RIAs push trust and estate in-house despite a thin advisor bench

Trust and estate planning has long been the RIA service that gets referred away. The work is technical, the compliance stakes are high, and the standard practice has been to hand it to an outside law firm or trust company. WealthManagement.com's 2026 Outlook Survey of advisors and RIA executives suggests that practice is starting to bend.

Thirty-nine percent of planning firms now run trust and estate work in-house. Forty-five percent still refer it out. Eleven percent say they have no plans to offer the service in 2026, and 5% intend to bring it inside next year.

The referral model has a cost that does not show up on a fee schedule. The advisor hands over the family, not just the file, and the outside professional ends up with the client relationship. That is the retention problem the expansion plans are chasing.

Among firms already offering trust and estate services, 53% plan to expand in 2026. The share jumps to 66% at firms managing more than $500 million. Client demand and keeping next-generation clients are the named drivers. Sixteen percent call the service a competitive differentiator, 15% a revenue diversifier, and 6% a route into high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth business.

Put the 5% entering in-house together with the 53% of the 39% already offering it, and the survey's own shares put the combined push at roughly one in four advisory firms. For an owner, the distinction is practical: trust and estate work is where the client's heirs start paying attention, and a referral puts that conversation outside the firm.

Fifty-nine percent of respondents estimate that fewer than one in four advisors have enough trust and estate knowledge to implement advanced strategies effectively. The in-house push is running into a talent constraint the survey's own respondents identify.

Regulatory compliance and fiduciary responsibility draw the most mentions, at 60%. Client communication and expectation-setting follows at 49%, staff training at 43%, and technology and operations infrastructure comes in at 38%. Competition from established trust and estate firms is cited by 19%, the lowest of the listed obstacles. The biggest hurdle is the firm's own operating model, not the trust companies across town.

The expansion is a scale story. The 66% share at firms above $500 million compares with 53% across all providers, which points to the places with the client base and fee revenue to carry specialist salaries. A smaller practice would take on a fixed cost that needs many files to justify.

Fifty-nine percent is an estimate, not a measured competency test, but it comes from advisors and executives who would staff these functions. When the practitioners themselves tell a survey the bench is thin, an expansion plan needs a staffing plan attached. That is not a reason to avoid the service; it is a reason to sequence it behind hiring and training.

Owners weighing a sale should treat the 59% as a due diligence flag. An in-house trust and estate practice with trained staff is a recurring-revenue asset; a referral arrangement is a relationship that can leave with the third party.

The survey is a benchmark for a principal's own firm. Ask where you sit on the 39/45/11 spectrum and whether you can answer the 59% question.

The practical sequence is hire before promise. Count how many advisors on staff can carry the work, then decide whether to train, hire, or build a referral partnership that keeps the client relationship visible. The 5% entering in-house next year are likely the firms that can make that math work.

Next year's survey will show whether the 59% moves. If the estimate falls, the in-house expansion has a real chance. If it holds, the industry will be marketing a service its own respondents say advisors are not ready to staff, and the referrals will keep carrying the relationships out the door.