Will-writing partnerships: useful access or reputational risk?
This lesson challenges the course thesis by examining when free, discounted or online will-writing partnerships help people act on charitable intent — and when access, incentives and scale create pressure, compliance or trust risk.
Listen to the lesson
Access is not automatically progress
Will-writing partnerships can look like the perfect answer to the bequest gap.
Many Australians have no valid will. The Australian Law Reform Commission figures cited in the facts pack indicate roughly 58–60% of eligible Australians have not made one, with sources often summarised as “around half” of Australians lacking a valid will. No will means no charitable gift. A free, discounted or simple online will-writing offer can therefore be a legitimate legacy-fundraising activity if it helps supporters make proper plans.
That is the case for access.
But access creates its own pressure. A partnership can move a person from “I should think about my will” to “I am being prompted to include this charity while completing a legal document.” The larger the scale, the more important the safeguards become.
This is the lesson that challenges the course’s main thesis. Professional relationships can make charitable giving normal, but normalisation can become a nudge too far when the process is designed around conversion, preferential placement or donor capture.
The UK asking evidence supports low-pressure raising of the charitable option. It does not give charities permission to make charitable giving feel like a checkout add-on. Dr Russell James’s research warns against death-salient pressure and shows that bequest decisions sit close to identity, autobiography and continuity. That makes trust central. A will-writing process that feels manipulative can damage the charity even if it produces short-term enquiries.
The question is not, “Can this partnership generate gifts in wills?”
The better question is, “Can this partnership help people make considered, properly advised, voluntary decisions — including the decision not to leave a gift?”
Diagnostic
The will-writing partnership stress test
Use this diagnostic before approving a free-will offer, discounted will campaign, online will-writing partnership, charity directory, webinar, referral arrangement or featured-cause placement.
-
1
Client benefit — does the partnership help the person make a valid, considered plan?
What it means: The partnership must have a real client-service purpose. It should help people make or review a will, understand that charitable giving is optional, and know when their situation needs qualified advice.
How to read it: Strong: the offer helps people complete or update a will, explains that family and dependants should be considered, and includes clear referral to qualified legal advice for complex circumstances. Weak: the offer is mainly a lead-generation campaign wrapped around a will-writing discount.
Safe version in use: “This offer is designed to help supporters take advice and make clear plans. Including a gift to charity is optional.”
Unsafe version in use: “Use your free will appointment to secure your legacy with us.”
Why unsafe: The second version makes the legal-planning moment serve the charity’s gift objective. It narrows the person’s choice before the process has even started. -
2
Neutrality — is the charitable option presented as a choice, not a preferred answer?
What it means: A partnership may make charitable giving visible. It should not make one charity feel like the expected beneficiary.
How to read it: Strong: the process asks whether the person wants to consider any charity or cause, and allows an easy “no” or “not now.” Weak: the charity is pre-selected, visually dominant, described as the natural choice, or placed in a way that implies endorsement by the will-writer.
Safe version in use: “Would you like to consider including any charity or community organisation in your will? You can skip this step.”
Unsafe version in use: “Many supporters complete their will by adding a gift to our charity. Select your gift type below.”
Why unsafe: The second version uses social pressure and process design to push toward completion. It may increase conversions, but it weakens consent. -
3
Complexity screening — does the process know when to stop being simple?
What it means: Some wills are not suitable for a simple or digital pathway. A partnership must identify cases where the person needs qualified legal advice.
How to read it: Strong: the process screens for blended families, dependants, estrangement, capacity concerns, large charitable gifts, complex assets, uncertainty about wording, restricted gifts and possible family provision issues. Weak: the process treats a large charitable gift, family conflict or unclear capacity as a normal online completion path.
Safe version in use: “If you have dependants, family conflict, complex assets, capacity concerns, or want to leave a large or conditional gift, please seek qualified legal advice before continuing.”
Unsafe version in use: “Most gifts are straightforward. Choose a percentage and continue.”
Why unsafe: Percentage gifts may be common, but whether a percentage is suitable depends on the person’s estate, family and instructions. The process should not turn a complex decision into a form field. -
4
Incentives — is anyone rewarded for steering the client?
What it means: Commercial terms matter because they shape behaviour. The charity must understand whether the will-writer, platform, adviser, staff member or referrer benefits when a person includes a charitable gift.
How to read it: Strong: fees, discounts, sponsorships and referral arrangements are transparent, reviewed and not tied to persuading individuals to leave gifts. Weak: the provider offers charity prominence, data, discounts or commissions in exchange for gift conversion.
Safe version in use: “The charity sponsors general will-making education. The provider is not paid according to whether a client includes a charitable gift.”
Unsafe version in use: “We can feature your charity more prominently for a higher package fee and optimise prompts to increase gifts.”
Why unsafe: The arrangement may turn estate planning into a conversion funnel. Even where technically permitted, it can damage trust and should trigger senior, legal and ethical review. -
5
Data and consent — what information comes back to the charity?
What it means: A will-writing partnership may generate sensitive information: who made a will, who considered a gift, who included the charity, who declined, and who may be vulnerable or bereaved.
How to read it: Strong: the charity receives only information the person has clearly consented to share, and the consent explains what the charity will do with it. Weak: the charity receives lists of users, prospects, incomplete journeys or “likely legacy donors” without clear, specific consent.
Safe version in use: “We will only contact you if you choose to share your details with us for that purpose.”
Unsafe version in use: “We will provide the charity with monthly leads from users who engaged with the gift-in-will prompt.”
Why unsafe: A person completing a will is not automatically consenting to be stewarded as a bequest prospect. The charity’s relationship must be permission-based. -
6
Messaging — does the copy respect mortality, family and choice?
What it means: Will-making is emotionally loaded. The wrong language can create avoidance, guilt or pressure.
How to read it: Strong: the copy frames the decision around values, people, causes and clear planning. Weak: the copy leans on death urgency, guilt, “last chance” language, family comparison or moral obligation.
Safe version in use: “Your will can reflect the people and causes that matter to you. A charitable gift is one option to consider.”
Unsafe version in use: “Do not leave this world without making your final gift count.”
Why unsafe: Dr Russell James’s work cautions against leading with death-salient pressure. It may feel dramatic to the charity, but it can make the decision less safe and less trusted. -
7
Accountability — who owns complaints, errors and concerns?
What it means: The partnership needs a clear operating model before it goes live. The charity should know who handles legal questions, technical problems, complaints, safeguarding concerns and requests to change or revoke instructions.
How to read it: Strong: roles are written down, escalation routes are clear, and the charity does not answer legal or estate-structuring questions. Weak: the charity team becomes the informal help desk for a will-writing process it does not control.
Safe version in use: “All legal, drafting and platform questions are handled by the provider or referred to qualified legal advice. The charity answers only questions about its work and organisational details.”
Unsafe version in use: “If users have any questions about leaving a gift, they can contact the charity’s gifts-in-wills team.”
Why unsafe: That line is too broad. “Any questions” may include tax, wording, family provision, capacity and estate structure. The charity should not invite questions it cannot safely answer.
Scenario
The partnership that is attractive for the wrong reasons
Southern Coast Animal Rescue is offered a partnership by BrightPath Wills, an online will-writing provider.
BrightPath proposes a “Free Will Fortnight” for the charity’s supporters. The provider will waive its standard fee for simple wills. In return, Southern Coast Animal Rescue will promote the offer to its email list and social channels.
The offer has obvious benefits. The charity has many older supporters who have never told the organisation whether they have a will. The will-making gap in Australia is real. The campaign could help people take a responsible planning step. BrightPath also says the charity may receive more gifts in wills if the process makes the charitable option visible.
Then the details arrive.
BrightPath wants Southern Coast Animal Rescue to be the featured charity on the gift page. The default copy reads:
“You have supported animals during your life. Now you can make that kindness last forever by leaving a gift in your will.”
The platform will ask users to choose a percentage gift before showing the skip option. It will send the charity a monthly spreadsheet of users who clicked the gift page, including those who did not complete a gift. BrightPath also offers an upgraded package where the charity can test different prompts to “lift gift conversion.”
The fundraising director, Mei, is tempted. The board wants visible bequest activity. The campaign is affordable. The provider says other charities are doing it. The gifts-in-wills manager, Rafael, is uneasy but does not want to block a channel that could genuinely help supporters make wills.
There is no clean answer. Rejecting every will-writing partnership would be too cautious. Accepting this one unchanged would be too risky.
A better decision is conditional.
Mei and Rafael can proceed only if the partnership is redesigned around client choice and proper advice. The charity should require a neutral charitable-giving prompt, no pre-selected charity, a visible skip option, complexity screening, no conversion-optimised pressure testing, and no transfer of user data unless the user clearly consents to charity contact. The charity should also remove “make that kindness last forever” from the will journey. It may be suitable in some stewardship settings, but inside a legal-document process it risks emotional pressure.
The partnership is not approved because it might generate gifts. It is approved only if it helps supporters make voluntary, informed and appropriately advised decisions.
Reflection
The question your board may not ask
Before you recommend a will-writing partnership, answer these questions as though you will need to defend the decision to a sceptical solicitor, a donor’s family member and your board.
1. Would the process still feel fair if the supporter chose not to include the charity?
If the answer is no, the partnership is too dependent on pressure.
2. Would you be comfortable showing the full user journey to a donor’s adult child after a contested estate?
If the answer is no, the prompts, defaults or data flows need review.
3. Could a vulnerable, grieving or confused person move through the process without being slowed down?
If yes, the screening is too weak.
4. Does the charity receive information about people who have not explicitly asked for contact?
If yes, the stewardship plan may be built on the wrong consent.
5. Is the charity paying for visibility, or for ethical access to proper will-making support?
If the honest answer is visibility, the arrangement needs senior and legal review before it is presented as donor service.
Next step
Set partnership conditions before you say yes
Do not approve a will-writing partnership from the headline offer. Approve it only against written conditions.
Use this approval checklist.
1. Purpose condition
Write into the agreement:
“The purpose of this partnership is to support clear, voluntary will-making and to make charitable giving visible as an optional consideration. It is not to pressure users to include the charity.”
Reject or renegotiate if:
The provider describes the campaign mainly in terms of “legacy lead generation,” “gift conversion” or “charity uplift.”
2. Prompt condition
Write into the agreement:
“Any charitable-giving prompt must be neutral, optional and easy to skip. The prompt must not pre-select the charity or imply that a charitable gift is expected.”
Acceptable prompt:
“Would you like to consider including any charity or community organisation in your will?”
Unacceptable prompt:
“Add a gift to Southern Coast Animal Rescue to make your love of animals live on.”
3. Advice condition
Write into the agreement:
“The process must direct users to qualified legal advice where circumstances are complex, including dependants, family conflict, blended families, capacity concerns, large or conditional gifts, complex assets or uncertainty about wording.”
Reject or renegotiate if:
The provider says all users can complete the same journey unless they opt out.
4. Data condition
Write into the agreement:
“The charity will receive personal information only where the user has given clear consent to share details with the charity and understands the purpose of contact.”
Reject or renegotiate if:
The provider offers incomplete-user lists, click data tied to names, “likely legacy donor” segments or contact details for people who have not chosen charity follow-up.
5. Incentive condition
Write into the agreement:
“No payment, discount, placement or benefit should depend on persuading a user to include a charitable gift or increasing the size of a gift.”
Reject or renegotiate if:
The provider sells prompt optimisation, featured placement or staff incentives based on gift inclusion.
6. Complaint and escalation condition
Write into the agreement:
“The provider handles platform, drafting and legal-process questions. The charity answers only questions about its organisation, purpose, correct legal name, ABN, DGR status where relevant and staff contact details.”
Reject or renegotiate if:
The charity is expected to answer broad user questions about how to leave a gift, what wording to use, whether a percentage is appropriate or whether a gift will affect family claims.
Decision rule:
Approve the partnership only if all six conditions are met or explicitly resolved through senior, legal or compliance review. If the provider cannot accept neutrality, consent, screening and escalation, the opportunity is not mature enough for launch.
Key idea
A will-writing partnership is valuable only when it increases informed choice. If the design increases pressure, captures data without clear consent or shortcuts qualified advice, scale makes the risk worse.
What this changes
You now have the counter-pressure the course needs.
Silence is a real failure in bequest fundraising. The charitable option is often not raised, and many Australians have no valid will. Professional and will-writing partnerships can help people act on values they already hold.
But access is not the same as trust. A partnership that makes charitable giving visible can also make it feel expected. A digital journey can reduce friction, but it can also hide pressure inside defaults, prompts and data capture.
The charity’s standard should be clear: make will-making easier, make charitable giving optional, screen for complexity, protect consent, avoid conversion incentives, and leave legal, tax and estate-structuring advice with qualified professionals.
The next stage of the course will move into the midpoint Fundraising Moments, where learners apply judgement to solicitor resistance, adviser wording requests and commission-style referral pressure.