Handling the hard cases: family, vulnerability and large gifts
This lesson coaches learners through intermediary-linked cases where the right response is not simply to encourage the gift, especially when family provision, capacity, dependence, grief or a large charitable share is involved.
Listen to the lesson
The hardest cases are not solved by enthusiasm
Most referral guidance sounds clean until a real estate appears.
A solicitor calls because a long-term supporter wants to leave a large share of the estate to the charity. A financial adviser says the donor is recently widowed and asking whether family “deserves anything.” A will-writer reports that a client has chosen the charity online but seems confused about the effect on a dependent adult child.
These are not moments to celebrate quickly. They are also not moments to retreat so far that the donor’s own values disappear.
That tension matters. Australian bequest fundraising has a real under-asking problem. Australian sources cluster around only 6.5–8% of wills containing a charitable gift, while roughly a third of Australians say they would consider one. Silence has a cost.
But family provision claims are a live risk under Australian succession law. Vulnerability and undue influence concerns are central where a donor is elderly, recently bereaved, unwell, dependent or under pressure. A large gift that ignores family circumstances may be challenged, resented, reduced, delayed or reputationally damaging even when the donor’s charitable intent is genuine.
The fundraiser’s role in a hard case is neither to push nor to vanish.
The role is to protect the donor’s agency, keep the professional in the lead, answer only organisational questions, slow the process where risk is high, and make sure the charity’s internal appetite for a major gift does not distort the decision.
Scenario
The gift everyone wants to accept — but no one should rush
An aged-care charity receives a call from Martin Vale, a solicitor who has written consent from his client to contact the charity.
The client is Judith Renshaw, 84. She has supported the charity for twenty-two years with modest annual gifts after her husband spent his final months in one of its homes. Her usual gift is $120 at Christmas.
Judith has recently sold her house and moved into supported accommodation. Martin says her estate is likely to be worth about $3.1 million. Judith has told him she wants to leave 50% of the residue to the charity, with the rest divided between two adult children.
The situation is sensitive.
One daughter, Helen, visits often and helps Judith manage appointments. The son, Peter, has had little contact for years but has a history of financial dependence. Martin says Judith is clear in the appointment, but she is grieving the loss of her home and has been anxious about “being a burden.” Judith has asked whether someone from the charity would meet her and “tell me what the gift would do.” Martin also asks whether the charity has wording for a residual gift.
The gifts-in-wills manager, Sanaa, feels the scale immediately. A 50% residual gift from a $3.1 million estate could be transformational. It could also become a contested or painful matter if the charity behaves badly now.
This is a genuinely hard case.
Ignoring Judith’s wish would be patronising. Treating the gift as safe because a solicitor is involved would be naïve. The only defensible path is careful, bounded and documented.
Weaker response
The response that lets the gift distort judgement
Sanaa says to Martin:
“That is wonderful news. Judith has been part of our community for such a long time, and a gift of that size would transform our aged-care work. We would be very happy to meet her and talk through the difference a 50% residual gift could make.
We do have wording for residual gifts, and I can send that to you today. If Judith is comfortable, I would also love to bring our CEO to the meeting so she can hear personally how important this would be.
Given her long connection to us, it sounds as though this is a beautiful way to honour her husband’s memory. Please let her know how grateful we are.”
Sanaa then emails her CEO:
“We may have a major bequest. Long-term donor, no issue with the solicitor, possibly 50% of a $3.1 million estate. I think we should prioritise this and make Judith feel deeply thanked while she is making the decision.”
Coaching note
Why this is risky
The weak response is not crude, but it allows the possible gift to lead the judgement.
“That is wonderful news” is too celebratory before the charity understands the risk. The solicitor has described family complexity, recent life change, anxiety and a large charitable share. The right first response is not excitement. It is care.
“Talk through the difference a 50% residual gift could make” risks anchoring Judith to a specific structure. The charity can talk about its work. It should not reinforce the gift size or structure as though 50% is the right answer.
“I can send wording” is too loose. The charity may provide correct organisational details and general information, but Martin should draft or approve wording. The solicitor, not the charity, owns legal validity.
Bringing the CEO may feel respectful, but it can increase pressure. A donor who is elderly, grieving, anxious about burden and considering a large gift may interpret senior attention as expectation.
“Honour her husband’s memory” may be true, but it uses a highly personal grief connection at the moment of decision. Dr Russell James’s research supports values and continuity as central to bequest decisions; that does not give the charity permission to intensify grief while the donor is deciding.
The internal email is also a problem. “No issue with the solicitor” is false comfort. A solicitor’s involvement is important, but it does not remove vulnerability, family provision or undue-influence risk. “Make Judith feel deeply thanked while she is making the decision” points the team toward emotional reinforcement before the decision is settled.
Stronger response
The response that protects the donor and the charity
Sanaa says to Martin:
“Thank you for letting us know, Martin, and for confirming Judith has consented to you contacting us.
Given the size of the possible gift and the family circumstances you have described, I would want to be very careful about our role. We can answer questions about the charity, our work, our full legal name, ABN, DGR status where relevant and the right contact details. We would not advise Judith on the size of the gift, the structure of the estate, wording validity or how her family circumstances should be handled.
If Judith would find it helpful, I can meet with her to talk about the aged-care work she has supported and answer organisational questions. I would prefer that you remain the lead professional contact, and that any meeting is arranged through you. I would also avoid bringing senior staff unless you think that is appropriate and not likely to add pressure.
On wording, we can provide our correct legal identity and any organisational details you need. We would rely on you to draft or review the clause for Judith’s circumstances.
If Judith is still considering the gift, we will not treat it internally as confirmed. We will record it only as a sensitive enquiry unless and until she chooses to tell us otherwise.”
If Sanaa meets Judith, she opens with:
“Judith, thank you for being willing to speak with me. Martin has explained that you are considering your plans, and I want to be clear that I am not here to encourage a particular decision or gift size. My role is only to answer questions about the charity and the work you have supported. Any decision about your will, your family and the structure of your estate is for you and your solicitor.”
If Judith asks, “Would 50% make a real difference?” Sanaa answers:
“A gift of any size can make a difference to this work, but I do not want to comment on what share is right for your estate. That needs to sit with you and Martin, especially because family circumstances matter. What I can do is explain the kinds of aged-care work supporters often choose to help.”
If Judith says, “My son has disappointed me. I would rather the charity had the money,” Sanaa answers:
“I am sorry that has been painful. I do not want to step into family decisions or influence how you provide for anyone. That is exactly the kind of question Martin should help you work through. I can stay with questions about the charity, or we can pause here.”
Coaching note
Why this works
The better response keeps all three duties in view: donor agency, professional boundary and charity protection.
Sanaa does not reject the gift. That matters. Over-caution can become its own ethical failure when it treats an older donor as incapable of generosity simply because the gift is large. Judith may have a settled, values-based reason for remembering the charity. The charity should not erase that.
But Sanaa also does not celebrate the gift as though it is secure. She names the size, family circumstances and professional role as reasons for care.
The phrase “I would want to be very careful about our role” is useful because it does not accuse the solicitor, donor or family. It positions caution as professional discipline.
Sanaa’s list of what the charity can provide is specific: work, legal name, ABN, DGR status where relevant and contact details. Her list of what the charity cannot do is equally specific: gift size, estate structure, wording validity and family circumstances.
The meeting opening protects Judith from hidden pressure. It tells her she is allowed to decide, change her mind or ask only factual questions. It also makes the charity’s internal motive less visible in the room.
The answers to Judith’s difficult questions avoid two common failures. Sanaa does not say, “Yes, 50% would be transformational,” because that would reward the proposed structure. She also does not say, “You should think of your son,” because that would become family advice. She stays in the narrow role: explain the work, respect the donor, refer estate decisions back to the solicitor.
The discipline is not cold. It is what allows warmth to be trusted.
Next step
Use the hard-case pause
When an intermediary contacts the charity about a large, family-sensitive or vulnerability-sensitive gift, pause before responding with gratitude, impact or recognition.
Use this sequence.
1. Confirm consent and channel
Say:
“Before we discuss anything further, can I confirm the donor has consented to you contacting us and that you are the appropriate professional contact for this matter?”
Do not say:
“Please send through the details and we will follow up with the donor.”
2. Name the charity’s role
Say:
“We can answer organisational questions and provide accurate details about the charity. We cannot advise on estate structure, gift size, tax outcome, wording validity or family provision matters.”
Do not say:
“We can help the donor work out the best way to include us.”
3. Identify risk factors without diagnosing them
Check whether any of these are present:
Large share of the estate.
Dependants or financially reliant family.
Estrangement or recent family conflict.
Recent bereavement, illness, cognitive concern or major life change.
A donor who appears anxious, pressured or eager to please.
A restricted, named or conditional gift.
A request for the charity to comment on wording, tax, fairness or family.
How to read the result:
One risk factor means slow down.
Two or more means keep the professional clearly in the lead.
Any capacity, pressure or family provision concern means the charity should not meet the donor alone.
4. Separate information from reinforcement
Safe information:
“We can explain the aged-care programs Judith has supported.”
“We can provide our legal identity and contact details.”
“We can explain how unrestricted gifts are generally used.”
Risky reinforcement:
“This gift would transform the organisation.”
“Your husband would be proud.”
“Fifty percent would create a lasting legacy.”
“Your family will understand once they know the impact.”
5. Document the decision posture
Write an internal note:
“Sensitive bequest enquiry via solicitor. Donor considering a large residual gift. Family and vulnerability factors present. Charity role limited to organisational information. No advice on gift size, structure, wording, tax or family provision. No recognition, stewardship escalation or senior visit unless solicitor confirms appropriate.”
The hard-case pause protects everyone. It protects the donor from pressure. It protects the solicitor’s role. It protects the charity from behaving as though a possible gift is already its money.
Key idea
In a hard intermediary-linked case, the charity’s task is to protect the donor’s agency and keep the professional in the lead — not to push the gift, reject the gift, or become the donor’s adviser.
What this changes
You now have a working posture for the cases that test bequest fundraising most sharply.
A large gift through an intermediary can be legitimate, generous and deeply connected to the donor’s life. It can also sit inside family conflict, grief, dependence, capacity concern or estate risk. The fundraiser has to hold both truths.
The practical response is not silence and not enthusiasm. It is disciplined restraint: confirm consent, define the charity’s role, identify risk factors, provide only organisational information, avoid emotional reinforcement while the donor is deciding, and keep the solicitor or adviser in the lead.
The next lesson moves from individual hard cases to relationship maintenance: how to keep professional relationships useful over time without pestering, over-reporting or treating every adviser contact as a pipeline opportunity.