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 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 deceit.
