Family Office Governance in 2025: Structuring Ownership and Management for Legal Resilience
As family offices continue to grow in complexity, size, and cross-border exposure, the need for clear separation between ownership and management has become critical. In 2025, legal resilience in the face of intergenerational transitions, regulatory scrutiny, and multi-jurisdictional holdings is no longer optional. This article outlines key structures and legal considerations that family offices should adopt to mitigate risk, improve decision-making, and ensure long-term sustainability.
Why Separate Ownership and Management?
Family offices frequently blur the lines between ownership and operational control, leading to governance bottlenecks and legal vulnerabilities. Without clear boundaries, decision-making may become opaque, fiduciary duties may be compromised, and succession plans may be challenged. The consequences of such ambiguity can include intra-family disputes, loss of tax advantages, and weakened asset protection structures.
Legal advisors play a critical role in helping families formalize these boundaries. This includes drafting governance documents, structuring ownership through holding companies or family trusts, and defining the operational remit of executives.
Three Pillars of Governance Separation
Family Charter with Legal BackingA family charter is often the foundational document articulating shared values, vision, and decision-making protocols. While not always legally binding, a well-drafted charter can be referenced in shareholder agreements or trust deeds to add enforceability. Legal counsel should ensure alignment with any formal operating agreements.
Formal Family CouncilA family council provides a structured forum for owner engagement, especially across generations. Legal practitioners can assist in drafting bylaws governing membership, voting rights, and roles. This helps to prevent overreach by operational executives and ensures accountability.
Ownership vs. Management EntitiesSeparating equity-holding entities (e.g., trusts, foundations, HoldCos) from operational structures (e.g., ManagementCos or SFO/MFO platforms) enhances legal clarity. It also helps shield family wealth from commercial liability. Attorneys should advise on jurisdictional implications, particularly in relation to tax and regulatory compliance.
Cross-Border Complexity and Jurisdictional Nuance
In 2025, many family offices operate across the U.S., EU, Middle East, and Asia. Legal frameworks such as Delaware trust law, Singapore’s VCC regime, and DIFC’s Foundations Law introduce varying approaches to control, liability, and privacy. Tailoring governance structures to local law is essential. There is no one-size-fits-all.
For example, UAE-based families may leverage DIFC foundations for ring-fencing ownership, while U.S.-based families might prioritise LLCs with layered voting structures. Legal counsel must guide entity selection, jurisdiction shopping, and cross-border enforceability.
The Evolving Role of Legal Advisors
Lawyers advising family offices are no longer just estate planners. They are architects of multi-generational governance. This includes:
Drafting shareholder or partnership agreements that reflect family charters
Designing succession frameworks with staggered transitions of control
Mitigating risks through formalised fiduciary roles and liability protections
Legal advisors must also stay attuned to ESG governance demands, regulatory updates (e.g., beneficial ownership registries), and rising next-gen expectations for transparency.
Conclusion: Governance as Legal Infrastructure
Family office governance is no longer about preserving tradition. It is about future-proofing a legal structure to handle complexity, mitigate risk, and empower responsible leadership. Separating ownership from management is a cornerstone of legal resilience, and in 2025, the families who invest in robust legal frameworks will be the ones best positioned for longevity.
Legal counsel remains indispensable in crafting governance systems that not only reflect a family’s values, but can withstand the scrutiny of time, markets, and multigenerational change.
New Travel Restrictions: Critical Information for Affected Nationals, Their Families & Employers
Quick summary
The White House has reinstated and significantly expanded travel restrictions affecting 19 countries, with full travel restrictions on 12 nations and partial restrictions on seven others. The proclamation took effect on June 9, 2025, at 12:01 AM EDT, but contains important exceptions.
On June 4, 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation outlining full and partial travel restrictions on 19 total countries, with some exceptions for certain visa holders or Lawful Permanent Residents. The proclamation affects millions of people worldwide and is expected to draw legal challenges. For immigration practitioners, employers, and affected individuals, understanding the scope, exceptions, and practical implications of the proclamation is crucial.
Who Is Affected?
Complete Travel Restriction (12 countries): Citizens from the following countries face a full suspension of both immigrant and nonimmigrant visa issuance:
Afghanistan
Burma (Myanmar)
Chad
Republic of Congo
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Haiti
Iran
Libya
Somalia
Sudan
Yemen
Partial Restrictions (Seven countries): Citizens of these countries face suspension of immigrant visas and B-1/B-2 (business/tourist), F, M, and J (student/exchange) visas, with reduced validity periods for other categories:
Burundi
Cuba
Laos
Sierra Leone
Togo
Turkmenistan
Venezuela
*Egypt remains under review and could be added to future restrictions.
Critical Exemptions
The proclamation includes several important exceptions for protected individuals, those in special visa categories and those granted an exception from the Attorney General or Secretary of State:
Protected Individuals:
Lawful Permanent Residents (green card holders)
Anyone physically present in the United States on June 9, 2025
Valid visa holders as of June 9, 2025
Dual nationals traveling on non-restricted country passports
Special Visa Categories:
Immediate relative immigrant visas (IR-1/CR-1, IR-2/CR-2, IR-5) with DNA evidence
Afghan Special Immigrant Visa holders
Adoption cases (IR-3, IR-4, IH-3, IH-4)
Athletes competing in major sporting events
Diplomatic visa holders (A, G, NATO, certain C visas)
Refugees and asylees (though subject to separate restrictions)
Case-by-Case Exceptions:
On a case-by-case basis review, the Attorney General and Secretary of State may grant exceptions where travel would advance critical U.S. national interests, including participation in criminal proceedings.
Timing and Scope
The ban applies only to individuals outside the United States on June 9, 2025, who do not have valid visas. No existing visas will be revoked solely due to this proclamation.
Periodic Review
The restrictions will be reviewed every 90 days initially, then every 180 days, potentially leading to modifications or removals from the list.
Legal Landscape and Challenges
The Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Trump v. Hawaii may make it difficult for opponents to challenge this proclamation, as the Court upheld presidential authority under INA §212(f) for national security-based restrictions. However, such actions must be “justified and demonstrated by the administrative record,” so the Trump administration will likely need to demonstrate justification for this expansion to succeed in a legal challenge.
Immigration advocacy groups are already preparing legal challenges, and we anticipate court filings soon.
Practical Advice for Affected Individuals, Families and Employers
Immediate Actions
Return to the United States Before June 9: Those currently abroad with valid status should consider immediate return
Document Review: Make certain all immigration documents are current and properly maintained
Legal Consultation: Seek immediate counsel to assess exception eligibility and strategic options
Ongoing Considerations
Travel Restrictions: Even exempt individuals may face increased scrutiny at ports of entry
Family Separation: The proclamation may keep family members separated who are abroad and subject to restrictions
Employment Impact: U.S. employers in healthcare, technology, and education sectors may face significant workforce disruptions
Current Visa Holders
While existing visas will not be revoked, renewal applications may be denied once current visas expire. Non-immigrant visa holders already in the U.S. who travel abroad would be subject to the proclamation when they try to return.
Economic and Humanitarian Impact
State Department data shows that in fiscal year 2023, nationals from the 12 fully banned countries received over 112,000 visas, while those from partially restricted countries received nearly 115,000 visas. The 19 affected countries represent over 475 million people.
Looking Ahead
This proclamation represents a shift in U.S. immigration policy and reasserts presidential authority under INA §212(f) to address national security concerns through targeted entry restrictions. Given the administration’s stated goal of expanding immigration restrictions, affected individuals and their legal representatives should anticipate continued policy changes and increased enforcement.
Nebraska Governor Signs Bill to Amend Healthy Families and Workplace Act
On June 5, 2025, Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen signed Legislative Bill (LB) No. 415 that clarifies and amends the Nebraska Healthy Families and Workplace Act (NHFWA) passed by voters in November 2024, which provides earned paid sick time (PST) to most Nebraska employees. The bill will become effective in time for the October 1, 2025, start date for the state’s PST requirement under the NHFWA.
Quick Hits
The Nebraska Healthy Families and Workplace Act requires most Nebraska employers to provide earned paid sick time, starting October 1, 2025.
On June 5, 2025, Nebraska Governor Pillen signed a bill that clarifies and amends the Nebraska Healthy Families and Workplace Act.
On November 5, 2024, Nebraska voters overwhelmingly approved Nebraska Initiative 436 (also known as the Healthy Families and Workplace Act), which requires employers to begin providing earned paid sick time (PST) to most Nebraska employees on October 1, 2025. On May 28, 2025, the Nebraska Legislature passed Nebraska LB No. 415, which clarifies and amends the NHFWA.
The Amended Nebraska Healthy Families and Workplace Act
Under the NHFWA, most Nebraska employers must provide earned paid sick time to employees starting October 1, 2025. The law exempts employers that are federal or state governments or political subdivisions of the state.
Under the NHFWA, employees earn one hour of paid sick time for every thirty hours worked. Employers with twenty or more employees can cap accrual and use of PST at fifty-six hours per year. Small employers (defined by the amendment to include employers with eleven to nineteen employees) can cap accrual and use at forty hours each year. Employees can carry over all unused PST at the end of the year, but carryover does not affect the annual accrual and use caps that are based on employer size.
LB-415 clarifies and amends the NHFWA as follows:
Exempt Employees. Seasonal and temporary workers employed in agriculture and employees under age sixteen are not eligible to earn PST.
Small Employers Exempt. Small employers with fewer than eleven employees do not have to provide PST.
Waiting Period for Accrual. Employees begin earning PST after working eighty consecutive hours in Nebraska, but employees can use PST as it accrues.
Existing Paid Time Off Policy. Employers are not required to provide additional paid time off under the law if they have a paid leave policy that meets the following requirements: the policy permits employees to take paid leave in an amount that equals or exceeds what is required by the NHFWA and that can be used as paid sick time. Employers are not required to allow accrual or carryover beyond their existing paid time off policies.
Paid Leave Provided Between January 1, 2025 – September 30, 2025. Paid time off provided by an employer on or after January 1, 2025, that can be used for the reasons covered by the law will be counted toward the employer’s annual obligations to provide PST in 2025.
Payout of Unused PST. The law does not require employers to pay out unused PST at the time of separation.
No Private Right of Action. Employees do not have a private right of action under the law.
The amendment did not change most other key provisions of the NHFWA including:
Carryover. Employees may carry over all unused PST, but carryover does not affect applicable accrual and use caps based on employer size. An employer may avoid carryover by paying out all unused PST at yearend and frontloading the employee’s annual allotment of PST at the beginning of the subsequent year.
Rate of Pay. Employers must pay PST at the employee’s normal hourly rate and with the same benefits, including healthcare benefits and accrual of paid time off (including accrual of PST).
Reasons for Use. Employees may use PST for (1) their own or a family member’s mental or physical illness, injury, or health condition; or (2) closure of the employee’s place of business or child’s school due to a public health emergency.
Notice of Use. An employer requiring notice of use of PST must have a written policy outlining a reasonable procedure for providing notice.
Increments of Use. Employees may use PST in the smaller of one-hour increments or the smallest increment of time used to account for other types of absences.
Documentation. Employers can request documentation to support PST use when an employee uses PST for more than three consecutive days.
Administrative Penalties. Employers that violate the NHFWA can be subject to administrative penalties of up to $500 for a first violation and up to $5,000 in the case of a second or subsequent violation. An employer with an unpaid citation is not eligible to contract with the state until the citation is paid.
Employers must provide written notice of the NHFWA by September 15, 2025, and display a poster at the employer’s worksite thereafter. Employers can provide electronic notice to remote workers or if the employer does not maintain a physical worksite. Current employees who have worked at least eighty hours in Nebraska will begin earning PST on October 1, 2025. All other Nebraska employees will start earning PST once they have worked at least eighty hours in the state. The Nebraska Department of Labor issued guidance in the form of frequently asked questions (FAQs), which should be updated to incorporate updated guidance following the passage of LB-415.
Key Takeaways
Starting October 1, 2025, most Nebraska employers must allow employees who have worked at least eighty hours to start earning paid sick time at a rate of one hour for every thirty hours worked. Employers with fewer than eleven employees are exempt from the law. Employers with eleven to nineteen employees can cap accrual and use at forty hours per year. Employers with twenty or more employees can cap accrual and use at fifty-six hours per year. Employers with an existing paid leave policy need not provide additional paid leave under the NHFWA if the policy provides an amount of leave equal to or greater than that required by the law, and which can be used as paid sick time. Employers can count paid leave that was provided to employees between January 1, 2025, and September 30, 2025, toward their annual obligation for PST if the paid time off was available for use as paid sick time as provided by the NHFWA.
KOSA is Back and Still Controversial
On May 14, 2025, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), SB 1748, was reintroduced for the fourth time by original sponsor Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), joined by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), John Thune (R-SD), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY). First introduced in 2022, and then again in 2023 and 2024, KOSA imposes a duty of care on online platforms (including online gaming, messaging applications, and video streaming services) to minimize harms to minors. The history of various iterations of KOSA is of interest as it reflects the ongoing debate about platform obligations and First Amendment rights of platforms and consumers.
As originally introduced, KOSA mandated that platforms “prevent and mitigate the heightened risks of physical, emotional, developmental, or material harms to minors posed by materials on, or engagement with, the platform.” Business associations, members of Congress, and privacy advocates expressed concern that this standard would violate the First Amendment. In 2024, KOSA was amended to clarify that platforms must exercise reasonable care to mitigate harm to minors in the creation and implementation of design features rather than content. The 2024 version of KOSA also raised the age threshold of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) from 13 to 17 by folding into its provisions COPPA’s potential successor, the proposed Children and Teens’ Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0), which also banned targeted advertising to minors under 17. Then renamed The Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act (KOSPA), the bill passed the Senate overwhelmingly in 2024 with bipartisan support.
In September 2024, a House Energy and Commerce Committee markup amended KOSPA by narrowing the bill’s “duty of care” provisions and list of potential online harms. Nonetheless, these changes were insufficient to convert some members of Congress who remained concerned that KOSPA’s “duty of care” language still violated the First Amendment. An eleventh-hour revision drafted with input from X owner Elon Musk (December 2024 draft) included new language clarifying that KOSPA would not require platforms to “prevent or preclude” minors from conducting independent research or requesting information on prevention or mitigation of harms such as depression, compulsive behavior, addiction, and sexual abuse. In addition, it barred government entities from censoring, limiting, or removing any content from the internet “based upon the viewpoint of users expressed by or through any speech, expression, or information protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” However, the bill did not pass in the House.
SB 1748, again called “KOSA,” reverts to the Senate version as amended by the December 2024 draft, but with a key difference: the COPPA 2.0 provisions were stripped out in their entirety. (COPPA 2.0 was reintroduced as a standalone bill, SB 836, in March this year). Notably, the duty of care language in SB 1748 remains untouched from the December 2024 draft and KOSA’s broad definition of “covered platform” – defined as “an online platform, online video game, messaging application, or video streaming service that connects to the internet and that is used, or is reasonably likely to be used, by a minor” – was left intact.
New Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) Chair Andrew Ferguson has indicated that children’s privacy and protection online is a chief priority for the Commission this year. And, indeed, the FTC seems to be moving in that direction. On January 16, 2025, the Commission announced finalization of the long-awaited update to the COPPA Rule. While subject to the Executive Order requiring a review of rules, the final COPPA Rule was subsequently published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2025. The new COPPA Rule will come into effect on June 23, 2025. Meanwhile, the FTC has scheduled a June 4 workshop, The Attention Economy: How Big Tech Firms Exploit Children and Hurt Families | Federal Trade Commission, which may shed more light on current FTC thinking on issues that KOSA seeks to address.
The revisions included in SB 1748 do not necessarily resolve concerns about impingement on First Amendment rights, among other issues, and the relatively weak conflict preemption clause of KOSA will not result in the withdrawal or elimination of state age-appropriate design code acts and similar laws. Technology industry organizations have challenged state bills that impose similar restrictions and requirements on platforms that KOSA seeks to address with some success. If KOSA does become law, we can expect further legal challenges to be filed.
GT’s The Performance Review Episode 31: “Parental Leave.” [Podcast]
You are invited to listen to Episode 31 of GT’s The Performance Review – California Labor & Employment Podcast, “Parental Leave.”
GT Shareholders Brian Kelly and Michael Wertheim consider the legal requirements and regulations surrounding parental leave in California. (Plus, what can the movie Prometheus from the Alien franchise teach us about child bonding and pregnancy disability leave? A lot, it turns out.)
GT’s The Performance Review – California Labor & Employment Podcast is a discussion on the latest trends and developments in California Labor & Employment law.
Maryland Clarifies Overlapping Leave Obligations for Employers
Maryland has amended its parental leave law to clarify that, effective October 1, 2025, employers covered by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) are exempt from the Maryland Parental Leave Act (“MPLA”).
The MPLA, codified as Section 3-12 of Maryland’s Labor and Employment Code, requires covered employers to provide eligible employees with up to six weeks of unpaid parental leave for the birth, adoption, or foster placement of a child. The statute applies to Maryland employers with at least 15 but fewer than 50 employees for each “working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” The FMLA, conversely, applies to employers with 50 or more employees and allows qualified employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for qualifying events, which also include birth, adoption or foster placement of a child, among others. Similar to the MPLA, the FMLA measures how many employees a company employs by looking at how many were employed in 20 or more workweeks in the preceding or current year.
The MLPA was intended to apply to smaller employers not covered by the FMLA in order to provide parental leave to employees of such smaller companies. However, there have been occasions of overlap, where both laws apply to companies that change in size. For example, currently, if a Maryland employer has 47 employees for part of the year (or the preceding year) but later expands and exceeds the 50-employee threshold in the same or following year, it may fall under both the MPLA and FMLA. This can create confusion in complying with both laws. To address this overlap, Governor Wes Moore signed SB 785, which amends the definition of “employer” under the MPLA to exclude those covered by the FMLA in the current year, effectively exempting FMLA-covered employers from Maryland’s parental leave requirements.
The amendment serves to help employers avoid potential confusion regarding dual leave coverage for their employees if an employer is subject to the FMLA.
Actions for Employers
In light of the recent clarification to Maryland’s parental leave law, employers in the state should confirm their total employee headcount and review their current leave policies in order to ensure compliance with the amended statute.
The Changing Landscape of Unmarried Parents
One in four parents living with a child in the United States today are unmarried.
Of these, 35% of all unmarried parents are living with a partner. In the event the relationship goes south, do unmarried fathers have rights to their child?
In North Carolina, parental rights and responsibilities do not automatically vest for unmarried fathers as they do for married parents. If parties are married at the time of the child’s conception or birth, the husband is presumed to be the father of the child. Conception is presumed to have occurred ten lunar months, or 280 days, prior to the child’s birth. If a child is born out of wedlock, however, by default, the mother is granted sole legal and physical custody. A mother may threaten to leave the state, be unfit, prevent the father from visiting the child, or fail to seek guidance on major decisions impacting him/her. So, what is a father to do?
Establishing Paternity is the First Step
If you are an unmarried father seeking custodial rights, the first step is to establish paternity. Paternity can be established voluntarily, often at the hospital when the child is born, through an Affidavit of Parentage, or later through court-ordered genetic testing.
Once paternity is established, the father may petition the court for custody or visitation, which can encompass decision-making authority. In North Carolina, custody decisions are based on the “best interests of the child” standard. For unwed fathers, courts typically consider:
The father’s relationship with the child
His ability to co-parent effectively
His ability to provide a stable environment, and
His motivation in seeking custody.
Jurisdiction Issues in Custody Cases
If the parties do not live in the same state at the time the child is born, there may be a jurisdictional issue. Custody cases must be filed in the child’s “home state,” which is the state where the child has lived for the six months before the case is filed.
In North Carolina, you may file a custody case in the county in which the child resides or is physically present or in a county where the parent resides.
Tips to Strengthen Your Custody Case in North Carolina
To bolster your custody case, do not delay in establishing paternity, either through an Affidavit of Paternity or a motion for paternity testing.
For a court to consider best interests, the court will assess whether your living arrangement is stable and suitable for a minor child. Be prepared to illustrate that you can tend to their physical and emotional needs.
Stay involved in the child’s life, such as attending medical appointments, extracurricular events, birthday parties, and the like. Avoid negativity. Attempt respectful communication with the minor child’s mother.
Remember that acts of domestic violence are relevant to custodial disputes when courts make findings as to the best interests of a child. Keep records of your efforts to be involved and engaged with the minor child.
FAQ in North Carolina Custody Cases
Can I file for custody even if the mother and I were never in a relationship?
Yes. Your relationship with the mother is not a determining factor.
Do courts favor mothers over fathers in custodial disputes?
No. The tender years presumption has been abolished in North Carolina. G.S. § 50-13.2(a) states that between the parents, whether natural or adoptive, no presumption shall apply as to who will better promote the interest and welfare of the child.
What is the difference between establishing paternity and legitimizing a child?
North Carolina law specifically states, “the establishment of paternity shall not have the effect of legitimation.” G.S. 49-14. If a child is legitimized, he or she is entitled to inherit from his or her mother and father intestate. It also imposes upon the father and mother all the parental privileges and rights, as well as all of the obligations which parents owe to their lawful issue.
A child born out of wedlock may be legitimated if his or her mother and “reputed father” marry one another at any time after the child is born. G.S. 49-12. No court action is required. The child will be recognized as the legitimate child of his or her parents who married after the child’s birth. Otherwise, a child must be legitimized through a special proceeding. In contrast, paternity establishes the duty of support and of custodial rights of a minor child.
Once paternity is established, will a father be responsible for child support?
Yes, both the father and mother shall be primarily liable for the support of a minor child. If you are uncertain that you may be the biological father of a child, seek a paternity test before signing an Affidavit of Paternity.
Conclusion
Navigating custody issues as an unmarried parent can be complex and emotionally challenging, but you don’t have to do it alone.
Gradual Implementation of the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure in Mexico City: Key Dates and Broader Impact
Although the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure (CNPCyF) was enacted on June 8, 2023, its implementation will be gradual. At both the federal and state levels, its entry into force depends on each judicial branch requesting the corresponding declaration of enforceability from the federal or local congress. The deadline for this to happen is April 1, 2027. At the federal level, this declaration has not yet been issued.
In Mexico City, the declaration has already been published, which resulted in the abrogation of the local Code of Civil Procedure. However, the CNPCyF will be applied gradually, with a distinction between civil and family matters. In civil matters, the key effective dates are:
December 1, 2024: applicable to oral special mortgage and oral residential lease proceedings.
June 1, 2025: applicable to voluntary jurisdiction, interim relief, and oral executive proceedings.
November 15, 2025: applicable to ordinary oral civil proceedings, enforcement proceedings, and all other cases not previously mentioned. This date will also mark the start of its supplementary application to other laws.
Additionally, on November 29, 2024, a decree was published amending various legal provisions in Mexico City to harmonize them with the CNPCyF. This reform is significant, as it lays the groundwork for the Code to be applied on a supplementary basis in administrative proceedings, including at the federal level. However, its concrete implementation in this area remains pending and will require close monitoring.
The Family Office and the Magic of Philanthropy
The proliferation of family offices tests the boundaries between external risk management and the unique challenges faced by families navigating significant changes in financial status. Adding philanthropy to the list of services softens those boundaries and often strengthens communication and integrity across family office activities.
Challenges
Most advisors working with family offices have seen the drama behind the curtain. Lack of communication and transparency, infighting and jealousy, conspicuous consumption, and addiction are some of the monstrous outcomes that grow out of the change in purpose that can happen after a liquidity event. The book, Fragile Power, Why Having Everything is Never Enough; Lessons from Treating the Wealthy and Famous, by Dr. Paul Hokemeyer, explores these issues and opportunities in depth.
Purpose Driven Engagement
Problem solving in communities and supporting medical, arts, and educational institutions are all well and good, but the value of family led, purpose-driven engagement can be enormous. Internal opportunities that arise from a philanthropic focus include:
Contextualizing values across generations
Deep learning and collaboration within the family
Connecting with peer groups with similar interests
Financial education within a discrete fund or set of funds
Leadership skill building
The Hat Trick
Sadly, the magic isn’t instantaneous. It’s intentional, arduous, and rarely done without objective, experienced facilitation. Attention to purpose-driven engagement can change the way people interact.
The parents (G1) in one family I work with were adamant about building legacy through a perpetual foundation, but were disinclined to talk to (G2) about it because of fear the kids wanted to support funding something not in line with their own values. What G1 wanted was to do something transformative in their community. The options in this case are to continue not to talk to G2 and let them deal with it themselves when the time comes (likely with horrible outcomes) or create an opportunity for facilitated collaboration around shared values culminating in a meeting and engagement agreement that everyone signs. Once that agreement is done the next step is to define everyone’s role, in the same way you might for a corporate board.
A glimpse of the structure behind the scenes takes the mystery away from working together and allows everyone a seat at the table to talk about a defined way of giving.
Takeaways
Identify philanthropic advisors and services that align with your client’s needs
Encourage wealth generators to think about their current and future goals
Ensure PF by-laws capture roles and responsibilities clearly
Focus on consensus building around an agenda that supports the whole family
It takes courage to look behind the curtain, but taking the mystery out of engaged philanthropy uncovers where the magic really lies.
Resource: Fragile Power by Dr. Paul Hokemeyer
Why Governance — Not Growth — Will Define the Next Era of Family Offices
Family Offices are entering a new era — one defined less by asset growth and more by structure, resilience, and governance.
As Forbes recently forecasted, the defining trend for Family Offices in 2025 is not asset growth — it’s professionalization and governance.1 As families confront generational transitions and operational complexity, building resilient governance structures is becoming a strategic imperative, not a secondary concern.
Introducing the Governance Imperative
This shift is further underscored in Deloitte’s recently published 2025 Family Office case study series, The Fireside.[2] The report pulls back the curtain on the often-private world of global Family Offices and reveals an urgent pattern: where governance falters, legacy cracks. Where it’s prioritized, cohesion and continuity are amplified.
The Governance Gap
For decades, many Family Offices concentrated on managing investments: allocating portfolios, sourcing deals, and growing capital. Today, those priorities are evolving. The challenge is no longer “How do we make money?” — it’s “How do we keep it? How do we coordinate it? And how do we prepare the next generation to lead it?”
Recent data underscores the urgency:
86% of Family Office executives cite governance as their number one challenge.3
69% of global Family Offices now list succession planning as a core strategic focus.4
66% prioritize family wealth advisory and intergenerational training programs.4
Yet despite recognizing the need, many families are slow to act — often because governance feels abstract, emotionally charged, or secondary to immediate financial results.
The High Cost of Inaction
The absence of governance isn’t neutral. It’s destabilizing.
Without frameworks to guide decision-making, manage risk, and align stakeholders, Family Offices face:
Increased family disputes
Fragmented investment strategies
Talent flight (especially among rising generation members)
Higher exposure to succession crises
In The Fireside, a first-generation executive warns, “If you’re going to be honest, the biggest risk to most Family Offices is the family.” [2] He goes on to describe a scenario in which a patriarch’s failure to plan for succession could lead to chaos, stalled operations, and a hemorrhaging of wealth.
One generational transfer gone wrong can fracture a fortune built over decades. Without clear structures for ownership, leadership, and communication, even the most sophisticated portfolios are vulnerable.
What the Next Era Requires
Families leading the way are treating governance not as a “nice to have,” but as a strategic asset—building institutional-quality practices into private wealth structures.
Key trends defining forward-looking Family Offices include:
Family Constitutions and Charters: Clearly defined values, mission, and governance bodies.
Formal Investment Committees: With professional standards around risk management, due diligence, and accountability.
Structured Succession Planning: Leadership development programs and shadow boards for next-gen family members.
Family Councils and Communication Protocols: Regular, structured engagement across generations.
From The Fireside: “The absence of a succession plan can send the rats skittering off the decks.”
Other families are going further, embracing advisory boards composed of legal, financial, philanthropic, and next-gen governance experts. One CEO featured in Deloitte’s report explained, “We selected our board the same way you would for a public company — a financial expert, an investment expert, a lawyer who works with wealth holders, and two members focused on family dynamics and philanthropy.”2
The result? A professional-grade Family Office that aligns with fiduciary best practices and enhances trust.
Why Governance is the New Growth Strategy
At a time when investment returns are increasingly volatile, governance delivers durable value. Good governance:
Reduces strategic drift
Protects against legal and regulatory risk
Creates clarity around roles, rights, and responsibilities
Strengthens the family’s human capital alongside its financial capital
Moreover, it enables continuity in a landscape marked by volatility. One family office COO interviewed by Deloitte, after describing a painful yet successful split into multiple branches, summarized it succinctly: “Families should feel empowered to do good in their respective ways.”2
It’s no longer enough to focus on growing AUM. The real edge belongs to families that can navigate complexity, steward leadership, and foster unity across generations.
The Family Offices that will define the next era won’t be the ones that took the most risk. They’ll be the ones who built the strongest foundations.
Endnotes/Sources
Paul Westall, “Predictions For The Family Office Space In 2025,” Forbes, February 5, 2025.
Dr. Rebecca Gooch, The Family Office Insights Series – Global Edition, The Fireside, May 8, 2025.
Ocorian Family Office Study, 2024.
J.P. Morgan Private Bank, Global Family Office Report, 2024.
Spotlight on: Changes to Childcare and Parental Leave
Japan – Amendments to the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act took effect on 1 April 2025, with further amendments to take effect on 1 October 2025.
Singapore – Amendments to the Child Development Co-Savings Act 2001 took effect on 1 April 2025.
Indonesia – Law No. 4 of 2024 regarding Maternal and Child Welfare During the First Thousand Days of Life took effect on 2 July 2024 (Law 4/2024).
Australia – Amendments to the unpaid parental leave (UPL) provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009(Cth) (FW Act) took effect on 1 July 2023.
Japan
Amendments to the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act took effect on 1 April 2025, with further amendments to take effect on 1 October 2025.
Expansion of eligibility for overtime exemption request –Eligible parents can now request an exemption from overtime if they care for children up to elementary school (primary school) age. Previously, this was only available to eligible parents caring for children up to 3 years of age.
Expansion of eligibility for family care leave –Eligible employees who have worked for less than six months are now able to avail themselves of family care leave. Previously, employers can omit such employees by executing a labour-management agreement.
Extension of sick/injured etc. childcare leave – Eligible employees may now utilise this leave for events integral to school life such as starting school ceremony and graduation ceremony. Previously, this was limited to use when a child is sick or injured or requires a vaccination or health check.
Introduction of flexible working options – Employers are now required to offer remote working options to those caring for family members who need continuous care or have a child under 3 years of age.
From October 2025, employers are also required to offer at least two flexible working options to parents with children aged between 3 and 6.
Singapore
Amendments to the Child Development Co-Savings Act 2001 took effect on 1 April 2025.
Replacement of shared parental leave –Eligible working parents are now entitled to six weeks of shared parental leave. Previously, eligible working fathers could only share a portion of the mother’s government-paid maternity leave.
Expansion of government-paid paternity leave –Eligible working fathers are now entitled to four weeks of government-paid paternity leave. Previously, eligible working fathers were only entitled to two weeks of government-paid paternity leave.
Indonesia
Law No. 4 of 2024 regarding Maternal and Child Welfare During the First Thousand Days of Life took effect on 2 July 2024 (Law 4/2024).
Extension of maternity leave – Eligible working mothers may now take up to six months of maternity leave (four months at full pay, two months at 75% pay). This new law augments the position set out in Law No. 13 of 2003 regarding Manpower, as amended (Manpower Law), which provided for paid maternity leave, to be taken 1.5 months prior to giving birth and 1.5 months after giving birth.
Introduction of paternity leave – Eligible working fathers are now entitled to two days of paid paternity leave during delivery and up to an additional three days of paternity after delivery or other period as may be agreed with the employer. Eligible working fathers are also entitled to two days of paid leave in the event of a miscarriage. Previously, the Manpower Law only provided for two days of paid leave for both instances.
Australia
Amendments to the unpaid parental leave (UPL) provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009(Cth) (FW Act) took effect on 1 July 2023.
1. Increased flexible UPL entitlements –As part of their entitlement to up to 24 months of UPL, eligible employees are entitled to the following amounts of flexible UPL:
Flexible UPL Entitlement
Date of Birth or Adoption of Child
100 days
1 July 2023 – 30 June 2024
110 days
1 July 2024 – 30 June 2025
120 days
1 July 2025 – 30 June 2026
130 days
On and from 1 July 2026
Prior to 1 July 2023, eligible employees were entitled to 30 days of UPL. Flexible UPL, which can be used in periods of one day or more at a time, may be taken at any time within 24 months of the birth or adoption of their child.
2. Full UPL entitlement for employee couples –“Employee couples”, being couples where both employees have access to UPL, may access their full UPL entitlement (being 12 months of UPL with the right to request a further period of 12 months), regardless of how much leave their spouse or partner takes. Prior to 1 July 2023, an employee couple could only take a combined period of 24 months of UPL.
3. No limitation to concurrent leave –Employee couples may take UPL concurrently without any limitation. Prior to 1 July 2023, the FW Act imposed certain limitations on employee couples who were taking UPL at the same time (e.g. employee couples could not take more than eight weeks of UPL concurrently).
FTC Issues FAQs on ‘Junk Fees’ Rule
The Federal Trade Commission’s Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, sometimes called the “Junk Fees Rule,” took effect on May 12, 2025. In advance of that effective date, the FTC published Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to provide guidance to consumers and businesses regarding the Rule.
In a press release announcing the FAQs, the FTC reiterated that the Rule “prohibits bait-and-switch pricing and other tactics used to hide total prices and mislead people about fees in the live-event ticketing and short-term lodging industries,” and also said that the Rule “furthers President Trump’s Executive Order on Combating Unfair Practices in the Live Entertainment Market by ensuring price transparency at all stages of the live-event ticket-purchase process, including the secondary ticketing market.”
The reference to Trump’s executive order indicates that while the Biden administration started the war on so-called junk fees, the Trump administration will continue it, though potentially with a more restrained strategy.
The FAQs
The FAQs represent the FTC “staff’s views” on the Rule and its requirements. While those views are not binding on the Commission, every business subject to the Rule—or to any unfair or deceptive acts or practices (UDAP) standard—should review the FAQs, which provide insight into how the FTC and other consumer protection agencies are may view fees and fee disclosures. This GT Alert summarizes several of the key points FTC staff made in the FAQs.
What Businesses Does the Rule Cover?
The FAQs explain that businesses selling live-event tickets and short-term lodging are covered by the Rule, and that the Rule covers both individual (B2C) and business (B2B) transactions.
What Are the Rule’s Basic Requirements?
The FAQs explain that the Rule requires businesses to disclose the “total price,” which includes “all charges or fees the business knows about and can calculate upfront, including charges or fees for mandatory goods or services people have to buy as part of the same transaction,” but not taxes or other government charges, shipping charges, or charges for optional goods or services that may be purchased as part of the same transaction.
The FAQs explain that the total-price disclosure must be upfront and more prominently displayed than other price information (except the final amount of payment, as described below) and that excluded charges must be disclosed before the business asks for payment.
The FAQs explain that businesses “must tell the truth about information it’s required to disclose, like how much it’s charging and why” and avoid vague phrases like “convenience fees,” “service fees,” or “processing fees.”
Which Mandatory Fees or Charges Must Be Included in a Business’s Displayed Total Price?
The FAQs explain that businesses must include in the total price “all fees or charges” (other than government charges and shipping charges) that:
people are required to pay, “no matter what”;
people cannot reasonably avoid (the FAQs provide as an example credit card processing charges where there is no other viable payment option);
people are charged for ancillary goods or services that must be purchased “to make the underlying good or service fit for its intended purpose, which reasonable consumers would expect to be part of the purchase”; or
people cannot “effectively agree to because the business employs practices such as default billing, pre-checked boxes, or opt-out provisions.”
Can a Business Itemize Mandatory Fees or Charges?
The FAQs explain that businesses can itemize mandatory fees or charges so long as the itemization does “not overshadow the total price,” is truthful, and does not mispresent fees.
Which Fees or Charges Can Businesses Exclude from the Total Price?
The FAQs explain that businesses may only exclude “government charges, shipping charges, and fees or charges for optional ancillary goods or services that people choose to add to the transaction.” But the FAQs also explain that any excluded fees must be disclosed in the final payment amount that must be presented before the consumer is asked to pay, along with “the nature, purpose and amount of the [excluded] fee or charge” and “the good or service for which the [excluded] fee or charge is imposed.” When Must a Business Disclose the Final Amount of Payment, Including Fees or Charges It Excluded from the Total Price?
The FAQs explain that businesses must clearly, conspicuously, and prominently disclose the final amount of payment—that is, the total price plus any charges excluded from the total price—“before asking people to pay.” The final amount of payment must be disclosed “as prominently as, or more prominently than,” the total price.
Can Businesses Charge Credit Card Surcharges and Other Payment Processing Fees and, if So, Can They Exclude Such Fees from the Total Price?
The FAQs explain that businesses may “charge or pass through credit card or other payment processing fees if otherwise permitted by law,” but that, if a business that “requires people to pay with a credit card, the credit card fee is mandatory and must be included in the total price.”
What Happens if a Business Violates the Rule?
The FAQs explain that businesses that violate the Rule “could be ordered to bring their practices into compliance, refunds money back to consumers, and pay civil penalties.”
Takeaways
State and federal consumer protection agencies remain focused on so-called “junk fees,” with new investigations opening at a regular clip. Given that focus, businesses should watch for “junk-fee” related developments at both the state and federal levels and fine-tune their compliance programs in light of those developments.
We have provided ongoing analysis and commentary regarding junk-fee-related developments, including the developments addressed in our prior client alerts and blog posts:
FTC Alleges Fintech Cleo AI Deceived Consumers (March 31, 2025)
FTC Alleges Fintech Dave, Inc. Deceived Consumers (Nov. 15, 2024)
FTC Targets Adobe for Hidden Fees and Deceptive Subscriptions (July 9, 2024)
CFPB Launches Public Inquiry into Rising Mortgage Closing Costs and ‘Junk Fees’ (June 4, 2024)
FTC Takes Action Against Doxo, Citing Junk Fees (June 3, 2024)
California AG Publishes FAQs on California’s ‘Junk Fee’ Law (May 30, 2024)
CFPB Releases Report Highlighting Junk Fees on Mortgage Servicing (March 23, 2024)
CFPB Unveils Final Rule Banning ‘Excessive’ Credit Card Late Fees (Mar. 13, 2024)
CFPB Issues Proposed Rule to Stop ‘Junk Fees’ on Bank Accounts (Feb. 1. 2024)
California Bans Hidden Fees, Effective July 1, 2024 (Oct. 17, 2023)
FTC Proposed Rule Targeting ‘Junk Fees’ (Oct. 16, 2023)
CFPB Issues Advisory Opinion on ‘Illegal Junk Fees’ By Large Financial Firms (Oct. 12, 2023)