Many lawyers who have not had experience working with trusts, whether personally or professionally, might question the utility of a trust these days for most individuals who are not "ultra-rich." In fact, 20 years ago it appeared that for most clients, trusts were generally only considered worthwhile for three main purposes: (1) protecting "youngish" and somewhat inexperienced children under the age of 35 from wasting away inherited money and having regrets later; (2) funding a "bypass" or "credit shelter" trust to avoid wasting the exemption from federal estate taxes (then $600,000 per spouse); and (3) protecting a widow (but not typically a widower) from potential financial predators.
Things have changed quite a bit since then. These days, we find that most clients like the idea of establishing lifetime trusts for their children (and even grandchildren) under their estate plans, as opposed to the "classic" structure of allowing a child to withdraw the entire trust balance at age 35 (often they now elect to permit the child to be sole trustee at age 35 in lieu of the outright distribution). They also, more often than not, like the idea of creating trusts for either surviving spouse (this appears to be largely attributable to the increasing awareness of the potential for diversion of family assets upon a remarriage by the surviving spouse). There are still significant tax benefits for many individuals (and the objects of their bounty) arising from the creation of trusts, but, undoubtedly, for fewer individuals than was the case 20 years ago given the significantly increased exemption from federal estate tax ($5.25 million per spouse this year) and the new "portability" features for the exemption that allow the surviving spouse to "inherit" the predeceased spouse's unused exemption so that it would not be wasted (although, notably, portability does not apply to the exemption from the generation-skipping transfer tax).
