The executrix has reported to my wife that the lawyer the executrix
has engaged (the same lawyer who drew up the decedent's will) claims
that he, the laywer, is entitled under PA statute to some minimum
percentage of the estate.

That sounds totally and completely bogus to me.

The executrix has reported to my wife that the lawyer the executrix
has engaged (the same lawyer who drew up the decedent's will) claims
that he, the laywer, is entitled under PA statute to some minimum
percentage of the estate.
Rich Carreiro  

That sounds totally and completely bogus to me.
[snip]
Rich Carreiro

The executrix has reported to my wife that the lawyer the executrix
has engaged (the same lawyer who drew up the decedent's will) claims
that he, the laywer, is entitled under PA statute to some minimum
percentage of the estate.
That sounds totally and completely bogus to me.

Rich, I don't know PA laws, but I can tell you that such is the law in
California, so your scenario sounds, if not reasonable, then legally
accurate. The executor/trix is also allowed to charge a percentage of
assets.

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:45:01 -0500, Rich Carreiro <rlc-news@rlcarr.com
wrote:


The executrix has reported to my wife that the lawyer the executrix
has engaged (the same lawyer who drew up the decedent's will) claims
that he, the laywer, is entitled under PA statute to some minimum
percentage of the estate.
That sounds totally and completely bogus to me.

Thanks to dapperdobbs I suspect you have your answer.

My suspicion also is that if you were to contact the lawyer in
question and question him/her closely, what you would discover is not
so much an unscrupulous lawyer as a lack of good communication between
lawyer and personal representative.

But whether it is fee abuse or lousy communication, assuming the PR
has not signed any contracts with the lawyer I would fire the lawyer.
You might also consider helping/advising the PR, who sounds like she
could use someone like you.

The executrix has reported to my wife that the lawyer the executrix
has engaged (the same lawyer who drew up the decedent's will) claims
that he, the laywer, is entitled under PA statute to some minimum
percentage of the estate.

That sounds totally and completely bogus to me.

I could see it if the lawyer *was the executor* of the estate.
However, that is *not* the case here.

Rich, I don't know PA laws, but I can tell you that such is the law in
California, so your scenario sounds, if not reasonable, then legally
accurate. The executor/trix is also allowed to charge a percentage of
assets.

Elizabeth Richardson

I did some more googling and among other things came up
with the following from the Pennsylvania Bar Association
website itself. In a pamphlet on estate planning, under
the heading "Costs of Probate", the PA Bar Association says:
"Talk to your lawyer to find out whether services will be based on
an hourly fee, a flat rate, or on a percentage of the estate assets
and what would work best for you."

On 2008-08-06 18:30:35 -0700, Rich Carreiro <rlc-news@rlcarr.com> said:

In most estates, the work involved is not all that demanding, and it can be
done by someone without much experience. Unless unexpected complications
arise, the costs of legal work can be held to a minimum. In fact,
preservation of the estate's assets and making sure the heirs receive as
much as possible is one of the legal responsibilities of an executor.

In most estates, the work involved is not all that demanding, and it can be
done by someone without much experience. Unless unexpected complications
arise, the costs of legal work can be held to a minimum. In fact,
preservation of the estate's assets and making sure the heirs receive as
much as possible is one of the legal responsibilities of an executor.

Ah, but here's the rub. Being an executor is not a job with which most of us
have familiarity. Most executors don't know what work needs to be done and
must consult an attorney to learn the ropes.

"Don" <dwzimm@telus.net> wrote in message
news:2008080623134950878-dwzimm@telusnet...
On 2008-08-06 18:30:35 -0700, Rich Carreiro <rlc-news@rlcarr.com> said:

In most estates, the work involved is not all that demanding, and it can
be done by someone without much experience. Unless unexpected
complications arise, the costs of legal work can be held to a minimum. In
fact, preservation of the estate's assets and making sure the heirs
receive as much as possible is one of the legal responsibilities of an
executor.

Ah, but here's the rub. Being an executor is not a job with which most of
us have familiarity. Most executors don't know what work needs to be done
and must consult an attorney to learn the ropes.

Elizabeth Richardson

Ah, but here's the rub. Being an executor is not a job with which most of us
have familiarity. Most executors don't know what work needs to be done and
must consult an attorney to learn the ropes.

Being an executor also carries with it the burden of fiduciary duty.
As a result, the executor(trix) actually has an obligation to seek
competent help for matters in which they are not adequately qualified.
Failure to do so could result in breach of duty (for which ignorance
is not a valid defense). Perhaps the smallest and simplest of estates
do not need an attorney's help, but the majority of the ones I have
encountered were greatly aided by legal counsel.

You are absolutely right. The executor has a fiduciary duty to preserve

You are absolutely right. The executor has a fiduciary duty to preserve
the assets of the estate. And in many cases that means making the right
financial decisions, which usually is outside an attorney's area of
expertise.
The key phrase in your statement is "an attorney's help." By all means
get legal help as it is needed for legal problems. But it is not
necessary to turn over everything to an attorney (or to a bank, for
that matter), who then may charge a substantial amount of money for
small tasks that could easily be done by one of the heirs acting as
executor. That would indeed be wasting money, failing in one's
fiduciary duty.