The Public Trust Office (PTO) says that a newsletter put out by a group of lawyers criticising the office's will making practices is inaccurate.
Sunday, December 3rd 2000, 11:17PM
The Public Trust Office (PTO) says that a newsletter put out by a group of lawyers criticising the office's will making practices is inaccurate. (Click here for earlier story)
PTO corporate communications manager Chris Galloway says:
Public Trust’s media campaign has never stated that it draws up free wills.
The "quotation" allegedly comparing Public Trust with lawyers is unsubstantiated and incorrect.
It is incorrect that Public Trust customers cannot appoint a family member as trustee.
In cases where we are a co-trustee or an advisory trustee is appointed, we do not always make ourselves trustee and write wills.
The fact that we are a government agency is irrelevant to the question of efficiency. In fact we are a highly capable, modern and technologically advanced organisation.
The possibility of appointing "a perfectly capable family member" is raised in the article. Our experience is that many family members do not consider themselves to be "perfectly capable" in this area, even if they are available to serve. Often such family members end up enlisting paid professional assistance from Public Trust or a lawyer.
There is an error of arithmetic in the discussion about commission charges: 2 per cent of $200,000 is $4000, not $6000.
Lawyers do indeed charge on a time and attendance basis rather than a commission one. However, in comparisons made of the difference between our charges and those of lawyers, we often find that they are based on lawyers doing a more limited job than the comprehensive administration brief we typically undertake.
