Murphy’s law in estate planning: things will and have gone wrong

Report on a panel session at the IBA’s 31st Annual International Private Client Conference, held on 3 March 2026

Session Co-Chairs

Jérôme Assouline  Sekri Valentin Zerrouk, Paris

Leigh-Alexandra Basha  McDermott Will & Schulte, Washington, DC

Panellists

Nicholas Holland  Maples Group, Cayman Islands

Bárbara Schuck  Quilvest Services, Zürich

Sunita Singh-Dalal  Hourani & Partners, Dubai

Mirjam Vögeli  Blum & Grob Attorneys at Law, Zürich

Reporter

Joshua Ryan  Weightmans, London

Introduction

This panel session explored real-life scenarios where detailed planning of succession and wealth-holding strategies have not gone to plan. Cross-border examples were used to highlight situations where such plans have shifted due to the interplay between different legal systems, family structures and human error. Rather than adopting a pessimistic tone, the session positioned Murphy’s law, the adage that ‘anything that can go wrong, will go wrong’, as a practical discipline that is relevant to estate planners advising global families with cross-border assets. Indeed, during cross-border planning, ‘anything that can go wrong, will go wrong’.

Panel discussion

The Swiss family office scenario

This scenario focussed on the restructuring of a dynastic structure to meet the needs of the present family members (the seventh generation to benefit from the structure). The goal was to ensure that the structure remained sustainable and was fit for purpose for the 65 beneficiaries’ needs.

The plan was to restructure the holding company into three separate onshore companies. This would be sequenced to create the three new companies and then collapse the existing company. The beneficiaries needed the income and so there was no room to manoeuvre.

During the process:

• the intended directors could not sign the board resolution due to the outbreak of a contagious disease and travel restrictions. Luckily, having a proxy already determined ensured that this did not hold up the completion of the resolution;
• the new companies’ names were wrong. Luckily, good advisers managed to correct the mistake; and
• a government official incorrectly registered the companies resulting in the companies being subject to the incorrect tax treatment. Luckily, advisers on the ground managed to rectify this problem.
   

Although the process was complicated, the pre-planning efforts undertaken managed to solve many of the issues raised and good advisers solved the rest, leading to the realisation in practice of the key quote, ‘people are the weakest and strongest link in any plan’. 

The Swiss succession scenario

This scenario focussed on the drafting of a choice of law clause in a will (with the Swiss choice of law clause broadly mirroring the terms set out in the European Union’s Succession Regulation or Regulation (EU) 650/2012).

The use of the choice of law clause was intended to provide certainty in the succession plan of a German entrepreneur who had lived for a long time in New Zealand. He later returned to Germany. His wishes for his estate plan were to gift his estate to his spouse, and he told his lawyer that he is both a German and a New Zealander (holding citizenship in regard to both jurisdictions). The lawyer prepared a will based on New Zealand law to carry out his wish to pass his estate to his wife.

The entrepreneur later died in Switzerland. Swiss authorities claimed jurisdiction over the estate, and it became apparent that the testator did not, in fact, have New Zealand citizenship. This invalidated the choice of New Zealand law, resulting in Swiss succession law (and forced heirship rules) being applied to the late entrepreneur’s estate.

The failure concerned the factual basis of the application of the choice of law clause. ‘The message is simple: verify the facts and reverify them over time.’

The Cayman lawyer scenario

In regard to the Cayman scenario, there was a discussion about an estate plan that envisaged a spouse being given a life interest in an estate with the children inheriting upon her death. This failed, though, as the deceased did not have an estate on death; all of the assets were owned jointly and, so, automatically passed to the surviving spouse.

The Cayman tax plan was then contrasted with United States probate avoidance plans, where marriage causes complications in regard to these types of plans. The discussion focussed on a corporate holding being administered during probate proceedings. Under this scenario, having a plan in place to deal with corporate entities upon the individual’s death is sensible, but some ‘schemes’ might result in questionable or problematic tax and legal issues.

Finally, secret and semi-secret trusts were highlighted as a tool to avoid the publication of probate proceedings, but the utilisation of a secret or semi-secret trust could and does generate issues in relation to the ultimate destination of assets. 

The Emirati scenario

This scenario focussed on an Indian family that had substantial wealth located in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The family had various US citizen members. The holding company was registered in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) and the founder passed away in the BVI, with a Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) will that was limited to DIFC assets only.

Despite a substantial legal team, updating the will was overlooked, resulting in a lengthy probate process in the DIFC. The resulting conflict between common law in the BVI and civil law in the UAE created substantial issues in regard to obtaining the necessary documents to complete the probate proceedings for the estate.

The second scenario assessed the optimal structuring solution for a Norwegian family looking to apply Norwegian law to the succession of their estate. This decision, in practice, would lead to a sub-optimal solution, so explaining the options and choices to clients often helps them understand the merits of each option.

Miscellaneous risk issues

Finally, key issues were highlighted as potential risk areas. These included: (1) multiple situs wills, where assets are held that are not governed by one of the multiple wills in existence; (2) unusual assets (eg, crypto-assets), where access to those assets is lost, resulting in those assets being lost; (3) modern families and definition-related issues (eg, where a grandchild might be born in the future); and (4) artificial intelligence and the law.

Conclusion

The panel session concluded with a clear message: estate planning is not a one‑off exercise. Regular reviews and ‘legal health checks’ are essential to reflect changes in family dynamics, asset profiles and legal frameworks over time. As the panel succinctly concluded: ‘Planning creates options; waiting removes them.’