Blake Harris is an Asset Protection Attorney and Founding Principal of Blake Harris Law.
Choosing a trustee is often treated as a formality, but it’s a key position that deserves careful consideration. In practice, the trustee is the operational gatekeeper. They approve transactions, interact with custodians, interpret discretionary language and ultimately determine whether a trust functions smoothly or becomes a source of friction and risk.
Just as important, no trustee relationship should be assumed to be permanent. Even well-run trusts benefit from mechanisms that allow for accountability, recalibration and, when necessary, change.
Based on my experience structuring domestic and offshore trusts for high-net-worth individuals and families, four areas deserve careful attention at the drafting stage: due diligence, compensation, replacement authority and ongoing performance review.
Start with due diligence that goes beyond credentials.
Licensing, bonding and regulatory oversight are baseline requirements, not differentiators. What matters more is whether the trustee’s internal culture and operating model align with the complexity of the trust they are being asked to administer.
A practical due-diligence review focuses on questions such as how decisions are actually made inside the organization, whether discretion is centralized or committee-based and how frequently trust officers rotate. High turnover or rigid approval chains often become visible only after the trust is operational.
It is also worth examining how the trustee interacts with custodians, investment advisors and protectors. Trustees who are accustomed to collaborative oversight tend to produce cleaner reporting and fewer execution delays. Asking for anonymized examples of past trust administration scenarios can be more revealing than reviewing marketing materials.
Compensation structures shape trustee behavior.
Trustee fees are not simply an economic issue; they influence incentives. Flat annual fees can promote predictability but may discourage responsiveness in highly active trusts. Asset-based fees scale naturally with trust growth but can become disproportionate in low-touch structures. Transactional fees may appear efficient at first and later create friction if routine actions are metered.
The most effective fee arrangements are those that match compensation to expected workload while capping exposure to unexpected escalation. Clear definitions of what constitutes “extraordinary services” reduce disputes and create a shared understanding of scope.
Equally important is transparency. Fee schedules should be explicit in the trust instrument or referenced schedules, leaving little room for reinterpretation over time. Ambiguity benefits no one.
Draft replacement rights before you need them.
Trustee replacement provisions are often treated as a contingency for misconduct. In reality, they are a governance tool. Trustees may remain competent and ethical while still becoming a poor fit due to changes in jurisdictional law, internal policy shifts or evolving family dynamics.
Replacement authority should be clearly vested, typically in a trust protector or designated committee, with defined procedures that do not require court involvement. The goal is not confrontation but continuity. A well-drafted replacement clause allows for an orderly transition without disrupting asset control or triggering unintended tax or legal consequences.
It is also prudent to address successor trustee standards in advance. Requiring comparable licensing, experience or jurisdictional qualifications helps preserve the original intent of the structure.
Use an annual scorecard to maintain accountability.
Trusts are long-term instruments, but that does not mean trustee performance should go unmeasured. An annual service review, even an informal one, creates accountability without adversarial pressure.
A practical scorecard evaluates responsiveness, accuracy of reporting, adherence to timelines and consistency with the trust’s stated objectives. Patterns matter more than isolated issues. When concerns are identified early, they are often correctable. When they persist, the groundwork for replacement has already been laid.
This process also benefits trustees. Clear expectations reduce misunderstandings and reinforce professional standards on both sides of the relationship.
A trustee should never be selected on reputation alone or locked in by default. Thoughtful vetting, aligned compensation, flexible replacement authority and regular performance review transform the trustee role from a leap of faith into a managed relationship.
Trusts are designed to endure uncertainty. The trustee framework should do the same.
The information provided here is not investment, tax or financial advice. You should consult with a licensed professional for advice concerning your specific situation.
Forbes Finance Council is an invitation-only organization for executives in successful accounting, financial planning and wealth management firms. Do I qualify?