Origins of Fiduciary Law (Estate Law)

Fidiciary law descends from the medieval principle of noblesse oblige -- the belief that those entrusted with power or privilege must act with absolute honesty and self-sacrifice toward those who depend on them.  In early equity courts, this honour-based obligation became a legal one: trustees, guardians, and stewards were bound by oath to account fully and to disclose any personal interest, on pain of forfeiture and disgrace.  This is no longer true; the lawyers have made a mockery of fiduciary law.

How Lawyers Groom Beneficiaries to Accept Fiduciary Looting.

Fiduciary looting doesn't survive because one person steals.  It survives because everyone else is trained to look away.  

In estate law, the grooming starts quietly.  A lawyer tells the beneficiaries.  "Don't make waves" Another says "It's not worth the fight."  Soon the message is clear: protecting your inheritance means protectng the system that is looting it.  

Lawyers call this risk management.  But what they're really managing is their own risk -- not the beneficiary.  They don't want to challenge another lawyer, question a trustee, or expose a conflict that could stain their professional network.  So they teach beneficiaries to stay silent, to accept the losses, and to believe that the passing of accounts will settle everything.  

It's a script as old as the Chancery courts of King Henry VIII.  The same tangled language -- fiduciary, executor, administrator -- was designed to keep ordinary people from seeing what was really going on behind the courtroom curtain.  Today, the words have changed, but the play is the same.

When beneficiaries see the looting and do nothing, they've been groomed to think silence is wisdom.  When lawyers excuse it as "too costly to fight." they've been trained to protect the guild, not the truth.  And when regulators pretend it's all just "a matter of interpretation," they've completed the circle -- looting under the colour of law.  

In my case, the Public Guardian and Trustee is using the passing of accounts (being the colour of law) to loot my brother's estate.  The PGT did not report any self-dealing to which it do was happening or should have known and the court not knowing the truth will approve the accounts, wiping out the debts owed to the estate.  What do you call it when the PGT is complicit to constructive fraud.  And all the while the administrator is using the PGT as her ATM.  

No lawyer

This pattern is too consistent to be a coincidence. When lawyers initially agree to take you on, then back out after learning the opposing party is the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), it suggests something deeper is at play—something systemic, not personal.

Here are a few plausible, strategic speculations:

---

🧩 Possible Reasons Behind the Pattern

1. Fear of institutional retaliation or reputational risk

• Lawyers may worry that opposing the PGT could jeopardize their standing with the courts, other government agencies, or future referrals.
• The PGT is seen as a “trusted” institutional actor. Challenging them might be viewed as adversarial or risky, especially if the lawyer relies on goodwill within the legal community.

2. Perceived futility or complexity

• Some lawyers may believe that fighting the PGT is a losing battle—procedurally dense, emotionally taxing, and unlikely to succeed.
• They may fear being drawn into a long, messy case with little chance of resolution, especially if the PGT has already framed the narrative.

3. Quiet collusion or professional courtesy

• There may be unspoken norms: “Don’t rock the boat,” “Don’t challenge the PGT,” or “Don’t take on cases that expose systemic failure.”
• Lawyers may feel pressure not to expose misconduct or negligence by fellow professionals, especially if it implicates fiduciaries, notaries, or other lawyers.

4. Moral cowardice

• Some lawyers simply don’t want to confront injustice when it’s institutional. They prefer clean cases, not ones that expose moral collapse or professional complicity.

Checklist: Conflicts of a proposed administrator.

1.  Do they owe the estate money.

2.  Have they been using estate property for free.

3. Were they financially dependent on the person who died.

4.  Do they have family living on estate property without paying.

5.  Were they in charge of the person's care or finances before death.

6.  Do they stand to personally gain from their decisions as administrator. 

If a proposed administrator had a conflict of interest based on any of the points above, they should not have been appointed. So, why didn't the estate lawyer, the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), or the beneficiaries oppose the appointment. 

Most importantly, why didn't the proposed administrator withdraw?  

Administrators are supposed to be able to make decisions.  The caretaker, now administrator, couldn't even bring herself to tell the family of my brother's death.  My other brother found out about the death three months later.  And now, through stealth, she is the administrator, and she won't communicate with her family.  She hides behind her lawyer, who filters everything. And the lawyer is not very forthcoming with anything meaningful. She just grooms the administrator.

Lawyers have been known to rush the appointments of administrators.  The first to the post wants the Grant a.s.a.p.  Once the Grant is issued, the lawyer knows it becomes tough and expensive for a beneficiary to revoke it; many beneficiaries do not have the means or knowledge to pursue it, and even if they do, there is not much that you can do, as the administrator is already in place. This is known as "probate by fait accompli."  And lawyers say so what, we will wait until the passing of accounts, and in the interim, we don't have to disclose much, and let the looters loot until then. The more conflict at the passing of accounts, the more the fees are. Instead of making sure a conflicted applicant isn't an administrator from the get-go, do the dirty deed and worry about it later. 

Estate law is strict:  it cannot be compromised, as the dead person is dead. Strict fiduciary standards:  no conflict; no profit; undivided loyalty; full and proper accounting. At a passing of accounts, it is illegal to Art the Deal (Donald Trump).  There is no deal. Only duty to the dead.  

Heather Mathison was hired by the PGT to make the looting of my brother's estate legal.

In criminal law, stealing is called theft.

In estate law, looting is called a fiduciary failure; a breach of trust.  

The weird language of fiduciary law comes from King Henry VIII's language, with roots in English chancery law, which was used to disguise from the common folk what was really going on among the powerful and the privileged. 

Theft from an estate is sanitized by calling it self-dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of trust,where administrators help themselves to estate property. 

Stealth passing of accounts by trustee (committee of estate)

 

A few days ago, I received a disturbing email saying that I had no standing to voice my concerns about the passing of accounts (this is a requirement if a trustee decides she wants to be free of liabilities she administered).  This lady lawyer quoted me the legislation.  

Death of Patient. AGA 24(3) After the death of the patient, the committee must provide the committee's accounts to (a) the executor or administrator of the patient's estate. The committee is the trustee who controls the money. 

Sounds reasonable.  One person should deal with the passing of accounts, efficiency.  That person has to do the heavy lifting that is verifying that every expense is proper.  If she approves the expenses she relieves the committee of future liability for paying unnecessary expenses.  

The problem is that the administrator had conflicts.  Prior to the administrator's appointment, she was the Patient's committee of person/caregiver while he was alive.  Obvious conflict.  Even a whisper of a conflict should have nullified the administrator's appointment. She should never have been appointed the administrator in the first place.  But she was. Another story.

At this juncture, the committee wants distance from the estate, and the administrator is the only one who can test the committee's expenses.  However, why would the administrator test the expenses as the expenses were at her discretion.  She is not going to point out her self-dealing of estate assets.  Conflict.  All beneficiaries are excluded from the passing of accounts hearing. 

According to the committee, the administrator is happy with the accounts.  

And the only person who can sign off on the passing of accounts is the administrator. If she does not sign off/consent, then the court can.  But how can the court can, it does not have an audit department.

So what can a beneficiary do if she suspects the administrator was using estate assets for her personal benefit.  Nothing.  The beneficiary has no legal standing. 

The administrator consulted a multitude of lawyers, hired three.  Not one of the multiple lawyers told her she was in conflict. Extraordinary. The administrator because of her limited education did not know she was in a conflict.  But not telling her, then the trustee should shoulder 100% responsibility.

And the third final lawyer did an estate settlement agreement on the pretense that it would rush the probate, no mention of the proposed administrator having a conflict. The ESA said in exchange for the fast tracking the beneficiaries must forgo any occupation rent that the proposed administrator owed.  That was no small change, 1.5 years at that time. Under fiduciary law, you cannot buy an administrator with free rent. 

 In the proposed passing of accounts package no mention was made of any rents accounts receivable.  The committee (trustee) was responsible for collecting the market rents before probate.  What does that say, it says the committee (trustee) owes the estate 1.5 years of rent.  And if the court deems a "satisfactory accounting" as the administrator is happy with the accounts, the committee (trustee) is off the hook.   The administrator is also off the hook as she does not have to pay the estate the 1.5 years of rent that she owes. The occupation rent claim vanishes. No beneficiary can complain to the court as none have legal standing to do so.  Only the administrator has standing. The debt is wiped out. Neither the trustee has to reimburse the occupation rent to the estate, nor does the administrator have to pay it.  Under the colour of law, the dirty deed is covered up. The trustee is the Public Guardian and Trustee.