Estate Attorney Bitcoin Briefing

Briefing Estate Attorneys on Custody Mechanics

This memo is published by CustodyStress, an independent Bitcoin custody stress test that produces reference documents for individuals, families, and professionals.

What Estate Attorneys Know

An estate attorney bitcoin briefing becomes necessary when bitcoin holdings exist within an estate planning context. The attorney understands wills, trusts, and probate. They may not understand seed phrases, hardware wallets, or custody models. This knowledge gap affects how they serve clients who hold bitcoin.

What follows covers how the gap between legal expertise and technical bitcoin concepts creates briefing failures. The attorney brings deep knowledge of one domain. Bitcoin custody operates in a different domain. Briefings that assume shared understanding fail when that understanding does not exist.

---

What Estate Attorneys Know

Estate attorneys understand how property transfers at death. They know how wills work, how trusts function, how probate operates. They understand beneficiary designations, powers of attorney, and fiduciary duties. This knowledge is deep and practiced.

They understand that assets come in different forms. Bank accounts work differently than real estate. Brokerage accounts work differently than retirement accounts. Each asset type has transfer mechanisms. The attorney knows how to draft documents that accomplish transfer for each type.

Their expertise includes knowing which institutions to contact and what documents those institutions require. They know that a bank needs a death certificate and letters testamentary. They know that a brokerage needs beneficiary forms. This specialized knowledge is practical and immediately useful.

What they know assumes assets are held somewhere that recognizes legal authority. Every traditional asset class involves an institution or registry that responds to legal documents. The attorney's expertise is built on this assumption.

---

What Estate Attorneys May Not Know

Bitcoin custody operates outside the operational framework estate attorneys rely on. There is no bank to contact. There is no registry that recognizes death certificates. The asset exists on a distributed ledger that processes cryptographic signatures, not legal documents.

The concepts are unfamiliar. A seed phrase is not like a password to an account. It is more like the account itself. Whoever has the seed phrase has the bitcoin, regardless of what legal documents say. This differs fundamentally from how other assets work.

Hardware wallets add another layer of unfamiliarity. They are physical devices that hold keys. They are not storage in the traditional sense. The bitcoin is not inside the device. The device holds information that controls bitcoin on the blockchain. This distinction matters but is not intuitive.

Self-custody means no third party can help. When a client holds bitcoin in self-custody, no company has a copy of the keys. No customer service line can reset access. The client has sole control, which means their estate planning documents alone cannot create access for heirs.

---

Briefing Failure Patterns

One briefing failure occurs when the client assumes the attorney understands more than they do. The client mentions bitcoin holdings. The attorney nods. Neither realizes the attorney's mental model is wrong. The resulting estate plan addresses bitcoin as if it were a bank account. It is not.

Another failure occurs when technical information is shared without context. A client tells their attorney about a seed phrase. The attorney may not understand what this means operationally. They may draft documents that reference the seed phrase without ensuring anyone can actually use it.

A third failure involves incomplete information transfer. The client explains part of their custody setup. The attorney asks questions based on their existing framework. The questions may miss crucial elements because the attorney does not know what to ask. Neither party realizes something important was never discussed.

A fourth failure involves documentation that satisfies legal requirements but ignores technical requirements. The will properly leaves bitcoin to the heir. The trust properly names the trustee. But nothing addresses how the heir or trustee will actually access the bitcoin. Legal transfer is addressed. Technical transfer is not.

---

The Vocabulary Gap

Bitcoin custody uses vocabulary that may mean nothing to an estate attorney. Seed phrase. Private key. Public key. Derivation path. Passphrase. Hardware wallet. Hot wallet. Cold storage. Multi-signature. Each term has specific meaning that affects estate planning.

The vocabulary gap creates miscommunication risks. A client says they have a hardware wallet. The attorney may think this is like a safe deposit box. It is not. The attorney may plan accordingly, and the plan may fail because the underlying assumption was wrong.

Some terms sound similar to familiar concepts but work differently. A passphrase sounds like a password. But a bitcoin passphrase creates entirely separate wallet addresses. Confusing these concepts could lead to documentation that references one when the other applies.

Briefings that bridge the vocabulary gap take time. Each term requires explanation. The explanation requires context. The context requires foundational understanding. Building this understanding competes with billable hour pressures and meeting time constraints.

---

The Institutional Assumption Problem

Estate attorneys work with institutions daily. Banks, brokerages, insurance companies, government offices. These institutions have processes for handling death. The attorney knows these processes. Their expertise includes navigating formal requirements.

Bitcoin self-custody has no institution. There is no customer service. There is no compliance department. There is no process for handling death because there is no one to handle anything. The blockchain continues operating regardless of who has died.

When an attorney's mental model assumes institutions, briefings about self-custody bitcoin may not land properly. The attorney may unconsciously look for the institutional analog. Which company holds the bitcoin? The answer is no company. This answer may not fully register because it contradicts the attorney's professional experience with every other asset type.

The institutional assumption affects drafting decisions. Documents may reference institutions that do not exist. Instructions may assume processes that cannot happen. The documents look complete. They address an asset that does not work the way the documents assume.

---

When Briefings Happen Too Late

Many estate attorney bitcoin briefings happen after the client has already died. The attorney is helping the executor or the family. They learn the estate includes bitcoin only during administration. The briefing they need is one they cannot receive from the deceased.

Post-death briefings have different dynamics. The family may not understand the deceased's custody setup. They may find devices they cannot identify. They may find papers with words they do not recognize. The attorney needs to understand what was done, but the person who did it cannot explain.

In these situations, the attorney faces a double learning curve. They need to understand bitcoin custody concepts. They also need to understand this particular person's custody setup. General knowledge provides a framework, but every setup has specific details that matter.

Time pressure compounds the difficulty. Estates have deadlines. Tax filings have deadlines. Beneficiaries are waiting. Learning about bitcoin custody while administering an estate under time pressure differs from learning in a planning context where there is time to ask questions.

---

Expertise Boundaries

Estate attorneys have expertise boundaries, as all professionals do. They are not expected to understand every asset type their clients hold. For most asset types, they can rely on institutional professionals for operational details. The attorney handles legal structure. The institution handles mechanics.

Bitcoin self-custody removes this division of labor. There is no institutional professional to handle mechanics. The attorney may need to understand more about the asset itself than they would for other holdings. Or they may need to know that technical expertise is required and ensure it is obtained.

Recognizing the expertise boundary matters. An attorney who knows they do not understand bitcoin custody can seek help. An attorney who assumes their existing framework applies may not realize help is needed until problems emerge.

The boundary is not a failing. It reflects reasonable specialization. Estate attorneys specialize in estate law, not cryptocurrency technology. The failure is not the boundary itself. It is when the boundary is not recognized and plans proceed without accounting for it.

---

What Briefings Cannot Fix

Even a perfect briefing cannot fix certain problems. If the client has not prepared technical access for their heirs, the briefing cannot create that preparation retroactively. The attorney can understand the custody setup completely and still be unable to help heirs access it.

Briefings transfer understanding, not access. An attorney who fully understands their client's bitcoin custody can draft appropriate documents. Those documents still require the technical access information to work. Understanding the problem does not solve the problem.

The briefing is a precondition, not a solution. It enables proper planning but does not substitute for the technical arrangements that must exist alongside legal arrangements. Without both, neither works fully.

---

Summary

Estate attorney bitcoin briefing fails when legal expertise and technical custody knowledge do not connect. Attorneys bring deep understanding of property transfer through legal mechanisms. Bitcoin self-custody operates outside these mechanisms. Briefings that assume shared framework fail when the frameworks differ.

The failures take specific forms. Vocabulary gaps create miscommunication. Institutional assumptions create wrong mental models. Incomplete information leaves crucial elements unaddressed. Documentation satisfies legal form while ignoring technical requirements.

Briefings that work require recognizing the knowledge gap and taking time to bridge it. The attorney needs to understand not just that bitcoin exists but how bitcoin custody actually works. Without this understanding, estate plans may properly transfer legal ownership of an asset that heirs cannot technically access.

---

System Context

Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress

Bitcoin Estate Planning Malpractice Risk

Bitcoin Estate Freeze Technique

← Return to CustodyStress