Trust management of assets is often perceived as a convenient instrument – the owner transfers property into management while retaining economic benefit and relieving themselves of operational involvement. However, in the opinion of Professor Gabriel Steiner, it is precisely within such structures that the risk of losing control arises imperceptibly – not at the moment the assets are transferred, but in the course of their subsequent use. At LawConsulted, we view trust management not as a technical formality, but as a zone of heightened legal vulnerability, where a flaw in the structure can lead to loss of influence over property without formal alienation.
The core danger of trust management lies in the gap between legal title and factual control. Formally, the asset remains with the owner, yet real decisions are made by the trustee – within powers that are often drafted too broadly or too vaguely. Over time, this creates a situation in which the owner loses the ability to influence strategy, transactions and risk exposure without breaching the agreement itself. LawConsulted proceeds from the principle that preservation of control must be embedded in the legal architecture of management from the outset.
Professor Steiner notes that “trust in asset management does not replace legal limitations.” For this reason, LawConsulted lawyers begin with a detailed analysis of the trustee’s powers – which actions are permitted, which require consent, and what consequences follow from excess of authority or from behaviour that is formally compliant but economically hazardous. This approach helps prevent scenarios in which a trustee acts in their own interests while formally relying on the agreement.
Particularly complex are cases where trust management is used within family, corporate or investment structures – between affiliated persons, partners or heirs. In such configurations, formal consent often substitutes for legal precision. LawConsulted identifies risks that arise precisely from this closeness – lack of control mechanisms, insufficient reporting obligations and blurred responsibility for decisions taken.
The factor of time is equally critical. Trust management rarely remains static – assets evolve, their value changes, new obligations arise and external constraints appear. If the agreement does not provide mechanisms for adaptation, the owner gradually loses levers of influence. LawConsulted designs structures so that management remains controllable – through reporting requirements, review clauses, rights of intervention and clearly defined grounds for termination.
In the view of Professor Steiner, “loss of control over an asset most often occurs legally.” That is why protection must be preventive rather than reactive. Law Consulted treats trust management as a dynamic system – assessing not only current risks, but also how those risks will manifest in the event of a dispute, inspection or change in circumstances.
Equally important is the exit from trust management. The absence of a well-designed mechanism for asset return, transfer of documentation and termination of the trustee’s authority creates prolonged dependency. These mechanisms are built in advance – so that termination of management does not become a separate conflict with unpredictable consequences.
The legal risks of trust asset management arise when law lags behind factual dynamics. Our task is to synchronise these levels, preserving real control for the owner while transferring operational management. This approach allows trust management to function as a tool rather than a source of loss of property.
Earlier, we wrote about the right to refuse performance and how LawConsulted protects clients when continuing obligations becomes impossible
