Andrew Auerbach (00:02) Well, hello, everybody. Welcome to another edition of Beyond the Bank. I am joined by none other than Gene Blacklock. Hello, Gene, how are you?

Jean (00:12) I am great, Andrew. How are you?

Andrew Auerbach (00:13) I am great. Thank you for asking. Excited about this particular topic. Today we are going to hear from Jean on a new book she's writing. The book has a working title of From the Heart, Bringing Your Full Self to Estate Planning. And of course this book builds on Jean's successful book that she published in 2010.

called the 50 biggest estate planning mistakes and how to avoid them. And it's very timely for us that when we were creating Delisle, there was a very strong recognition by both Jean and from myself that the intersection of family relationships and traditional wealth management are coming closer and closer together. And so Jean, as a psychotherapist,

obviously hasn't stopped her passion for estate planning and these areas intersect very much. So, Jean, why don't we start there and maybe just talk a little bit about the book that is now well underway.

Jean (01:24) Sure. Maybe I'll begin by talking a little bit about the 50 biggest estate planning mistakes. I wrote that book just after I left the bank. I worked with Sarah Kruger on it. Sarah interviewed many people, estate practitioners, lawyers, advisors, gerontologists, about what I considered to be the biggest mistakes people make in estate planning. And from all of those interviews, I was able to glean

whole bunch of anecdotes that made my writing about the 50 Biggest Mistakes easy for people to understand and relatable. And the things that I remember about that time is just how much I enjoyed writing the book. It was fun to write it in a way that I felt people could understand. But then, and at the time, really enjoyed

the interviews with various newspapers and radio stations because as you know, Andrew, it's a topic that I love talking about. And, you know, that was all a lot of fun. But what happened then was I opened the bakery very shortly after the book came out. And so I was very busy with Prairie Girl for, well, a decade. And also during that time, I went back and studied psychotherapy and became a registered psychotherapist.

So the book, The 50 Biggest, it definitely receded into the background. From time to time, people would say that they read it and say nice things about it, but it was sort of in my past life. Then when you started talking about Delisle and about your belief that a major part of planning for the high net worth and ultra high net worth client is family dynamics and relationships, and you...

came to that conclusion, I think largely on all of the various things that I had shared with you that I had learned as a psychotherapist and that I was continuing to learn in my various continuing education. think it had opened, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it had opened your eyes to some of the way that relational dynamics affect every part of life. Is that fair to say?

Andrew Auerbach (03:40) Absolutely. And what I always found so fascinating about your process going through psychotherapy was how many times you would reference the parallels between unlearning a lot of the skills you have in the estate planning context, which is people come to you with things that need to be solved and you give them solutions.

You know, I remember so many times how you would talk about how the skills of developing psychotherapy, you know, ability to actually do that effectively with clients are very different than the skills of practicing law.

Jean (04:24) Yes, yes. Well, I just love studying psychotherapy so much. And one of the reasons I loved it, the three year program was the faculty were just the bomb. They were all really great. And I believe that it was in, we started in September of the first year and I believe by January we were doing practice therapy on one another. So you take your turn to be the client and then the therapist. And there were a couple of things that a very kind faculty member

Andrew Auerbach (04:46) Mm -hmm.

Jean (04:54) that were supervising and providing feedback on our, you I think they were 20 minute back and forth. They would say there was two things. One was, you know, that was good, but you're really working too hard. They would say to the, you know, the student that was like trying to solve the client's problem. And then the other thing that they often mentioned was, you know, we're not really in the business of giving advice.

Andrew Auerbach (05:09) You

Jean (05:22) It's like we're in the business of helping the client find their own solution. So those two things really struck me at the time as like, wow, that is the total opposite of what I've learned as a lawyer. But getting back to building the building of Delisle, your thoughts around planning for the high net worth client. It did take me back to the 50 biggest and last summer, I read it from start to finish and.

Andrew Auerbach (05:23) You

Jean (05:50) I really enjoyed it. It was interesting reading something that I'd written over a decade before. And lots of interesting things jumped out at me. One was I had totally forgotten about Cherry Garcia ice cream. Like Ben and Jerry's, know, best flavor ever. was in one of the titles. I think it was something to do with incompetency. Don't forget to feed me Cherry Garcia ice cream. But it's like, darn it, how did I forget about that flavor?

On a more serious note, I was taken aback at my, I guess what you would say, my bossy tone. know, like, make sure you talk early and often about your estate planning. You know, make sure your children know all about it. And it's like, reading it, it felt so, well, instructive and directive as opposed to, I guess, the...

more psychotherapist person that I have become in the intervening years. And so I really began to think about the intersection between estate planning and psychotherapy. And that led to me thinking about the volume of estate disputes. I mean, you can't go through a dinner party or have a conversation.

with someone without a very good chance of them mentioning something that's come up in their family to do with an estate issue. And particularly when I mentioned that I'm writing this book, everyone has a story. They get kind of a look over their face and then they share the story of what's going on. And those stories are never, to my recollection, about a technical issue like, my goodness, can you believe it?

the second witness wasn't present at the same time as the person who signed the will and therefore the whole thing is invalid. I think I mentioned that in the episode four, those things just don't really happen. It's all about the emotional roadblocks. And so that's really was my mindset as I started to write this second book. I had the good fortune of retaining, finding a law student

an excellent law student, Gillian Springer, who started to do the research for me to systematically go through the 50 biggest mistakes, as I had called them, and to update the law by looking at what I had said then. And bear in mind, the law as described in the 50 biggest mistakes is at a very high level touching on, much of a state law is provincial in nature, but also,

most of the provinces follow one another in terms of that law. So it was at a high level over a decade ago and it still is now, but it's remarkably quite unchanged. The things that continue to plague people are again the same things, emotional issues. The case law that Gillian shared with me again is not so much about the technical issues, it's more about people who...

were reacting, are reacting to something that a loved one did or having a problem around something that a loved one did in a will or a power of attorney. So I just found that really interesting and it made me think that quite likely the book not only as a Canadian market but also an American market because those issues of who I should name as my executor, how I should divide up my estate amongst my children, my children's various

strengths and opportunities for growth, what I want to happen when I become, if and when I become incompetent. Those are universal issues that I see as I read the very public cases of celebrities who die and have then estate issues crop up and are part of just the anecdotal world that is stories about estate planning and estate litigation.

So maybe I'll pause there if you have any questions so far about my, how I found my way to writing another book.

Andrew Auerbach (10:10) Yeah, I sure do. And it's so interesting how this book is such an evolution of the first book. Just if we could travel a little bit, having reread 50 Biggest more recently, this is a book that continues to sell well. The book has sold over 10 ,000 copies. is definitely getting a lot of it has received a lot of great feedback. David Chilton wrote

a credit on the cover of the book about the impact, the positive impact of the book. And would love to, before we move forward, I understand you feel that in rereading it, was prescriptive of the things you should and should not do. But maybe if you could just give us a few minutes and talk about why that book did as well as it did, how it was organized, why it's received such great feedback.

Jean (11:10) Well, I think the reason why 50 Biggest was well received is because it is in bite -sized chapters. I do think that people starting to read a book on estate planning are expecting very turgid language that is relatively boring. And so anything written with a humorous tone, think each chapter ranges from 900 to 1500 words. So very short. There are tips to take away.

Andrew Auerbach (11:29) You

Jean (11:40) And I think it's just relatable. Your question makes me think about the few things that over the years people continue to mention from the book that they've learned and taken away. it's always the same couple of things. One is the advice that I give in the book about not naming all of our children as executors. So, you know, if you've got three kids, hey,

Name three executors. You got five kids, there's five executors. And the question, why would you do that? The answer always is, well, I love them equally. They actually wouldn't hurt anybody's feelings. And so I think a number of people have said to me, wow, I never really thought about that. the book goes into that particular chapter, talks about the fact that this is a really tough job being an executor. There's a lot to do. And the people that...

need the executor's direction, signature, permission, et cetera, et cetera, they want to see from everybody. They want to hear from all of the executors. They want all of the executor's signatures, maybe all of the executors to show up. So it's not something loosey goosey that like, we can do it as a committee and because Bob will go out and do all the work. It really does have to be.

unanimous decisions need to be unanimous. And in busy lives that can get very awkward. So if there's, you know, when you explain to people and people have the opportunity to explain to their kids, it's absolutely not because you love one more than the other. The job is not like a gift, giving someone the job of executors, not bestowing a big honor. But you really are doing your family a service if you just select the one that maybe lives in the same city or something like that.

So that is something that I think really landed with a lot of people. The other area that I hear so much about and I'm hearing a lot about from the mediators that I'm interviewing, and that is the whole area of incompetency. As we live longer in our society, there are more years in which there's a possibility of cognitive decline. And that can range from...

maybe not handling our finances at the one end, to really not being able to make any decisions whatsoever in life, including what to eat. So it's an area in which we're well advised to go carefully in terms of the person we choose to be that attorney under a power of attorney for personal care. Again, it's a situation where

People are well advised to have just one person named. There are a lot of stories about where siblings, all the siblings being named and there being a difference of mind around mom's care. And then, you know, it's just such a sad thing, but a lot of fights in retirement homes and nursing care homes amongst the siblings because they just, they're all named in the document and they just can't agree on the right thing to do. So again, the advice of naming

One, having good conversations with that person about what you want if you become incompetent. And then having a document that's really clear about those wishes.

Andrew Auerbach (15:15) Those are really interesting examples. I can tell you that I had the good fortune of kind of reading the chapters as you were developing them. And I still love that book. I think to your point, the book is very relatable and the book is written in a kind of humorous way on a topic that can be heavy. And so I think that is a really good underpinning.

Jean (15:31) Ha!

Andrew Auerbach (15:44) thing you would change about 50 biggest before we move on to your new book?

Jean (15:51) that's a great question, but I don't think it would be possible. Like, it's not a book I would write today because I'm not that same person. I would struggle to write in that chipper bossy tone that is the tone I used in The 50 Biggest. But no, so no, there's nothing that I would have done differently in 2010, 2011 when I wrote it.

Andrew Auerbach (15:59) Hmm.

Well, what a good segue then. Now a registered psychotherapist, thousands of hours of seeing clients, you know, really being a really experienced psychotherapist now, and you embark on this, this new book. So why don't you take us through a little bit? You've made the decision to write it. How did you go about organizing the book? What are the key areas you're trying to tackle and how are you doing that?

Jean (16:51) It was really challenging to find a way into the topic of estate planning from a psychotherapeutic perspective. It was hard to know how to help people with looking at these issues from a relational perspective. But where I landed and it is going well in the writing is

a four -part book. The first part of the book describes the process that I recommend. We can get into that if you like in a minute. Four people going through estate planning that want to include relational principles in their planning. And then the second part is applying that process to the issues of incompetency that I mentioned just a moment ago, planning for incompetency.

Part three is applying that process to estate planning, the actual planning of our will and the distribution of our assets after we're gone. And then the fourth part of the book is applying that process and the relational principles in it to estate administration. And of course, if it's our estate administration, we won't be around to be involved in it.

But very often people are involved in the administration of someone else that has died in their life. And unfortunately, it can be an area where there is a lot of conflict and people struggle with relationships. Either they're the executor and they're struggling with the relationships that they have with the beneficiaries, which tend to be, know, siblings or other loved ones. Or they're the beneficiaries and they're mad at the executor. So one way or another,

I wanted to write about a process that might help people navigate the technical aspects of these aspects of planning and administration along with the relational ones. And for that I set out in part one a seven step process. And the first step is to really understand the law. At the core I think maybe I'm equal.

equally a lawyer and a psychotherapist. But I absolutely believe that it's very important to get good legal advice. There is absolutely no point to doing a beautiful, flowery written document that doesn't hold water. That, of course, would be useless. So understanding the law and as the law applies to one's particular situation. And lawyers are very skilled.

at, they've seen it thousands of times, very skilled at hearing what you're all about, what your options are, you know, this is your third marriage with, you know, these assets, with this prenup, whatever it might be, boom, here's what your options are. So then the second step for the individual going through the planning is to really, you know, go inside themselves and reflect on what they want to do. They've got the advice.

And much of that advice, I think in most cases is, okay, that's the way it needs to be done. Sure, you you recommend this, that sits well with me, let's do that. You know, not everything in people's estate planning is going to be a big problem. There's going to be things that are easy to do. But there'll be perhaps, and that's why people are likely reading the will, there's things that they find troubling. Perhaps a child that is...

requires more care than another child and so should get more of the estate or perhaps again the subsequent spouse how to approach the the gift to the subsequent spouse as opposed to the adult children from another marriage. Personal effects, family cottage, I mean the list of is thousands about issues that might be troubling someone when they hear the advice and it is kind of jarring with what they actually would like to do. As you know Andrew I'm a huge fan of

using journaling as part of a reflective process. I find when I write out what my thoughts are on something that's I'm trying to decide, it's very helpful. The third step is to take a look at the things that you really want to do, those, you might say knee -jerk reactions, the things you, know, darn it all, this is how I want to handle my estate. And to, you know, give yourself the grace of really understanding where that's coming from.

the organizing principles in your life that might be driving those. So for example, in the situation of a subsequent spouse, and this is situation that I heard about in one of my meetings and I'll of course be very careful not to reveal any details that are too descriptive, but the issue was a subsequent spouse where there was a large estate, an estate

certainly large enough to cover all of the legal requirements and prenup requirements to the subsequent spouse and still have enough to leave significant amounts to the adult children who were people in their 40s and early 50s. There was a large age difference between the second spouse and the testator. And the individual decided that everything would go to the subsequent spouse on his death, much to the dismay of his adult children. Someone like that,

we're exploring, you know, at the time why he wanted to do that, may very well have determined that an organizing principle for him was the fact that it was his responsibility to be a spouse that provided, that left his spouse with no financial worries at all, that very much believed that adult children should be completely independent financially, et cetera, et cetera. I hasten to say none of that is coming from

you know, me, my views, I'm just giving that as an example of what a person might reflect on when they're thinking about what they want to do. The fourth step of the seven step process is then to brainstorm what might the results be for that decision that you'd like to make. And in the case of the individual who was leaving everything to his second spouse and nothing to his adult children, know, issues that might have come up on reflection may have been

unhappiness after death, you know, the legacy he leaves those children, their memories of them, confusion, if this was not something that was discussed with him, perhaps his grandchildren observing the tension arising, the relationship between his surviving spouse and what would be the stepchildren or his children.

the relationship amongst the children if they disagreed on how to take this news and so on and so forth. I think on reflection a person can, you if you give yourself some time you can think about, okay, this is what I want to do but what might be some of the consequences of this? And then the next step is to think about those results, which ones are just not desirable at all on reflection, what changes you want to make, what really doesn't work there.

and what needs to be done to make a different decision. And that will usually almost always involve going back to the lawyer or advisor or accountant or tax planner and saying, look, you know, this is the advice that you gave me. This is the option I chose. Having thought about it, these are some consequences that I don't really like the sound of.

Do you have any suggestions for other ways that I could handle this? there shades of gray here? Are there options that I could do? And so sort of an iterative process between the consequences of the original plan and ways that it can be massaged to have a different result, to avoid those things that don't sit well with you. And then the seventh step is to...

accept that no matter what we do in our estate planning or in how we approach in a state administration, there may very well be people that are upset with us. And this is just something that, you know, there's a lot of wonderful authors on this topic of accepting what is, accepting reality, accepting the fact that people will be upset with us. In the area of estate planning and administration, this is something that

I really am spending some time on writing about in the book because we can get ourselves in knots trying to get it perfect and the fact of the matter is maybe our estate planning won't make everybody happy and we need to come to peace with that. So that's a very fast overview of the process and then as I mentioned Andrew, the rest of the book will be applying that process to various

sticky issues in the area of incompetency, planning and administration.

Andrew Auerbach (26:30) Wow. So in this process, Gene, it is, first of all, I don't think it's ever been articulated this way in terms of the playbook of thinking about estate planning. And maybe I'll make a couple of comments and just get your reaction, things that certainly I've seen through discussions with clients and with advisors. One is when you read wills that have been drafted some years earlier.

Jean (26:51) Mm

Andrew Auerbach (26:57) with the client and you ask the client what different paragraphs mean. So many times clients are not able to intuit why it was written the way it was written. And I wonder your reaction to that as you talk about step number one of course being critical, engage a lawyer who understands how to properly draft a will. Why does that happen? Why do so many times in fact I would

you know, not to be too controversial. Say most times people have trouble with at least one or two paragraphs as to either what it means or what they were trying to accomplish.

Jean (27:30) Mm

Right. So the law profession's response to your question, which is a good one, is that the case law, starting from Britain, both the United States and Canada have a system of case law, which is an earlier case from a senior court is precedent. You follow it. It decides an issue. And then if it's a similar...

issue in a similar province or state, that would be very, very persuasive. Every court that sees a trial in front of it does not have the latitude to do what it feels is right in the situation. They're required to look at the facts and apply the law as the law has developed. And so the law on estate planning goes way back to Britain and the interpretation

of the of estates and wills has been on very arcane language which continues in wills today and when you you know ask about plain language wills the response that you often get is well that language hasn't been litigated that this is this language is clear to the profession it's more or less they're saying we don't really care if you mr layperson or miss layperson doesn't understand this the important thing is

is that the law profession understands this and they'll direct your executive to do the right thing. And if it ever has to go to court, know, phrases like to my children, persterpies, everybody knows what that means, even if you don't. So to some extent, I buy that and I, you know, I used to really have a problem with that, but having thought about it and talked to other lawyers about it, I don't have a problem with it. What I have a problem with it with is that

lawyers don't take the extra step to mitigate that. And there's a few ways it could be mitigated. Something as simple as a dictionary, like a handout you give clients listing all the terms, the Latin terms that are used in wills and defining them because they're not that, the concepts aren't that complicated, like goes down my family tree. If my kid is dead, then it goes to that kid's.

children and so on and so forth down the family tree. it's not, it's not like these ideas are really rocket science, but they need to be explained to people. And then the other idea that I heard recently that I think is excellent is like giving clients like a map, you know? Okay, so if your husband is dead, then this is what's going to happen and do it out schematically or do that plain language will and no, it won't be a legally binding document.

but it will be a document that the client can read and understand. So I know that's a long -winded answer to your question, but I think there's ways around the problem.

Andrew Auerbach (30:37) It's a great answer, yeah.

The other piece I love about this seven step process, back to this intersection of things you've learned around relationships and the dynamics in families, I don't think it's ever been articulated the way you have around actually your words outlive you as it relates to your will and actually contemplating how those words are received. That as...

people are actually implementing as your executor what you have set out, what is the impact on the people you love? And thinking about that through that brainstorming, I think can be a pretty powerful exercise. Now, you've often said to me as well that some people just don't wanna go there, that it's not necessarily right or wrong, but for those people that actually have the desire,

to see that things get done in a way that preserves relationships with people they care about. I just think that's very powerful. I'd love to get kind of your perspective on what I just said.

Jean (31:45) Mm

Yeah, for sure. It's very easy to just think that a will and a power of attorney is all about the material assets. And in a way, sure, it is. Those documents govern our property and in the case of a power of attorney for personal care, governs end of life directions to the physician or...

Andrew Auerbach (32:02) Mm.

Jean (32:20) directions to the nursing home, like, you very tangible things. But they're also the last letters or last legacy that we do leave those that we love. And so, yes, it's worthwhile if a person chooses to, to think about the impact on our loved ones and to...

going back to your earlier question, make sure that there is a plain language document that people can read and really understand what the documents say. And I've had lawyers share with me just how moving it has been to children when they receive a letter, when the lawyer has been asked to give a letter to the children at the time of, you

sharing the contents of the will. And personal effects, the taking time to distribute those thoughtfully. And then to the media issue of those decisions that are tough.

reflecting on whether you want to have a conversation with your loved ones, your children about the decisions that they might not like. Is that a relational principle that you have? Is that an important value to you? Or, you know, is it more important to preserve your relationships through your life? Knowing that one way or another when you're dead,

There may be waves from that decision, but you're prioritizing the relationship in your life. In answer to your question, I fully agree with you. I think for people that want to be thoughtful about this, I think there's a real opportunity that a lot of people don't think of.

Andrew Auerbach (34:24) And I'm hearing you say there's not a right or wrong. It's really about an introspection and coming to a path that is comfortable for you. Ultimately, it is your will. And I think going back to your comments about 50 biggest you should or should not do this, I'm not hearing a lot of prescription in that. I'm just hearing a lot of self -reflection and actually deciding in a way that maybe people haven't really thought through before as to, you know, which

Jean (34:52) Mm

Andrew Auerbach (34:52) Which road do I want to go down in terms of how much I want to talk about this?

Jean (34:58) Well, that's it exactly. And it's also why I'm very comfortable that the book I'm working on will be for both an American and a Canadian audience. For that very reason, in the three substantive parts of the book, Incompetency, Planning and Administration, I will be touching on, I believe in each case, five or six of the thorny issues that catch people up. Again, the number of executors, the...

a family cottage, you know, all those things and throwing out the generally accepted solutions in the legal profession, but presenting them more in the way of like, okay, so here's an issue that a lot of families have got tripped up on, and here's the various things that have been done. Now, here's how if this is something that resonates with you, let's look at how you're going to make the decision.

by using this seven step process. You're absolutely right. This isn't a book that says this is the best way because I've come to learn. Like, who am I to say what's best for anyone?

Andrew Auerbach (36:10) Before we go into the implementation, I'd love to get a little bit of perspective on those sections you described. Once you have the seven step process, how you're thinking about applying that in the various areas, whether it's a state administration or in competency. So certainly would be interested there, but I know that you've engaged in a number of interviews with practitioners, experts in the field and the feedback.

at least what you've relayed to me has been overwhelmingly positive about the direction you're taking with the book. And so we'd love to maybe just shift before we get into the application to how do practitioners see this intersection the way you've articulated it as you interview them.

Jean (36:57) Well, I think I alluded in our first conversation on this topic that when I speak to therapists, they wish that, from what they hear from their clients, they sure wish that lawyers could be nicer and spend more time holding their clients' hands about these difficult issues. And when I speak to lawyers, they say they sure wish there were more therapists that would focus on estate planning and, you know.

fix their clients and send them back to the lawyer all like ready to make a decision. So both professions are very keen on like throwing the other profession under the bus. No, I'm joking. It's universal that...

Andrew Auerbach (37:29) Yeah

Jean (37:42) this area of the law troubles people. Maybe, I mean we all die right? So one way or another there might be ramifications from that and hurt feelings. So it's certainly not been difficult for me to you know line up those appointments. I really look forward to having a number of guests on the podcast about the conversations that we're having on this on this topic.

looking at estate planning through a more reflective lens. And yes, you're right, there's a lot of enthusiasm on this approach.

Andrew Auerbach (38:23) Really interesting. Did you have any comments on this podcast as it relates to the implementation of the seven step process in those categories you've talked about in the three other sections?

Jean (38:37) maybe just at a high level I would jump right to part four, which is the administration one. And the thing that I like about applying the seven step process to that is the person, the will is fixed at that point. Like the death has occurred, there is a will, there's an argument over the will. There might be an argument over whether the will is valid if there was some question about the competency of the person when they did it.

But either way, there's pretty clear parameters as to what we're fighting about. so to me, the seven step process is so useful in a situation like this, because in a conflict involving people such as in an estate administration, the reactive approach is rarely the best approach.

estate mediators have shared with me the number of texts that they've read that are so vitriolic. Since I practiced law, now of course, things like texts back and forth between people is like when it goes to litigation, of course, you see it all, right? So everybody has to share everything. And so a client will come in and say, my damn brother, the texts he sent me, they're just...

horrible, you wouldn't believe it and shows the lawyer the horrible text. And then as the litigation progresses, the lawyer sees the client, her own client's text that she sent to the brother. it's just that way. And so if a person takes a seven step process as a way to step back from the fray to starting at the beginning,

like think about what the lawyer's advice was, what the options were, know, litigation, mediation, accepting the will as it is, accepting the two medical reports we've got so far saying that dad was in fact competent or, you know, going and filing a statement of claim. So really understanding the law. And then as I say, stepping back and really journaling on what matters and getting at the heart of the result that you want.

In the short term, the result that we want, might feel like it's, you know, damn it, dad was incompetent. So I need to fight until the bitter end to prove that that will was invalid. But if we take the time to think about it, you know, that there's a very good chance that that decision would mean the end of the relationship with someone in the family or the rest of the family.

And is that a trade away that the person wants to make? It may be, it may very well be, but in reading the estate case law, I'm often struck by the fact, by the question as to whether people did reflect going through it on the different paths. I think sometimes when people have a very skilled, qualified lawyer giving advice, you don't question it.

just do it. If there's an option, if the door is open for litigation or this or that, you turn off your relational mind which might say, is this really what I want to do? Does this make sense for the rest of my life? And you just proceed. So if nothing else, I would like people to take a pause. Then if they decide to proceed, great. But maybe they'll decide to look at other options that might

work better at preserving relationships that do matter to them.

Andrew Auerbach (42:30) Fantastic. I know that everybody listening, myself included, will be excited for this book to come out because you've given us, I think, an approach and a way of thinking about estate planning that is without question unique. know, having been around this area for many years, I've never really heard it approached this way. And in fact, from a planning point of view, given, you know, where we come from,

The relationships and the impact of the decisions are virtually never explored. It's the encouragement of getting a plan done, making sure the plan is updated regularly, you've remarried, we should talk about that, but never about the quality of the relationships or this idea of taking a step back as you describe and being so purposeful around thinking about the impact in a way that, you know, I think will be beneficial to people.

Before we close this podcast, you have any other thoughts, Gene, you'd want to share with us on the topic?

Jean (43:38) No, well, I think to underscore what you've just said, that I think we really believe at Delisle that we want to do everything we can. I want to do everything I can to help the advisors feel comfortable with these kinds of things. When I think about offering a client a copy of the book, once I get it written, might be an easy way to...

suggest to people that they could look at what they're wrestling with from a relational perspective. But I'd really like to normalize these things, to sort of bring it out of the closet, the idea that there can be differing opinions and conflict. That's not a bad thing, it's kind of part of life. I think when we just proceed with

hammering away at clients that they need a will, they need a power of attorney, let's get it done, let's get it done. I think it's missed opportunity to work with a client in a different way.

Andrew Auerbach (44:53) Yeah, I think that's so powerful. We often say that, you you may be the only psychotherapist working in a wealth management firm today, but we both don't feel that will be the case in the future. And, you know, in fact, I know we were talking this morning, about an article where a company is offering an in -house therapist to work with employees. I think this word of normalizing, I think, is the right one, that we will see this more and more in our industry.

Jean (45:13) Mm

Mm

Mm hmm. Yeah. And yeah, if people... It was a really interesting office article at the... It was Synchrony Financial and the article was in today's Wall Street Journal and today is August the 28th. If anybody wants to check it out or we can certainly provide it to them. And the psychotherapist in this article is on staff and I was interested in reading it that like she's fully booked.

And it started out with some of the younger employees taking up the opportunity to have, you know, on their lunch break, go and have a session with a therapist. But it's now really people of every generation are using that resource. So I thought that was really cool.

Andrew Auerbach (46:08) Yeah, me too. Shall we close here, Gene, or do you have any other thoughts?

Jean (46:13) No, that'd be great. Like I say, I'm really excited about the conversations I'm going to be having with professionals on this topic. And I hope that our listeners will tune in and hear about that.

Andrew Auerbach (46:27) Fantastic. Well, thank you all for listening in. Again, you can follow us anywhere you get your podcasts and spread the word. We'd really love to see as many people as possible hear these podcasts on very different and interesting topics. Gene, thank you so much.

Jean (46:47) Thanks, Andrew. See ya. Bye bye.

Andrew Auerbach (46:50) Bye.