Beware Asset Protection Plan Scams

The following excerpt is reprinted from an excellent article written by Forbes contributor, Todd Ganos, and posted online here.  I am a firm believer in asset protection strategies as part of a comprehensive estate, financial, and/or business succession plan.  That being said, the number of dubious mass marketed and mass produced  "asset protection plans" is troubling. 

 I advise my clients that anything called an asset protection plan or asset protection trust should be considered critically and carefully.  Many of these mass marketed plans cannot survive scrutiny.  Remember, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Remember also, that keeping your asset protection strategies secondary to other legitimate estate, financial, or business succession objectives is key to their success.  In this regard, see my article, "Asset Protection Planning- "Keep it Secret; Keep it Safe." 

Mr. Ganos writes:

Recently, a friend attended a seminar on asset protection.  Based on information that my friend provided to me, the seminar seemed to be what has become a disturbing trend.

To be certain, asset protection is an important discipline within the field of wealth management.  Asset protection might also be called risk management.  As one might imagine, there are a number of ways to implement asset protection/risk management.  And, it is not uncommon for asset protection/risk management issues to intertwine with other disciplines, such as estate planning and tax planning.

So, how might a seminar on asset protection be a scam?  Perhaps you have heard the saying: if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  What typically occurs in one of these seminars is that the presenter whips up fear about gold-diggers filing frivolous lawsuits attempting to get at your hard-earned money.  Typically, the presenter’s solution is not an interdisciplinary approach to an individual’s circumstances.  Instead, the presenter’s solution seems to always lead to a family limited partnership, a Nevada “secret” company, or an asset protection trust in a favorable jurisdiction . . . which is what the presenter specializes in.  And, whatever the solution is, it is cloaked in an aura of “only the elite know about this.”

Avoiding Sham Trusts and Trust Scams: Part I - Sham Trusts

Legitimate trusts are tools used by qualified estate planners and their clients to achieve certain objectives, including, but certainly not limited to, controlling the disposition of assets, avoiding probate, reducing administration costs, saving estate taxes, and preserving family wealth for future generations. Unfortunately, trusts are often used for improper purposes. Lurking in the shadows are con artists who promote sham trusts and trust scams for their own gain. These con artists rely on the ignorance of the public, and only education and information can prepare you for their pitch.

Sham trusts and trust scams are usually sold at high pressure seminars, by door-to-door salesmen, and on the internet. In some cases, they are recommended by well meaning but poorly informed CPA's, financial advisors, friends, or business acquaintances. The marketing techniques can be persuasive, and are aimed at all classes of people.

What is a Sham Trust?

A sham trust is any trust created for an improper or illegal purpose. For example, "trusts" or "contracts" which purport to avoid, or significantly reduce, all taxes, including all income taxes, for individuals and, in some cases, businesses, are almost always sham trusts. These often use a complex structure that involves the "irrevocable" transfer of your assets to one or more business or trust entities which you control. The promoters claim that the arrangement will significantly reduce or eliminate state and federal income taxes.

Although there are legitimate estate tax objectives that may be accomplished with trust planning, income tax planning is quite a different matter. Generally speaking, someone is going to have to report taxable income, as well as pay income taxes thereon. While there are legitimate credits, deductions, and exemptions available under state and federal law, there is no trust or business entity into which you can convey all of your property and thereby avoid all income taxes. These trusts sometimes come with seductive names. Moreover, when the justification for the trust somehow involves the unconstitutionality of the IRS or of income taxes, you are best advised to seek additional or alternate legal counsel.

Avoiding Sham Trusts and Trust Scams - Part II - Trust Scams

Although trusts are excellent tools used by legitimate professionals to accomplish a variety of worthwhile objectives, there are a wide variety of con artists who prey upon the public using the lure of trust planning. These con artists rely on the ignorance of the public. They generally provide poorly conceived and implemented estate plans, poor service, and often do more harm than good to their customers. These schemes are usually encountered at high pressure seminars.

What is a Trust Scheme?

Several years ago, the Supreme Court for the State of Ohio fined a company and a group of individuals including several attorneys one million dollars for selling unnecessary and potentially damaging legal services to seniors. Several years later, the State of Ohio fined a pre-paid insurance company and a group of attorneys for similarly cheating seniors. The State of Texas is currently investigating a Ponzi scheme in which seniors are alleged to have lost tens of millions of dollars. What these schemes have in common is that each involved the marketing and sale of living trusts.

Living trusts are so advantageous and so readily accepted by the general public that scam artist will often sell a living trust as a front for selling some other illegitimate scheme or investment. Once confidence of the public is attained, the sham artist will sell the client stock in companies that do no exist, unregistered and risky securities, poorly capitalized limited partnership interests, and just about any fraudulent investment or business scheme imaginable. Promising returns that are usually too good to be true, the scam artist assures their clients that the investment is safe. The scam artist is almost never an attorney, and the trust is almost always incidental to their "product." Moreover, the investments that they offer are almost always unwise.

Trust Scammers Refuse to Pay Penalty; Hurl Insults at Court

James Nash reports in the Columbus Dispatch that the Ohio Supreme Court's attempts to collect more than $7 million from two companies accused of scamming senior citizens are not going well.  According to the Columbus paper, the court on Monday handed off the collection action to the office of Attorney General Richard Cordray, who employs lawyers and others to shake loose money from reluctant debtors.

Jeffrey and Stanley Norman, owners of two companies that were fined $6.4 million Oct. 14 for having non-lawyers perform legal functions as part of an alleged trust-mill scam targeting the elderly, now owe more than $7 million with penalties for non-payment.  The Normans unsuccessfully tried to get the Supreme Court to rehear the case, but "[w]hen that failed, Jeffrey Norman lashed out at the court, accusing justices of a 'disgusting abuse of power.'"

Reportedly, Norman has said he would not pay the fine, calling it unfair, and he has put his southern California home on the market for $4.9 million.  Even if the state does collect the money, the proceeds won't go directly to victims of the alleged scam. The funds, under court rules, go toward the cost of investigating allegations of unauthorized practice of law, continuing legal education and other purposes.

The Normans were principals in the American Family Prepaid Legal Corporation scheme that resulted in The Ohio Supreme Court instituting a civil penalty in excess of six million dollars.  I wrote about the Court's action last November (2009), under the blog entitled "Court Imposes $6.3 Million Civil Penalty on "Trust Mill" Companies and Owners."

Court Imposes $6.3 Million Civil Penalty on "Trust Mill" Companies and Owners

The Supreme Court of Ohio recently imposed a civil penalty of $6,387,990 against two companies and their co-owners for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, and issued an injunction permanently barring those companies, their principals and employees from any future marketing or sale of living trusts or other estate planning documents or services to Ohio residents.


In a 7-0  decision, the Court found that American Family Prepaid Legal Corporation and Heritage Marketing and Insurance Services Inc., their co-owners, Jeffrey and Stanley Norman, and multiple employees of those firms engaged in more than 3,800 acts of unauthorized law practice by virtue of their participation in a “trust mill” operation from March 2003 through March 2005.


The Court noted that American Family, Heritage, the Normans, and employees of the two companies had been the subject of a prior unauthorized practice of law complaint and investigation by the Columbus Bar Association (CBA) in 2002 that was resolved by the signing of a March 2003 consent agreement. In that agreement, the respondents acknowledged that providing estate planning advice and marketing and preparing trust agreements and other estate planning documents constitutes the practice of law, and promised to permanently cease and desist from such activities in Ohio.

The Court agreed with findings by its Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law that, after signing the 2003 decree, American Family, Heritage and their owners used third-party marketing firms to send direct mail ads to lists of Ohioans 65 and older and also targeted senior citizens with magazine advertising containing exaggerated claims regarding the costs and complications of disposing of their assets through a will. Persons responding to the ads were subjected to high-pressure in-home presentations in which American Family’s non-attorney sales representatives provided them with legal advice including inflated “estimates” of the costs of probating their estates and the purported savings the customer would realize by purchasing American Family’s standardized living trust document – regardless of the size or composition of that individual’s estate or his/her existing estate planning documents.

In rejecting American Family’s claim that its actions were authorized because it had registered as the operator of a “prepaid legal services plan,” the Court wrote: “In arranging these appointments, American Family telemarketers did not refer to a prepaid legal plan and did not inform the customer that he or she would be solicited to buy a prepaid legal plan or living trust. The telemarketers did ask, however, whether the prospect already had a living trust. In sales presentations, usually occurring in a customer’s home, American Family’s agents focused on convincing a customer that he or she needed a living trust. If sold, the customer paid a $1,995 fee purportedly for an array of legal services relative to landlord/tenant law, businesses, domestic relations, bankruptcy, and other legal fields, at discounted fees, from a number of listed Ohio attorneys. Almost exclusively, however, the only legal service that the plan members received was the preparation of a living-trust document and related estate-planning instruments such as powers of attorney and a living will. For this reason, for the thousands of memberships sold, few if any members obtained legal assistance other than a living-trust portfolio.”

The Court noted that despite the fact that American Family used sales persons who had never been licensed as attorneys to “advise” customers about their estate planning needs and persuade them to purchase a trust, and that other non-attorneys in California actually prepared the trust documents, the company attempted to legitimize its unauthorized law practice by passing each transaction through a Columbus attorney, Edward P. Brueggeman. Brueggeman seldom spoke with the customers who were purported to be his “clients,” and was paid a flat fee by American Family for every trust document he approved.

In its decision, the Court wrote: “From the start of his employment until March 2005, Brueggeman had an office within American Family/Heritage offices on Citygate Drive in Columbus.  Brueggeman did not pay rent and used the supplies and services provided by American Family and Heritage employees to perform his role. Brueggeman did not hire or supervise the American Family sales agents. Brueggeman, after receiving the agreement, sent a form letter to the purchasers of the plans thanking them for choosing him to prepare their living trusts and their estate-planning documents. The letter also stated that the drafting process would take four to six weeks and invited the customer to call him with questions. … Brueggeman rarely, if ever, actually met an American Family plan member in person.” A formal complaint alleging that Brueggeman’s conduct violated state attorney discipline rules is currently pending before the Board Of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline (Disciplinary Counsel v. Brueggeman, Case No. 08-090).

The Court noted that the “trust mill” operated by American Family, Heritage and the Normans was similar to other such operations that the Court has found to be illegally engaged in the unauthorized practice of law at the expense of vulnerable consumers, usually senior citizens. The Court wrote: “A living-trust package is often not needed and may even be harmful for persons who are without significant assets, who have simple estates, or whose estates may need court supervision. A basic living-trust package, such as those sold by some of the respondents, may likewise be insufficient or even completely inappropriate for those having more substantial assets and who may need specific legal advice or even tax advice to meet their needs. For this reason, we have repeatedly held that these enterprises, in which the laypersons associate with licensed practitioners in various minimally distinguishable ways as a means to superficially legitimize sales of living-trust packages, are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. We have also repeatedly held that by facilitating such sales, licensed lawyers violate professional standards of competence and ethics, including the prohibition against aiding others in the unauthorized practice of law. Today, we reaffirm these holdings and admonish those tempted to profit by such schemes that these enterprises are unacceptable in any configuration.”

In imposing a civil penalty of $6,387,990 jointly and severally against American Family, Heritage and their co-owners, the Court noted the aggravating factors that the respondents had been advised of  and acknowledged the illegality of their involvement in the marketing and sale of trusts in the 2003 CBA consent agreement, but shortly thereafter resumed the same activities and engaged in thousands of acts of unauthorized practice that resulted in potential or actual harm to many of their customers for a period of two years. The Court also imposed civil penalties of $10,000 against American Family’s state marketing director, Paul Chiles, $7,500 against office manager Harold Miller, and $2,500 against multiple American Family and Heritage agents who continued to engage in the unauthorized practice of law after signing the 2003 consent agreement.

In its injunction, the Court permanently barred American Family, Heritage, Jeffrey and Stanley Norman, other named parties and “their successors, assigns, subsidiaries and affiliates” from marketing, selling or preparing wills, living trusts, durable powers of attorney, deed transfers or other legal products in Ohio; offering legal advice to anyone concerning estate planning or the execution of legal products; offering or selling prepaid legal plans of any kind to Ohio residents; and from engaging in a wide range of other enumerated activities.

I have had the opportunity to review the estate plans generated by American Family.  With a "one-size-fits-all" mentality, all of the trusts are virtually identical, with clients running the risk that the particularly cumbersome and sophisticated estate tax planning trust, create for them and their families unnecessary burden.  Of course, this is the essence of the attorney-client relationship.  Your attorney should represent you, and should not represent other persons whose interests are in direct conflict with your interests.  Only by having an attorney that is independent from others, and by that attorney discharging aggressively his or her obligation to provide for you specific advice and counsel based upon your specific circumstances, goals, and objectives, will your estate plan fit you.