On 22 September, PCD Group and Remember A Charity convened a roundtable at Alvarez & Marsal to explore what legacy really means for high-net-worth families, and the role charitable giving can play in succession planning and family governance. Wealth managers, private client lawyers, tax advisers, family office professionals, donor-advised fund specialists and representatives from charities took part. The discussion was chaired by Clare Stirzaker, Partner at Boodle Hatfield and Chair of Remember A Charity's Private Client Advisory Committee. It built on Remember A Charity's research into high-value legacies and its Good Practice Guide for Wealth Advisers, a practical toolkit designed to give advisers the confidence to raise legacy giving with clients.

A mainstream behaviour, but a missing conversation

Lucinda Frostick, Director of Remember A Charity, set the scene. Over 25 years, the campaign has worked with charities, government and a network of around 950 solicitor firms and will writers. In that time, legacy giving has moved from a niche activity to a mainstream one: one in three charity supporters with a will has now included a charitable gift. Among wealthier clients the propensity to give is higher still.

Yet the conversations are not always happening. As will-writing becomes more commoditised, the time available for estate planning discussions is being squeezed. The research found that wealth advisers had a clear appetite to play a more proactive role, but they often lacked the confidence to do so. The result is a disconnect between what clients want from their advisers and what the industry currently delivers.

“A low-risk question, but a high-value opportunity”

The room quickly established that too many advisers still assume someone else is raising philanthropy. One participant said they had yet to receive a new will from a charitably inclined UK client that included a charitable legacy. When asked why, clients said nobody had mentioned the inheritance tax benefits of doing so.

Several participants challenged the idea that clients resent being asked. One cited research involving 150 high-net-worth individuals and 150 advisers. Some 63% of the individuals said they wanted their adviser to raise philanthropy, but only 36% of advisers thought it should come up. Of the clients who had discussed it, 93% found the conversation helpful. Participants noted that clients are more likely to be upset when the subject is never raised and they miss an opportunity.

A former family office professional put it most memorably. Asking the question is “a low-risk question, but a high-value opportunity.” The worst answer is no. The alternative is watching families get it wrong or miss available reliefs because nobody asked.

Open questions, not closed ones

How the question is framed matters. “Do you want to leave money to charity in your will?” invites a yes or no. Participants recommended open questions instead: What should your wealth stand for once your family is looked after? What do you care about? What has shaped you? Advisers who build a picture of a client's interests over time find that the legacy question arises naturally.

One participant suggested that the emotion behind giving need not be positive: “What annoys you?” can unlock purpose more quickly than “What inspires you?” Others described more practical entry points. For one couple, the inheritance tax charitable exemptions opened the discussion. For a family that had recently sold its business, cash-flow forecasting showed they had more than enough for any scenario, and that reassurance made philanthropy feel possible for the first time.

Another participant raised a common blind spot. A client decides each child will receive a fixed sum so as “not to ruin them,” but never decides where the remainder goes. If the central pot keeps growing and passes to the children by default, the client achieves the opposite of what they intended. Modelling that range of outcomes can prompt a far more deliberate conversation about legacy.

What happens when the client says yes?

A recurring theme was that the fear is not only about asking. Advisers also worry about what to do if the answer is yes. There are thousands of charities, and advisers are wary of recommending causes that sit outside their expertise.

The consensus was that advisers do not need all the answers. Lawyers and tax advisers can handle “the plumbing”: how to give, how to structure gifts and how to secure the available reliefs. The choice of cause can be developed with philanthropy advisers, private bank philanthropy teams, or donor-advised funds, and supported by charities themselves. Donor-advised funds were highlighted as a practical bridge, allowing clients to set aside funds now and refine their giving strategy over time, including by involving children and appointing successors.

Coordination emerged as a gap. Everyone in the room uses the word “adviser,” but each means something different. Someone needs to join up the lawyer, the accountant, the wealth manager and the philanthropy specialist, so that the client's intentions are understood by the whole team.

Charity representatives were candid about their own role. They are skilled at storytelling and demonstrating impact, but less confident on the advice side. One urged the sector to signpost donors to the causes that genuinely resonate with them, rather than descending “like bees around a honeypot.” Participants saw this as one reason an independent convenor such as Remember A Charity is so valuable.

Legacy as the glue for families

Participants also discussed the governance benefits. One described the most harmonious wealthy family they had encountered, in which the majority of the family's wealth sat in a charitable structure. Because that wealth exists for the benefit of others, “it takes the emotion of what's mine and what's yours out of it.” Other participants described foundations that give siblings a reason to meet beyond family holidays. Some families hand the next generation a pot of money to direct, which many young people find empowering.

There were caveats. Participants warned against assuming the next generation will want to be philanthropic, and noted that giving can sometimes be used as a means of control. Impact investing, and the broader spectrum from commercial to philanthropic capital, can offer a way in for heirs who are more interested in investing than in pure grant-making.

A new generation of wealth

The discussion also turned to younger clients, particularly the engineers and founders who have made sudden fortunes in technology and AI. Many are highly altruistic, are considering pledging large shares of their wealth within a decade, and have received little or no structured advice. Some do not plan to have children, which raises new questions about the balance between lifetime giving and legacy giving. Participants stressed that these clients still need a will.

Remember A Charity's tracking data supports the trend: younger people with wills are more likely to include a charitable gift. As Lucinda observed, a legacy decision is often someone's first experience of being a philanthropist, and it can go on to fuel lifetime giving rather than simply follow it.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Closing the session, Clare Stirzaker drew out three messages:

Start with what moves the client emotionally. It is a natural conversation and the right place to begin.

Do not assume another adviser is having the conversation. Raise it yourself.

Build the ecosystem around the client, so that every professional at the table understands where the client wants to direct their giving.

Take the next step

Remember A Charity has produced a practical resource to help advisers open these conversations with confidence. Download the Good Practice Guide for Wealth Advisers and start raising legacy giving as a standard part of your client conversations.

David Bell

Founder, PCD Group