Provide that certain testamentary gifts given to a lawyer from a client are invalid.
Summary
HB1227 would create a new rule in South Dakota probate law limiting when a lawyer may receive a testamentary gift from a client. If a lawyer prepares an instrument, such as a will or similar estate-planning document, that gives the lawyer or a related person a gift or devise, the gift is invalid unless the recipient is related to the client and the gift is not significantly disproportionate compared with gifts to other similarly related recipients. The bill defines related persons broadly to include close family members and certain close familial relationships.
The measure states that any gift made in violation of the new section is invalid on the basis of undue influence, and it applies only to instruments executed on or after July 1, 2025. In practical terms, it would add a statutory safeguard against attorneys benefiting from documents they draft, while preserving limited exceptions for genuine family relationships and proportionate gifts.
Impact
HB1227 would amend South Dakota’s probate and estate-planning rules by adding a new section to chapter 29A-2 governing testamentary gifts to lawyers. It would make certain bequests or devises void if they are drafted by the lawyer-beneficiary for a client, unless the statutory exceptions are met. The bill would affect attorneys, estate planners, clients, beneficiaries, and probate courts by creating a clear statutory basis to challenge suspect gifts as invalid due to undue influence.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill had mixed support and some resistance: it was deferred to the 41st legislative day on a 7-5 vote, indicating the committee did not reach consensus. With no committee transcript available, there is no recorded floor or committee debate to show broader public sentiment, but the close vote implies the proposal was viewed as important by supporters and potentially unnecessary or overly restrictive by opponents.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between preventing undue influence and preserving client autonomy in estate planning. Supporters would view the bill as a consumer-protection measure that discourages self-dealing by lawyers and reduces litigation over suspicious gifts. Opponents may be concerned that the rule is too broad, could interfere with legitimate gifts to attorneys who are also family members or close relations, and may create uncertainty in probate disputes over what counts as a sufficiently related person or a “significantly disproportionate” gift.