentsofthewill, itbeingnopartofthetestthatthetestatorhadknowledgeofitslegaleffect,atleastin circumstanceswherethetestatorhaddelegatedthetaskofdraftingherwilltoanother.

(3)Hesubmittedthattheprimaryjudgehaderredinseveringcl12-25fromthe2014will, andthemajorityoftheclausesofthesecondcodicil,whichcouldnotoperateindependently ofthebalanceofthewill.

Thecourtofappealnoted

ThesolicitorwhoactedforDavid,MrJohnRickard, whoprovidedthevarioustestamentaryinstrumentsexecutedbythedeceasedandwho properpracticewhen hecausedhis89-year-oldandvision-impairedclienttoexecutedocumentswhichinlarge

Davidsoughttorelyonanassertionthatassentingtoatestamentaryinstrumentafteritwas readtothetestatorissufficienttosatisfytheknowledgeandapprovalrequirement,evenina draftingthewilltoanother.

Thecourtfoundthattheinstructionsforthepreparationofthe2014willandcodicilscame fromDavid,thesonwhostoodtobenefitandthisgaverisetosuspiciouscircumstances enlivening testamentary capacityandknewandapprovedofthecontentsofthewill.

thatIdonotacceptthatacapabletestatorwhosewillisreadout loudtohimorherandwhothenexecutesitistakentohaveknownandapprovedofit

LeemingJAconsideredthatwhileitmaynotbethecaseineverycircumstance,knowledge andapprovalmayinevitablyrequirethewillmakertounderstandtheeffectofthewill.

Itisnotthelawthatavalidtestamentarydispositioniseffectedbyacapabletestator acceptingwhatisputforwardbyanother,ifthetestatordoesnothimselforherself understanditsgeneraltenor.Theremaybeexceptionstothatrule,butthatdoesnotdetract fromtherule.Ofcourseinmostcasesknowledgeandapprovalwillbepresumed,butinthe casesofpresentrelevance,wherethepropounderneedstoestablishknowledgeand approval,whyevershouldanexceptionderivingfromthehistoricallimitationsofthepower ofaprobatecourttorectifymistakesgiverisetoanevidentiarytrumpenablingmere knowledgeandapprovalofthecontentsofawilltodischargetheburdenofproofinevery caseofsuspiciouscircumstances,howeverslightorgravethoughthosecircumstancesbe?

ThusareviewofthedecisionsbothpriorandsubsequenttoTobinvEzekieldisclosesno soundbasistodepartfromthestatementthatincaseswhereapersonwhoplaysapartin thepreparationofawillandtakesasubstantialbenefittoexcludethepossibilitythatitmay benecessary,inordertoestabli

thecontentsofthewillandappreciatedtheeffectofwhatheorshewasdoingsothatitcan onlyqualificationwhichIwouldadd,andIdosoonlyoutofanabundanceofcaution,isthat willdependonthedegreetowhichthecircumstancesaresuspicious,thesophisticationof

thetestator,thecomplexityofthewillandtheotherfactsofthecase.ButIcannotaccept isinvariablysufficienttodischargetheonusapropounderbearsinsuchacase.

Nothingintheforegoingrequiresapreciselegalunderstandingofthewill.Indeed,Ivery notadmittedtoprobatehadapreciselegalunderstandingofallaspectsofwhatwas involved.Itwillbesufficientifthetestatorisshowntoknowandapprovethegravamenofthe will.Inthepresentcase,whatwasinvolvedwasanappreciationthattheestablishmentof thevarioustrust

upbyherandGeoffrey,thatthedistributionofthoseassetsturnedondecisionsmadebythe trustee,thatherwillgaveDavidthecontrolofthetrustee,andthatitwasopentohiminthe exerciseofthepowersofthetrusteetoensurethathisbrothersreceivednoneofthe propertyheldontrusttherebydepartingfromherconsistentlymaintainedintentionforthem toshareequally.Thatis,essentially,whattheprimaryjudgeheldat[420]and[421]Pamela didnotappreciate10

SullivanvGreig11

Thefactsofthismatterwereasfollows:

Theapplicantwasthedaughter,andonlychildofthedeceased,JanitaRoseSullivan.The deceaseddiedon16November2021.

Underawilldated15November2021thedeceasedappointedherfriend,Val,the respondentas

TheapplicantchallengedtheWillontwobases:

(b)thedeceasedlackedtestamentarycapacityatthetimetheWillwasexecuted.

Althoughtheissueofknowledgeanapprovalwasancillary,itisinterestingtonotehowthat issuecanbecomeintertwinedwiththeissueoftestamentarycapacity.

Thedeceasedwassufferingfrommetastaticcancer,whichhadspreadtoatumouronher brainandtherewasevidenceofneurologicaldeficienciesandgeneralconfusionin November2021.

Thedeceasedwastoldshehadlessthanamonthtolive.Shehadbeensayingtoher friend,MsSaundersforoveramonththatsheneededtoputawillinplace,but unfortunately,anurgentappointmentcouldnotbemadewiththelocalsolicitorsorthePublic Trustee,asbothhadwaitingtimes.MsSaundersthenarrangedtobuyawillkitandthe evidencewasthatsheandthedeceasedreadittogetherandthedeceasedtoldherthatshe wantedtherespondenttobethesoleexecutorandbeneficiary.Thewillwasnotcompleted atthattime.Thedeceasedhadastrokeon13Novemberandwassubsequentlyinhospital

andaskedMsSaunderstopickupthewillandbringittoher,givingclearinstructionsasto wheretofindthewill.MsSaunderscompletedthewill,some10daysaftertheinitial discussion,basedonherrecollectionoftheconversationswiththedeceased.Shealso

animals.ThewillwassignedbythedeceasedthefollowingdaywhenMsSaundersbrought ittothehospital.

MsSaundersgaveevidenceasfollows:

(cremation)andbodyorgandonations(no)

MsBu tothedeceased.MsBurkefurthergaveevidencethat:

listentowhat[MsSaunders]

MsBurkegaveevidencethatMsSaundersgavethedeceasedapenandthatthedeceased signedtheinstructionsabouttheanimalsfirstandthentheWill.MsSaundersandMsBurke thensignedbothdocumentsaswitnesses.MsBurkegaveevidencethatthedeceased seemedrelievedwhenthewillwassigned.

FollowingthesigningoftheWill,MsSaundersretainedtheoriginaloftheWillandthe originaloftheanimalinstructionssotheywouldnotbelost.

TheCourtnotedthatinadditiontobeingsatisfiedofbothdueexecutionandcapacityofthe deceased,itmustalsobesatisfiedthatthedeceasedknewandapprovedofthecontentsof thewill.

TheCourtwassatisfiedofthisbecause:

(a) expressedtoMsSaunderspriorto15November2021;

(b)beforesigningtheWill,thedeceasedrepeatedthatshewantedtherespondenttobe herexecutorandbeneficiary,whichwaswhattheWillprovided;and

(c)thedeceasedsignedtheWillafteritwasreadtoher.

Summary

Itappearsfromthedecisions,thatinsomecircumstancesknowledgeandapprovalofthe contentsofthewillmightbesufficienttodischargetheburdenofproof,whereasinothers, knowledgeandapprovaloftheeffectofthetermsofthewill,willberequired.

Thiswilldependonthetypeofclientyouhaveandthelevelofvulnerabilityandcomplexity ofthewillitself.Itmaynotbeenoughtomerelyreadthewilltothewillmakertosatisfythe knowledgeandapprovalrequirement.

Consequencesoffailuretoproveknowledgeandapproval,includingwillinvalidity andseverance

Ifthecourtisnotsatisfiedthatthewillmakerfullyknewandapprovedofthetermsofthewill, thenthewillcannotbepropoundedandanypreviouswillmaytakeeffectorintestacywill follow.

Acourtcanalsodeterminethatonlypartsofthewillareinvalidandcanmakeanorder severingjustthepartofthewillwhichthecourtdetermineswasnotmadewiththefull knowledgeandapprovalofthewillmaker.ThiswasthecaseinLewisvLewis.12,wherethe courtheldthatwhilethewillmakeknewandapprovedofpartsofthewillandcodicils,there wereprovisionswhichthecourtwasnotsatisfiedsheknewandapprovedof.

Practicaltipstoassistinaddressingknowledgeandapproval

Understandingtheissueswhichariseintheconsiderationofthecourtsinthesematterscan helpinformushowtoaddressthesemattersupfront,whentakinginstructionsanddrafting willsforourclients.

Ihavesummarisedbelowsomepointswhichhavebeendrawnfromtheauthorities.

Knowyourclientandtheirlevelofunderstandingandthentailorthedocumentsandyour discussionsaccordingly.

WhereEnglishissecondorsubsequentlanguage,thenensuretheclientis capableofreadingandunderstandingthewillandifnecessary,arrangeatranslator.

Removelegalesetermswherepossible.

However,rememberthattermsthatweaslawyersconsidercommon,arenotfamiliarto manypeople,eventhosewithextensiveeducationorbusinessandcommercialexperience. So,trytousetermsandphrasesthatcanbecommonlyunderstood.Discretionary testamentarytrustscanprovidearealchallenge.Particularlywherethetermsarelongand complex.However,inmyviewitmaynotbenecessaryforthewillmakertounderstand everyprovisionofthetrust,butclearlytheymustunderstandtheconceptofthetrust,the controlmechanisms,whobenefitsandthereasonforthecreatingthetrust.

Meetwiththeclientpersonallyandpreferablyaloneatleastonce.

Takethetimetogothroughthewillandreaditwiththeclient,explainingtheprovisionsas yougo.Asktheclienttoclarifytherelevanttermswhereappropriate.

Keepdetailedfilenotesshowingthestepstakentosatisfyyourselfthattheclient understandsthetermsofthewill.Recordanyparticulardiscussionsaroundpartsofthewill todemonstratetheclientdidunderstandtheeffectofthoseclausesandimportantlythe overallmeaningandeffectofthewill.

Bealertwherethewillmakerhasprovidedinstructionsthroughorinthepresenceofanother party,orwherethenewwillisasignificantdeparturefromearlierwillsparticularlyin

12 [2021]NSWCA168

circumstanceswherethechangeissubstantiallyinfavourofthepersonwhoisorchestrating thetransaction

Bewareofredflags:

-Capacitylevelmedicationlevels,diagnosis

-Agedpersonsbutbecarefulnottodiscriminatebasedonage.

-Livingarrangementsaretheyincareandifsowhatlevelofsupportaretheyreceiving?

-Familydynamicstrytounderstandasbestyoucantheclientsrelationshipwiththe beneficiariesandfamilymembers

afraidtohavemultipleappointmentsandphonecallswiththeclienttosatisfyyourselfthat theclientdoesunderstandthecontentsandeffectofthewillandimportantlyisproviding instructionsfreefrominfluence.

Wherecapacitytomakeawillispotentiallyindoubt,takeparticularcaretogain reasonableassuranceastothetestamentarycapacityoftheclient.13Obtainadvicefromthe justifiedbythecircumstances.

Afailuretotakereasonableprecautionsandmaintainrecordscouldresultincriticismshould thewillbequestionedandacourtrequiredtomakeadeterminationofissuesrelatingtoits validity.14Ifcontemporaneousfilenotescannotbeprovidedtothecourt,itdeprivesthe courtofthebenefitofthoserecordswhicharecriticalinassistingthedetermineissuesof testamentarycapacityandknowledgeandapproval.

Further,itisimperativethatyouclearlyidentifyyourclientandtakeallappropriate precautionstoensureyouunderstandtheclientswishesandputthemintoeffectina mannerinwhichtheyunderstandandcanapprove.

IacknowledgetheassistanceofmycolleagueClaraBoddiceinthepreparationofthispaper.

Session 3

Lawyers as Executors: Lessons from Recent Cases

Carolyn Sparke KC, Barrister, Svenson Barristers, Owen Dixon Chambers

Session materials:

Slides

Paper

ChatGPT and The Future of AI in the Legal Industry

Sam Nickless, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin

Francesca Beattie, Deputy Executive Officer, Law Society of Tasmania

Session materials:

Summary

Slides

Gen AI and ChatGPT: Staying Ahead and Unlocking Opportunities in Wills, Estates, and Succession Law

Session Overview:

In this dynamic seminar we will delve into the world of Generative AI and ChatGPT, explore the transformative potential of AI technology in the legal profession, and discuss why it is crucial for lawyers to stay ahead of the curve

The session will provide practical guidance on using ChatGPT, and insights into the current and evolving state of AI in the law, offering valuable perspectives on the future of AI in the legal services industry

Showcasing different appetites and implementations in Australia and beyond, this session will culminate in a candid conversation with the CEO of Gilbert & Tobin on perspectives gained from his firm’s AI journey and the future of business-in-the-law

Session Outline:

1. Introduction: Generative AI and ChatGPT

• A Brief overview of Gen AI including ChatGPT

• AI and the legal industry – the four important questions you need to ask yourself, now

2.A Drive Behind the Wheel

• How to create a ChatGPT account and get started with the platform.

• Demonstrations of ChatGPT capabilities (with all relevant caveats) – current and potential future uses in private and professional lives, including examples relevant to Wills, Estates, and Succession Law

• Practical tips on engineering effective prompts to elicit the most useful responses.

• Ethical and regulatory considerations related to AI implementation (light touch, as our afternoon ethics seminar will take a deeper dive)

3.Navigating an Evolving Legal Landscape - The Importance of Staying Ahead in this New AI Era

• Why it is critical for all legal practices to ensure they adopt an informed and proactive approach, to remain competitive and relevant in a rapidly evolving industry landscape.

• Opportunity calls – how to embrace AI as a catalyst for positive change in your legal practice.

• Potential consequences of failing to adapt to AI advancements, including challenges and missed opportunities. Opportunity and risk management vs denial – the matrix that all legal practices will, as businesses, need to consider.

• Valuable strategies for staying informed and proactive in navigating the evolving legal landscape, ensuring we do not get left behind in the wake of competition

4.Showcase Time

• Firms that are already incorporating ChatGPT into their operations and legal practices and what they have to say - resulting benefits and challenges.

• Other experiments around the world.

• Risks that are materialising and legal actions on foot.

4. In the Spotlight

In an interview we will invite Gilbert & Tobin’s CEO Sam Nickless to share his insights and perspectives on:

• The current state of AI adoption in the legal industry; the potential for scalability and integration of AI-powered tools in the legal industry; AI advancements on the horizon; and the future of business-in-the-law

• The Gilbert & Tobin Journey – Incorporating ChatGPT - success stories and lessons learned from the implementation process

Audience Q&A

At the conclusion of this seminar the audience will be invited to ask questions, share experiences and express any concerns related to AI adoption and its implications for their practice.

“AI will not replace you, but the person using AI will”

BRAVENEWWORLD GENERATIVEAI

IMPACTONTHEFUTUREOFLEGALPRACTICE

CONFERENCEPAPERNOTES

ESLAudience:

Thefollowingslidesareanextendedsessionresource andwillnotbereferencedintheirentiretyduringthis AIsegmentoftheconferencetheyareincludedfor yourinformationandasageneralreferencetool only.

FrancescaBeattie,LawSocietyofTasmania

Predictions:

NEXTREVOLUTION?

AIsettoreplacemorethan40%ofalllegaltasks

RecenttechnologicaladvancesinAIwillhavea biggerimpactthanthechangesintroducedbythe internet

NEXTREVOLUTION?

PredictionsContinued:

difference.Mosttechnologicalinnovationstendtoaffectmanual ultimatelyimpactsknowledgeworkers,thewhite-collarworkingclass.

Asignificantportionoflegalserviceswillbecomecommoditised. Anexcitingperiodforlawyersandthelegalindustryasawholeso longasweremainaheadofthecurveball.

WHATAUSTRALIANFIRMSARESAYING

notreplacetraditionallawyers,thosetech-savvylawyerswhoknowhowtousethem HilaryGoodier,coSamNickless,ChiefExecutiveOfficeratGilbert+Tobin

AustralianFinancialReview,February9,2023

WHATAUSTRALIANFIRMSARESAYING

considerusingChatGPTaspartofourobligationtoactinthebestinterestsofour GenevieveCollins,chiefexecutivepartneratLander&Rogers

AustralianFinancialReview,February9,2023

LEGALSERVICESTOBECOMECOMMODITISED?

ProfessorRichardSusskindOBE-PresidentoftheSocietyforComputersand Lawand,since1998,hasbeenTechnologyAdvisertotheLordChiefJustice ofEnglandandWales.

legalservices.Hisbooksinclude:

TheFutureofLaw;

TheEndofLawyers?RethinkingtheNatureofLegalServices;and Tomorrow'sLawyers(2023)recommendedreading)

currentsituationandwhatitmeansforthefutureoflawyers,thebusiness oflaw,andhowweprovideourlegalservices?

FOURQUESTIONS

Requiringearlycriticalthought

1.Whereareweupto-whatarethecurrentemergingGenAI capabilitiesandwhatishappening,realtime,inthelegalindustry?

2.Wherewillthelegalindustrybein5years?

3.Wherewillmyfirm/department/legalpracticebein5years?

4.WherewillIbein5years?

BACKTOBASICS:WHATISAI?

ArtificialIntelligence(AI)

AIisaconceptofbuildingamachinecapableofthinking, acting,andlearninglikehumans.

WHATISGENAI?

GenerativeAI(GenAI)

GenAIdescribesalgorithms(suchasChatGPT)thatcanbeusedto createnewandoriginalcontent,includingaudio,code,images,text, simulations,andvideos.

Recentbreakthroughsinthefieldhavethepotentialtodrastically changethewayweapproachcontentcreation.

POWERFULRECENTBREAKTHROUGHS

AINOWBUILTTOSIMULATETHELEARNINGPROCESS OFTHEHUMANBRAIN

GenerativeAItypicallyinvolvesusingdeeplearningalgorithms thataretrainedonlargedatasetsofdata/existingcontent.

Deeplearningmachinelearningthatnowuseslayersof artificialneuralnetworkstomimicthelearningprocessofthe humanbrain.

POWERFULRECENTBREAKTHROUGHS

AINOWBUILTTOSIMULATETHELEARNINGPROCESS OFTHEHUMANBRAIN

Newandoriginalcontentidentifiespatternsandstructures withinthetrainingdata,learnsandmakespredictions.

Leadstonewandoriginalcontent,aswellasnewand originalideasandsolutions.Capableofcreatingitsown algorithms.

CHATGPT

GenAI;appbuiltbyOpenAI

Currentmodels-GPT3andGPT4

MostpopularLargeLanguageModels(LLMs)

Othercompetitors

Whatcanitdo?

WHEREISGPTUPTO?

LatestVersionofChatGPTacesbarexamwithscorenearing90thpercentile https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/latest-version-of-chatgpt-acesthe-bar-exam-with-score-in-90th-percentile

DifficultexamsGPT-4haspassedsofar: https://www.businessinsider.com/list-here-are-the-exams-chatgpt-haspassed-so-far-2023-1

SampleAustralianexperience:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/i-gave-chatgpt-4-spec-accred-family-lawexam-harry-mcdonald

WHEREISAIHEADEDINTHENEXT5YEARS?

SOMEOFTHELEGALSERVICESEXPECTED TOBECOMECOMMODITISED

Somelegalservicesthatcouldbemorewidelycommoditisedby2030 (likelymuchearlier)include:

1.ContractReviewandDrafting:AI-poweredlanguagemodelscan helpautomatethereviewanddraftingofstandardcontractsandother legalinstruments,identifyingpotentialissuesandsuggestingclauses basedonpredefinedcriteria.

2.LegalResearch:AIsystemscanassistlegalprofessionalsin conductingextensivelegalresearch,rapidlyretrievingrelevantcase law,statutes,andlegalprecedentstosupportlegalarguments.

SOMEOFTHELEGALSERVICESEXPECTED TOBECOMECOMMODITISED

3.DueDiligence:AIcanstreamlineduediligenceprocessesbyanalysinglarge volumesofdata,extractingrelevantinformation,andidentifyingpotentialrisks oranomaliesincontractsoragreements.

4.DocumentAutomation:AI-basedtoolscanautomatethecreationoflegal documents,suchaswills,trusts,andotherroutinelegalforms.

SOMEOFTHELEGALSERVICESEXPECTED TOBECOMECOMMODITISED

5.ComplianceandRegulatoryAnalysis:AIcanassistinmonitoringchangesin lawsandregulations,ensuringcompliancewithevolvinglegalrequirements.

6.LegalAnalytics:AI-poweredanalyticscanprovideinsightsintocase outcomes,judgebehaviour,andlitigationtrends,helpinglawyersmake informeddecisions.

Morepowerfully,oncehousedinasecureenvironment,youwillbeableto leverageoffyourowncaptureddata(clients,cases,variables)andobtain summaries,andstructuredandinnovativeinputonassessmentsandadvice.

WHEREWILLMYFIRM,DEPARTMENTOR ORGANISATIONBEIN5-10YEARS?

TherapiddevelopmentofAI-driventoolsoffers lawpracticesahostofopportunitiesforbringingnewlevels ofefficiencytooperations.

Foodforthought:towhatextentwillyourbusinessand/or practiceneedtoreinventitselftomeet expectationsandremaincompetitive?

WHEREWILLIBEIN5YEARS?

AIwillnotreplaceyou,but thepersonusingAIwill

LIKELYMOSTPOPULARMODELS

Opensource(largerfirms)

Smallertomediumsizedpractices:Productlicensingindustry-specificproducts/packagesthatyouwillpaya

withtheuploadofyourownconfidentialdata(data securelyhousedwithinpractice)totrustjustasyoucurrently trustOutlook,Office365,Leap,Affinity,etc.

Inthemeantimestartcleaningyourdataandgettingit readyasap

OTHERTOPICSFORDISCUSSION ANDQ&A(TIMEPERMITTING)

Plagiarism-isAIcontentplagiarismfree?

CouldLegalProfessionalPrivilegebewaived?Third partyproviderconsiderations

Rethinkinglegalservicesinprivatepracticeand otherpartsoftheindustry

Usesinlawschool

Regulation

WHATDOESGPTITSELFHAVETOSAY ABOUTALLTHIS?

GPT3.5:

RETHINKINGLEGALSERVICESIN PRIVATEPRACTICE

AsAIbecomesmoreprevalentinthelegalindustry,firmswillindeed needtorethinktheirservicesandpricingstrategiestoremain competitiveandadapttochangingclientexpectations.Removingthe billablehourcanbeatransformativesteptoenhanceclient satisfaction,fosterinnovation,andprovidemoretransparentand predictablepricing.

RETHINKINGLEGALSERVICESIN PRIVATEPRACTICE

Herearesomeproductideasandpricingstrategiesthatfirmscan consider:

Fixed-FeeServices:Offerfixed-feepackagesforspecificlegalservicesorcommon legalmatters.Clientswillappreciatetheclarityofupfrontpricing,whichreduces uncertaintyandpromotestrust.

Subscription-BasedServices:Introducesubscription-basedmodelsthatprovide clientswithongoingaccesstolegaladviceandservicesforasetmonthlyorannual fee.Thisapproachcanbeespeciallyattractivetobusinesseswithongoinglegal needs.

Outcome-BasedPricing:Alignpricingwiththeresultsachievedfortheclient.Firms cannegotiateafeestructurebasedonsuccessfuloutcomesormilestones, incentivisingbothpartiestoworkcollaborativelytowardtheirsharedgoals

RETHINKINGLEGALSERVICESIN PRIVATEPRACTICE

Value-BasedPricing:Determinefeesbasedontheperceived valueoftheservicetotheclientratherthanthetimespent. Thisapproachrewardsefficiencyandinnovation, encouragingfirmstofindinnovativesolutionsthatdeliver tangiblevaluetoclients.

ProductisedLegalServices:Packagelegalservicesinto standardised,ready-to-useproducts.Forexample,creating templateagreements,legaldocuments,orcompliance packagesthatclientscanpurchaseonline.[Ormoreholistic carefordiscussion]

RETHINKINGLEGALSERVICESIN PRIVATEPRACTICE

AI-PoweredSelf-ServicePlatforms:DevelopAI-driven platformsthatempowerclientstohandleroutinelegal tasksthemselves.Thisnotonlyreducescostsbutalso providesconvenienceandcontroltoclients.

MembershipPrograms:Offertieredmembership programswhereclientspayamonthlyorannualfeeto accessvariouslegalresources,advice,andservices.

RETHINKINGLEGALSERVICESIN PRIVATEPRACTICE

LegalTechConsulting:Provideconsultingservicestoclientsonhowto leveragelegaltechnologyandAItoolseffectively,helpingthemoptimise theirownlegalprocesses.

TransparentCostEstimation:Providedetailedandtransparentcost estimatesforvariouslegalmatters,givingclientsaclearerunderstandingof potentialexpenses.

RETHINKINGLEGALSERVICESIN PRIVATEPRACTICE

Itiscrucialforfirmstoproactivelycommunicatenewpricingstrategiestoclients, emphasisingthebenefitsofpredictability,transparency,andvalue-addedservices.

Additionally,engaginginongoingfeedbackwithclientswillbeinstrumentalinfinetuningthesenewapproachestomeetevolvingmarketdemands.

ByembracinginnovativepricingmodelsandleveragingAItechnologieseffectively, firmscanpositionthemselvesasforward-thinkingandclient-centricleadersinthe

GETTINGSTARTEDINYOUR FIRM/ORGANISATION

Considerfirm/organisationguidelinesandanenterprise-widestrategyonthe adoption+clearframework(maybephased)

Introductionandtraining

Staffonboarding/teambuilding:Identifyingusercases

Collaborationandfeedback

DataSecurityMeasures

ComplianceandEthicalConsiderations

AccessandPermissions

Updatesandmonitoring

DEPARTMENTORORGANISATION

1.LegalResearchAssistance:IntroduceChatGPTasatooltoassistlawyersin legalresearchbygeneratinginitialcaselawsummariesorsummarising lengthydocuments.

2.DocumentProofreading:UseChatGPTtoproofreaddocumentsandidentify potentialerrorsorinconsistencies(stayingwithinfirmpracticeguidelinesand

infrastructureputinplace).

3.ClientFAQs:CreateaChatGPT-basedsystemtoanswercommonclient questions,providingquickandaccurateresponses.

DEPARTMENTORORGANISATION

4.DraftingAssistance:EmployChatGPTtoassistindraftingroutinelegal documents,suchascontractsoragreements.

5.OngoingMonitoringandImprovement:

ContinuouslyassesstheeffectivenessandsecurityofusingChatGPTinthefirm. Stayinformedaboutupdatesandimprovementsinthetechnologytoensure optimaluseandsecurity.

Whichcampareyouin?Oneorboth(ifany)?

Automationanxiety vs AugmentationAspiration itwillaugmentmy capabilities,freeupmytimeandimprovethequalityofmyservices)

LASTWORD

RememberthatwhileChatGPTisapowerfultool,itisnotasubstituteforlegal expertise(fortheimmediateforeseeablefuture).Lawyersshouldalwaysexercise professionaljudgmentandreviewoutputsgeneratedbyAItoolstoensureaccuracy andcompliancewithlegalstandards.

Byadoptingacautiousandthoughtfulapproach,yourfirmcanembracethebenefits ofAItechnologywhileupholdingclienttrustanddatasecurity.

Tip:Inthenextthreemonthsgetyourinternalrulesandguidelinesinplace,together withastrategyandroadmap.Forthosefirmsalreadycapturingelectronicallytheir clientdataaswellaselectronicallyconvertingpaperfiles:startcleaningyourdata/ startdigitallycapturingyourcurrentand historicaldataandensureyoudoitinabroadlyuseableway.Investinknowledge,IT andonboarding.

Session 4 - Sam Nickless, Gilbert+ Tobin

DIFFERENT WAYS OF ACCESSING THE POWER OF LLM

Session 4 - Sam Nickless, Gilbert+ Tobin

Follow-up prompts

The Intersection of Family Law and Succession Law

Mary Anne Ryan, Barrister, Derwent & Tamar Chambers

Christine Smyth, Christine Smyth Estate Lawyers

Session materials: A suite of materials including articles See link here.

Slido Q&A platform

1. Scan the QR code or

2. Click here or

3. Head to slido

Access code #9

Lawyers are better than AI …and we need to tell clients why We need to differentiate:

estate planning is more than just a will don’t go cheap on the biggest transaction of your life – AI only knows what is free security issues capacity AI might be eating itself often don’t know how AI works

Legal Ethics and The Use of AI/ChatGPT in the Context of Practising in Elder and Succession Law

Shane Budden, Special Counsel, Ethics, Queensland Law Society

Session materials: Case studies

Case Study 1

Kay Pubble is a solicitor acting for Oncler enterprises, who are being prosecuted by Mordor Shire Council. The council alleges that Oncler’s factories have released pollution into the lakes which has breached environmental legislation.

Kay is reviewing the file and finds a photocopy of a report from Oncler’s environment manager, Con Tempt, that seems to support this, identifying the poor condition of the lakes, and noting “the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume”.

Kay asks Con if they have the original, and he explains that he sent it while working from home and will check his records. The next day he produces a copy of the report with the same date and details, but a more professional tone and a more favourable view of the lake’s health. He explains that the hard copy May found was his draft, and that he was being a bit silly with it.

May notes that several paragraphs of the report are in a different font, and Con explains that his home computer is pretty old and sometimes switches fonts and will not allow him to change. He also says that because of this, he had junked the old machine.

Case Study 2

Brad Band is a tech-savvy lawyer who has set up a firm which makes heavy use of technology.

Although his background is conveyancing, he is keen to break into other areas and sees technology as the way todo that. He purchases alicence for an AI-based product a called ‘Plug-in planning’ which claims to provide bespoke planning advice in response to typed questions, and answers to follow-up questions.

Brad begins using the software and adds ‘Estate Planning’ to the list of services he provides.

A few weeks later Brad receives a letter from lawyers representing several law firms and software companies, claiming that Plug-in Planning was trained using content created by its clients, and that the clients are now suing Plug-in Planning's developers.

The letter also states that using the software will violate their clients’ rights and action will be taken against Brad.

Case Study 3

Arty Ficial is a very clever young lawyer who has started work at an established wills and estates firm. Arty has only been admitted for three years, but worked for a tech start-up while he was studying and is very proficient in coding and software development.

He has developed a piece of software which will create draft wills based on text input, and has put the software on his work laptop; it links to his personal ChatGPT account.

Arty is tasked with doing a will for Chip Skate, one of the firm’s more difficult clients. Arty decides to show off, and creates the will using the software right in front of Chip, who is very impressed.

A week later Arty’s boss tells him Chip complained about the bill as Chip doesn’t see why he should be charged $2000 for something that took less than 15 minutes to complete. Arty’s boss also wants to know how the software works, and why the resultant will is quite different from the ones the firm creates using its own templates.

Arty says he developed the software using several precedents, including those from his prior firms and some he found on the internet. He also says that it is not really possible to know exactly how the software created the will.

Case Study 4

Penny Pincher has attended Bill Shock Lawyers on the premise of having a will done, but when she gets to Bill’s office she shows him an already-prepared will. She advises him that she had the will doneby a service she found on the internet called ‘The Will Mill’. The blurb on the website makes some reference to the service having been “envisioned and realised” by expert lawyers, and powered by top-flight AI.

Penny notes that her neighbour put her on to the website and it cost only $100; it has been signed and witnessed and she simply wants Bill to put it in safe custody for her. Bill has a quick look at the will and has some immediate concerns, and including that Penny’s neighbour is a beneficiary, and suggests that she have a proper will done.

“Why would I spend all that money?” says Penny. “What difference would that make?”