Monthly Archives: January 2026

As I was checking a sports app on an entirely unrelated matter, I stumbled across an article that strayed well outside traditional sports reporting and landed squarely in the world of Estate Planning for family-owned businesses. The headline immediately caught my attention: “How Buss Family Infighting Drove the $10B Sale of the Lakers.” Naturally, I clicked. What followed was a story filled with intrigue, family conflict, and—at its core—an Estate Plan that failed to function as intended.

To understand how we got here, we need to rewind to 1979, when Dr. Gerald Hatten Buss (“Jerry”) paid $67.5 million to Jack Kent Cooke to purchase the Los Angeles Lakers, the Los Angeles Kings, the Forum arena, and a 13,000-acre California ranch. This is the same Lakers franchise that drafted Magic Johnson and won an NBA Championship in his rookie season. Jerry made it clear from the outset that selling the Lakers was never the goal. He famously said that if he had unlimited funds, he would buy the team all over again. That conviction never wavered even during periods of financial strain, in the face of lucrative purchase offers, and as he confronted his own mortality. According to his children, Jerry viewed both them and the Lakers as his legacy. Unfortunately, his intense focus on keeping the team in the family without fully accounting for governance, control, and human dynamics proved fatal to that vision. Just twelve years after his death, the Buss family no longer holds a majority controlling interest in the Lakers. By any reasonable Estate Planning standard, the legacy failed.

Jerry died on February 18, 2013, at age 80, survived by six children: Johnny (60), Jim (57), Jeanie (55), and Janie (53) from his former wife, Joanna, and Joey (32) and Jesse (29) from his longtime partner, Karen Demel. Through a series of family trusts holding Jerry’s 66% ownership interest, each child effectively inherited an 11% interest in the Lakers. Jerry spent significant time crafting an Estate Plan designed to preserve family ownership. The Trust included standard buy-sell provisions, required the acting Trustees, Johnny, Jim, and Jeanie, to support Jeanie as the controlling owner, and operated as a pooled investment vehicle. This meant that upon a sibling’s death, the interest held by that sibling was redistributed among the survivors in a “last-individual-standing” structure. To his credit, Jerry protected his grandchildren by requiring payment of the value of the deceased sibling’s interest in the team to their children, preserving generational wealth. On paper, the plan was sophisticated. In practice, it was unworkable.

Shortly after Jerry’s death, the siblings met to discuss a possible sale. Although he was serving as Executive Vice-President of Operations and controlled the on-court operations for the Lakers, Jim, joined by Johnny were open to selling. Jeanie, named successor controlling owner and President of the Lakers, was not. Because a sale required four of six votes, the proposal stalled. For several years, all six siblings remained involved in the organization. That fragile truce collapsed in February 2017, when Jeanie fired Jim. Jim responded by joining forces with Johnny in an attempt to remove Jeanie from the Board of Directors by calling an annual shareholder meeting. What they failed, or refused, to acknowledge was that the Trust required them, as Trustees, to support Jeanie’s role as controlling owner. Removing her would have violated both the Trust and the Lakers’ bylaws. Jeanie sought and obtained a Temporary Restraining Order. At that point, the structural flaws in Jerry’s Estate Plan were undeniable.

Eight years later, the end came when Jeanie sold all but 17% of the family’s interest in the Lakers. In the interim, tensions festered, relationships deteriorated, and the team struggled. The Trust’s “last-man-standing” provisions only intensified the conflict, as eventual control would pass to the youngest siblings, fueling the older siblings’ desire to sell. Although ownership percentages were equal, control was not. Jeanie held the reins, while the others remained bound by a Trust that limited their influence and options. That’s a recipe for disaster.

This case offers several critical Estate Planning lessons. First, just because a plan achieves the client’s goal doesn’t mean that plan works. Placing one sibling in control of another almost always invites resentment, litigation, or both. I regularly warn clients against this structure. No matter how close a family appears, putting one child in charge of another’s inheritance is a recipe for conflict. Second, Estate Planning demands honest discussion of worst-case scenarios. I have lost count of how often I heard, “That would never happen,” or “My children get along.” I suspect Jerry believed the same. Family, money, and legacy create a volatile combination, especially when that conflict involves a valuable, closely-held business that employs most of the family. Finally, business succession planning requires a clear-eyed assessment of who truly has the temperament and ability to lead. Estate Planning means relinquishing control and trusting others to execute that vision. Failing to plan for friction guarantees instability.

Jerry Buss made several classic Estate Planning mistakes. He failed to prioritize either business success or family harmony. He underestimated the strengths and weaknesses of his children. Finally, he underestimated the impact of his absence. Together, these missteps unraveled the legacy he worked so hard to protect.

Don’t let this happen to your business or your family. Thoughtful, realistic Estate Planning can make the difference between preserving a legacy and watching it unravel.

As an experienced trusts and estates practitioner, I advise that selecting the right Trustee has the potential to make or break a plan. I advise clients regarding the practical impact of the duties of a Trustee:  how they affect relationships with beneficiaries, interactions with family members, and the potential for conflict. These realities often do not become clear until long after the Grantor (individual creating the Trust) has died, at which point changing the Trustee can be difficult or expensive. A Trustee is not merely a name in a document; rather, the Grantor entrusts the implementation and realization of their legacy to the Trustee. If the Trustee lacks proper preparation, temperament, or discipline, the consequences can ripple for years and ultimately lead to failure of the plan. Let’s explore why Trustee selection matters so much and how to make this decision with confidence and foresight.

The Trustee’s role encompasses more than mere administration. The Trustee makes many day-to-day decisions, yet many think of the Trustee as someone who “moves the assets around” or “signs the checks.” That perception ignores a significant part of the role.   Trustees must balance competing beneficiary interests, respond to market fluctuations, handle tax matters and distributions, communicate clearly with beneficiaries—including difficult ones—and know when to bring in professional advisors and how to evaluate them. Trustees operate at the intersection of finance, psychology, and law. Few individuals thrive in all three areas. Discussing this with clients helps them make informed decisions regarding Trustee selection.

Personality and conflict avoidance matter. In practice, the worst conflicts arise not from a lack of legal authority but from human dynamics. Consider common issues that result in litigation, a Trustee who resents the beneficiaries, a Trustee who has a beneficial interest under the Trust and struggles with impartiality, a family Trustee lacking financial literacy, or co-Trustees who cannot agree on anything. Most Grantors name a spouse, adult child (often the eldest), or close friends as the Trustee because those individuals occupy a position of love and trust in their life.   Unfortunately, the Grantor often fails to consider whether that individual communicates well, says no when necessary, handles confrontation without escalation, or even wants the job once they understand the accompanying obligations.  Encouraging the Grantor to consider personality alongside fiduciary duties and responsibilities helps guide them in choosing the right Trustee and avoiding problems later.

Sometimes, the Grantor wants to appoint two (or more) individuals to serve as co-Trustees. During my years in private practice, I routinely advised against appointing co-Trustees without including a mechanism for resolving disputes. Fortunately, many viable options exist, whether through an internal tie-breaking mechanism in the Trust instrument or appointment of a neutral third party. The Trust should include language addressing how disagreements will be handled when they inevitably arise. Proper preparation avoids ending up at the courthouse.

In other cases, the Grantor prefers to name a professional fiduciary. While some clients recoil at the idea of a corporate or professional Trustee due to concerns about fees or impersonal service, that option is preferable to an unprepared or conflicted friend or family Trustee. The latter can cost far more in terms of stress, animosity, and litigation risk. Professional Trustees typically bring institutional experience, impartiality in family disputes, neutral decision-making, and established reporting and compliance processes. Here, the attorney adds significant value by helping the client select the right professional, balancing cost against complexity, asset size, and family structure.

No one creates an Estate Plan hoping it becomes a courtroom battleground, yet unaddressed Trustee issues are among the most common triggers when plans go sideways. When advising clients on Trustee selection, experienced Estate Planning attorneys guide clients by discussing the role of Trustee along with the duties and obligations that accompany the office. Further, they evaluate whether the proposed Trustee can manage conflict respectfully and impartially, has the time, temperament, and acumen necessary to fulfill the office. Finally, the client and I consider whether the individual wants to serve. Addressing these issues prior to executing the plan helps ensure that the client’s legacy will thrive long after their death.

If estate planning is about protecting a legacy, Trustee selection is about ensuring that protection endures. As you work with clients or as you consider your own plan, remember that the language of the Trust is only as powerful as the person entrusted to interpret and implement it. Choose well. Communicate clearly. This will give your client’s legacy the best chance to thrive.