In case you missed it in the holiday bustle, Media Mogul and Fox News Owner Rupert Murdoch was back in Probate Court in December. The control of companies – which are effectively owned by irrevocable trusts – were at stake – and Rupert lost big.
While reading about the trust litigation of one of the world’s richest families, I was struck by how many similarities there were to the litigated trust matters that I handle every day.
A billion dollar family dynasty and a complex series of irrevocable trusts owning some of the world’s largest corporations may seem like something you can’t relate to. In fact, the mechanics of how the drama has played out in Court for the Murdoch family mirror everyday trust litigations taking place all over California. Luckily for most Californians, their family dispute will not make headlines.
For a quick overview in case you missed it — In a dramatic twist this past December, a Nevada court struck down Rupert Murdoch’s bold attempt to reshape his family’s legacy by granting sole control of their media empire to his eldest son, Lachlan. As revealed in a New York Times exclusive, the court’s decision came in the form of a sealed Court Order, delivered by Commissioner Edmund J. Gorman. (A Commissioner is effectively an appointed Judge as opposed to an elected Judge)
The court described Rupert Murdoch’s effort as a “carefully crafted charade,” and threw out phrases like “bad faith” and “dishonesty of purpose and motive.”
In Murdoch’s case, he hired Celebrity Probate Attorney Adam Streisand (think Britney Spears Conservatorship) to pursue his wish to drastically alter his family trust. Based on experience – and the billable hourly rates of attorneys like Streisand and his associates – the attorney fees to get to the point of December’s trial was likely in the multi millions. Why? Because there is such a huge volume of work that has to be done to prepare for a trial.
In Murdoch’s case, he lost – and he lost bad. No doubt Billionaire Murdoch can afford to pay virtually endless attorney fees, but few Californians have that kind of legal budget. Every dollar matters.
Now, the opposing parties (ie Murdoch’s other children) in this matter essentially “won” by effectively blocking Murdoch from wresting power from them. They too likely spent hundreds of thousands (or more) on the best attorneys. But at least they won, right? Not so fast. Should the losing party decide they are unhappy with the Court’s decision – they can appeal the Court’s ruling. What does it mean to appeal a matter? It means to petition a higher court to overturn the lower court’s decision. And so the court battle continues. And so do the attorney fees and the stress.
So, whether a party believes they are on the “winning” side of a case (and usually both parties do) —their best bet is almost always to reach a settlement with the other side, and avoid putting the final decision(s) in front of a Judge. With settlement, all parties have agreed to the final result of the matter, and an actual end can be reached.
In the Murdoch family’s case, it does not appear that they will come to the table anytime soon. It’s not uncommon for dueling parties to desire emotional (or financial) exhaustion before feeling prepared to settle. An excellent trust attorney will not only have the legal acumen to navigate a complex legal battle, but will also be able to bring his or her client to the table long before they reach the point of exhaustion.