What Fiduciary Responsibility Really Looks Like in Legacy Giving
Legacy gifts are built on trust. Long before a will is read or an estate administered, a donor has made a quiet, deeply personal decision: I trust this organisation to carry my values forward when I no longer can.
That trust does not end at death. In many ways, this is when a charity’s fiduciary responsibility is at its most exposed, and when leadership judgement matters far more than simple legal entitlement.
It could be said that estate management is where legacy fundraising stops being theoretical and starts being real.
Fiduciary duty is more than “what we’re entitled to”
Yes, fiduciary responsibility has a legal dimension. Charities must protect assets, act prudently, and comply with the law. But in legacy fundraising, fiduciary responsibility also includes ethical judgement, reputational awareness, and donor-centred decision-making.
The question is rarely “Can we?”
It is far more often “Should we?”
When donor intent can’t be fulfilled
Years ago, a former client of mine received a remarkable gift: 100% of a donor’s estate.
There was just one complication. The gift was restricted to an area of work the charity had never delivered. Leadership would have loved to overlook this and quietly absorb the funds elsewhere! Instead, they paused, uncomfortably and honestly I might add, and acknowledged the problem. The donor’s intent was clear. Their operational reality did not match it.
Could they have argued that the donor would have supported the charity’s current work? Possibly. Could they have sought a legal variation? Yes.
But that wasn’t the question that mattered most.
The real question was: What does it look like to genuinely respect this donor’s wishes?
I was asked to help explore alternatives. After extensive research, I identified another charity with a closely aligned mission and that actively delivered programmes that reflected exactly what the donor wanted to support. The values aligned. The outcomes aligned. The spirit of the gift aligned.
The gift was redirected accordingly.
This was not the easiest path. It meant relinquishing income the charity was legally entitled to keep. But it was the right call; ethically, reputationally, and strategically.
That decision honoured donor intent, protected organisational integrity, and sent a clear internal signal: we do not bend donor wishes to fit our convenience.
That is fiduciary responsibility in practice.
Charities have rights, including the right to refuse
This example highlights something the sector often tiptoes around: charities have the right to refuse a legacy pledge or an estate.
Beneficiaries are not obliged to accept gifts that:
- cannot be used as intended
- conflict with mission or values
- create ethical, reputational, or operational risk
Refusing, or redirecting, a gift is not failure. In many cases, it is responsible stewardship.
When estate disputes go public
Highly visible disputes, such as those involving the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, show how contested estates can quickly move from probate files into headlines.
In the Gill v RSPCA case, the charity defended a will in which it was a principal beneficiary, framing its actions as protecting testamentary freedom. While the courts ultimately ruled against the charity on the specific facts, it nevertheless discharged its fiduciary responsibility to the donor. Despite the case being lengthy, costly, and reputationally complex, it serves as a reminder that even legally defensible positions carry public and donor-confidence risk.
What this means for fundraisers and leaders
Estate management is not a back-office technicality. It is a continuation of the donor relationship.
It requires:
- clear documentation of donor intent;
- early, honest conversations about restrictions and flexibility;
- alignment between fundraising, finance, legal, and leadership;
- the courage to prioritise long-term trust over short-term gain.
Because donors, both current and future, notice how charities behave when donors are no longer here to advocate for themselves.
Key takeaways
- Fiduciary responsibility isn’t just about what the lawyers say you can do, it’s about what you could comfortably explain to a donor’s family without needing a strong drink afterwards.
- Being entitled to a gift doesn’t automatically make it the right gift to keep (even when finance is understandably enthusiastic).
- Charities are allowed to say no, to a pledge, an estate, or a use of funds that no longer serves the mission. This is stewardship, not sacrilege.
- Honouring donor intent can be harder than quietly absorbing the income, but it almost always pays dividends in trust.
- If an estate decision would make you nervous to see it quoted in a headline, that’s usually worth listening to.
Conclusion: the quiet test of integrity
Most legacy decisions happen far away from campaigns and glossy brochures. They take place in living rooms or estate lawyer offices, where there is no perfect option; only better and worse ones.
Fiduciary responsibility in estate management is not about extracting maximum value from a donor’s final gift. It is about honouring the values that motivated that gift in the first place.
Sometimes that means defending a will.
Sometimes it means refusing a gift.
Sometimes it means letting go of income you were legally entitled to keep.
None of those choices are easy.
But donors don’t judge us by what we do when everything is straightforward. They judge us by what we do when things are complicated, when the donor isn’t here to clarify, and the organisation has to decide who it really wants to be.
That’s the quiet test of legacy fundraising professionalism. And it’s one worth taking seriously.
