05/21/2026
Sometimes Even Your Local Charity Might Get Greedy
I have a lot of clients who leave something to charity. For some, it’s a priority. For others, it’s only if their children and grandchildren all die before they die. Who gets it then?
Sometimes people name national charities, sometimes they name their local church, and sometimes they name a local charity.
In one case, I found out that the “charity” the client had named in an irrevocable trust was actually a “charity” owned and controlled by the attorney’s husband, who also happens to be an attorney, but uses a different last name. The clients were shocked, but unwilling to contact the IRS or the District Attorney because they thought that they might get dragged into something larger, or that they might be investigated and have to pay more taxes.
Despite what you may think, a lot of charities are operated only for the benefit of the founder or “owner” of the charity, and there is very little government oversight to see that the funds are used for the stated charitable purposes. On the one I uncovered locally, the $350,000 that will flow from my client to the charity will most likely be used for the attorney’s personal retirement expenses or pass to his own children. Really? YES!
I attended a tax meeting in Miami several years ago where they discussed a charity that had been set up following a devastating hurricane in the Caribbean. The man who established this particular charity had Hollywood friends who contributed millions of dollars to help the areas that were so severely damaged. Nice image, and nice that the Hollywood stars contributed, but how much actually went to the people who had suffered? According to investigators and tax filings, only about 1% of the money went to charitable causes. That’s not a typo. Let me spell it out. Less than one percent of the money contributed to the charity actually went to charitable causes.
Disgustingly unethical? Yes. Illegal? No.
A client of mine recently died. He had previously donated several hundred thousand dollars to a local charity. He had originally intended to donate more following his death, but as time went by, he had no contact with the charity and bit by bit he reduced the share intended to pass to the charity at his death. Rather than understand that circumstances change and donors can change their mind, the charity hired an attorney in an attempt to have the changes to the trust, which had occurred over almost ten years, set aside by the court. Really? The charity, rather than being grateful for the nearly $1 million that they had previously received, was setting up a shake down to get more.
If a disgruntled relative was filing the lawsuit, we would describe it as simple greed. But what if a lawsuit like this comes from a charity? I also call it simple greed.
Maybe the charity, despite having copies of the many trust changes, just thinks it’s “wrong” that they don’t get more. Maybe it’s just greed, or maybe it’s a greedy attorney who has convinced the charity to enter into litigation so that the attorney can earn high fees. Does that happen? Ha! All the time.
There are attorneys who will take on any case with the hope of squeezing out what we call a “nuisance fee” to get them to go away. Attorneys like this are often called “bottom feeders.” They take advantage of clients’ indignant feelings of being treated unjustly, and they try to squeeze money out of the rightful beneficiaries. It’s scandalous.
I mentioned the “bottom feeder” attorney to another local attorney, and the man’s response was, “I didn’t know that that guy was so desperate for money.”
I’m all in favor of people contributing to charities, and especially to local charities, but maybe you should check out the charity’s reputation for aggressive litigation before you make that donation. And if you hire an attorney, ask yourself if the attorney is really working on your behalf and in your favor, or if the attorney is only stringing you along for their own personal gain.
