See You Later, 2025: What Fisk Taught Us About Heart-Centered Law

See You Later, 2025: What Fisk Taught Us About Heart-Centered Law

By Melinda Gustafson Gervasi

December 26, 2025

As we prepare to say “See You Later Mate” to 2025, many of us are looking for a bit of "Gal Pal O’Clock" energy offered up in the Australian comedy Fisk.  The Season 3 finale wasn't just about the quirky chaos of Gruber & Associates; it was a masterclass in embracing growth and the (sometimes messy) evolution of our professional lives.  Without spoiling the heartwarming pivots Helen and her colleagues make, there is a specific thread in the episode that struck a chord with me. It’s a list of attributes one should look for in quality legal counsel. But as I reflected on them, I realized they aren't just for lawyers—they are the gold standard for any partnership we enter into, whether in business, health, or creative endeavors.

The Power of the "Good Listener"

In a world that prizes the "loudest voice in the room," Helen Tudor-Fisk reminds us that the most effective advocate is often the one who says the least at the start.  A professional who listens isn't just waiting for their turn to speak; they are gathering the nuances of your situation that a generic template would miss.  This is why I start my client meetings with the question “what is your goal, what do you want to accomplish with your estate plan”.  Knowing the goal allows me to select the right legal tools to build a bridge to that outcome, rather than just handing you a stack of papers

The Art of the Tailored Plan

While Helen wears the exact same suit day in and day out, working with a cookie-cutter approach for everyone is not ideal.  There is no one-size-fits-all in law, just as there isn't in life.  Quality counsel looks at your specific variables—your family dynamics, your fears, and your long-term goals—to build a roadmap that actually fits your life, rather than forcing your life to fit a legal box.

The Requirement of "Heart"

Perhaps the most "un-lawyerly" trait on the list is also the most vital: having a heart. We often mistake stoicism for professionalism. But as we saw this season, empathy doesn't make a person weak or less "sharp"—it makes them more invested. When your counsel cares about the outcome as a human being, the quality of the work reaches a different level entirely.  With my clients I commonly say “I’m not just a lawyer; I’m a parent. I know firsthand that preserving family harmony isn't just a 'nice to have'—it’s often the primary goal.” I encourage my clients to view their plan through the eyes of their children: Will this document help them heal, or will it add to their grief?

As we head into 2026, let’s look for partners who offer more than just a billable hour. Let's look for the folks we’d invite to Gal Pal O’Clock: the listeners, the tailors, and the empaths. 

Remember that a blog is not legal advice; it is meant to spark thought and reflection.  It is best to seek legal counsel from an attorney in your home state that is crafted for your specific situation.  If you enjoyed this post, consider sharing it on your favorite social media platform.  Be well, and thanks for reading!

Precision Over Poetry: Why "Legalese" Actually Protects Your Estate

Precision Over Poetry: Why "Legalese" Actually Protects Your Estate

By Melinda Gustafson Gervasi

December 19, 2025 

In Season 3, Episode 5 of Fisk, we see Helen powering through a marathon of client meetings while the rest of the office descends into its usual brand of chaos. But one specific client interaction perfectly captures a question I hear almost weekly in my own office: “Why does a Will have to have so much legalese?”

In this episode, Helen is presented with a Will written by a poet. Seeking to make his final testament a "work of art," he traded clarity for metaphor. Helen’s reaction—“Yeah, I’m sorry, what am I looking at here?”—is the exact face many executors make when they encounter a DIY or "creative" Will.

The Problem with "Art" in Legal Documents

As Helen wisely points out, “Art means different things to different people.” While that is the beauty of poetry, it is the downfall of an estate plan.

When a Will goes to probate, we aren't looking for emotional resonance; we are looking for certainty. The court needs to know exactly what the testator intended, without room for interpretation. Consider the difference:

The Artistic Approach: "I leave my treasures to those who shared my blood and my heart."

The Legal Approach: "I leave my residuary estate in equal shares to my children, [Name] and [Name], per stirpes."

If you leave it to "family," does that include your third cousin twice removed? Does it include an estranged sibling? In law, ambiguity equals litigation. By defining terms like "family," "issue," or "personal property," we aren't being pedantic—we are building a fence around your assets to keep them out of court.

Where to Be Creative: The Letter of Wishes

I agree wholeheartedly with Helen’s suggestion: if you have a poetic soul, save it for the Letter of Wishes.  A Letter of Wishes is a non-binding document that sits alongside your Will. This is the place where you can:

• Explain the why behind your decisions.
• Share your hopes for how your grandchildren use their inheritance.
• Express your final "artistic hurrah" in your own voice.

Because it isn't a formal legal instrument, it doesn't need to be written in "legalese." It allows you to be a human being, while your Will does the heavy lifting of being a legal shield.

Your Will should be many things—organized, comprehensive, and valid—but it should never be "open to interpretation." Let’s leave the metaphors to the poets and the precision to the practitioners.

Thank you for reading.  Remember that a blog is not legal advice, it is meant to spark thought and reflection.  It is always best to seek legal counsel from an attorney in your home state.  Be well!

Estate Planning Lessons from Fisk: Can You Really Control Your Property After You're Gone?

Estate Planning Lessons from Fisk: Can You Really Control Your Property After You're Gone?

By Melinda Gustafson Gervasi

December 12, 2025

If I were an Estate Planning and Probate Law Professor I would certainly use episodes of the Australian comedy Fisk to educate my students.  For example, Season Three, Episode Four, Entitled The Sandman is in the Building, finds Helen and her co-workers temporarily moved to a co-working space due to a bomb threat on their main office. While an Ethics professor would have fun mining the ethical challenges of an attorney working out a co-working space, my lesson would zero in on a conversation Helen has with a set of clients who appear to be sisters.

Glennys and Jean live together in a home Glennys owns; she had inherited it from her parents.  Jean voices her concerns to Helen saying “Glennys wants to change the will and leave the house to the church in order to curry favor with a church employee”.  Knowing that if Glennys dies first, and the house goes to the church, Jean will be homeless, she pleads with Helen.  To which Helen states to Glennys “Clearly your parents intended for you to leave the house to Jean.”  Never accept legal advice from your television, especially shows produced outside of the United States!

In the United States, typically, when a person leaves property to a beneficiary outright in their will or trust (for example, "I leave my home to my daughter, Glennys"), the beneficiary receives what is known as a fee simple absolute interest. This legal wording is the highest and most complete form of ownership recognized in the law.  The property is conveyed "free of any restrictions on alienation."  Alienation means the act of transferring, selling, or gifting the property.  In this scenario, Glennys owns the property completely. The property becomes part of her estate, not her parents'. She has the absolute right to sell it, mortgage it, or name anyone she wishes—Jean, the church, or a complete stranger—as the ultimate beneficiary in her own will.

The parents' "intent" that the property should eventually go to Jean is reduced to nothing more than a non-binding moral request once Glennys takes full legal title. The original owners' wishes do not legally "bind the hands" of the new owner.

If the goal is truly to ensure the property follows a specific path—to Glennys for her life, and then certainly to Jean—the parents should have used an estate planning mechanism that gives Jane less than fee simple absolute ownership.  For example:

• Using a Trust with Specific Distribution Terms:  The property is titled to a Trust. The Trust document outlines the precise, mandatory distribution schedule.  The wording might say "The Trustee shall allow my daughter, Glennys, to live in the home for the rest of her life. Upon Glennys’ death, the Trustee shall transfer the title of the property to Jean."  In this scenario, Glennys never receives the property outright; she only receives a right to use it. The Trustee is legally required to follow the parents' instructions and transfer the property to Jean.
• Creating a Life Estate with a Remainder Interest: The deed or will specifically divides the ownership into two parts.  For example, "I grant a Life Estate in my home to Glennys, with the Remainder Interest to Jean."  Here Glennys (the Life Tenant) has the right to live in the property until her death. Jean (the Remainder Holder) immediately owns a vested future interest. Glennys cannot sell the property free of Jean's interest, nor can she name the church as the ultimate beneficiary. When Glennys dies, the property automatically belongs to Jean.

Don't rely on wishes, intentions, or moral obligations to control what happens to your property after your primary beneficiary inherits it.  If you want to ensure your property follows a very specific generational path or ends up with a specific person or charity after your primary beneficiary has died, you should use a legally binding structure like a Trust or a Life Estate. Otherwise, you're leaving your final wishes up to chance and the moral discretion of the person you love—who, like the character in Fisk, might just decide they have a different plan.

Reminder - a blog is not legal advice!  It is meant to spark thought and reflection.  Estate planning and probate laws vary from state to state.  It is critically important that you seek legal counsel from an attorney licensed in your home state for advice specific to your unique situation. If you found this post helpful, consider sharing it on your preferred social media platform.  Be well, and thanks for reading!

Red Flags in the Hospital Room: Why Waiting to Sign Your Will Is a Bad Idea

Red Flags in the Hospital Room: Why Waiting to Sign Your Will Is a Bad Idea

By Melinda Gustafson Gervasi

December 5, 2025

Lawyers, we are often the Grinch in a room.  Skeptical, a bit jaded because we’ve seen a lot.  Fisk Season Three, Episode 3 (I’m The Fisk) illustrates this trait, which I personally admit to having as well.  While we may be a killjoy, we are also sometimes correct.  And that benefits our clients. 

In “I’m the Fisk” we see the return of the character Malcolm. The former restaurant employee at a neighboring business, he is now a client.  His father recently died, and shortly before his death, he re-did his will.  Malcolm shares this information with Helen, oblivious to the red-flags screaming at Helen.  Six months prior to his death he met and fell in love with his carer (caregiver here in the US) and re-did his will to cut out his only child, leaving his entire estate to his new found love.

“Did they really? Gosh that’s good timing” Helen offers with a slight eye role. Following her instinct, Helen digs deeper into the issue.  While her approach may not meet US standards for attorney ethics, her focus on “testamentary capacity” is revealing.  Testamentary capacity is the legal and mental ability required for a person to execute a valid will. Essentially, it is the threshold of sound mind a testator (the person making the will) must possess at the time the will is signed. While the exact phrasing and burden of proof can vary slightly between jurisdictions (like between US states or countries), the generally accepted legal standard requires the testator to understand four key elements:

1. The nature and extent of their property. This means they must know, or be capable of knowing, what assets they own (e.g., house, bank accounts, investments).
2. The natural objects of their bounty. This refers to understanding who their closest family members and loved ones are, such as spouses, children, or other individuals who would naturally be expected to inherit from them. 
3. The purpose of the document they are signing. They must understand that the document is a will and that it will dispose of their property after their death. 
4. The manner in which the property is being distributed. They must be able to hold these three elements together long enough to form a rational plan for the distribution of their assets.

Spoiler alert, based on medications administered on the day the new will was signed, it seems highly unlikely the dad had capacity.  A hunch confirmed with a recorded Zoom call he made that day with Malcom. A lesson to take away from this episode is to do your best to avoid drafting a will while you are in the hospital.  Even if you know your intentions, medications may limit your capacity or give the appearance that you lack capacity.  If you’ve been meaning to update your will or draft one for the first time, put it on your to-do list and complete it while you are healthy and not facing limitations due to medical treatment.

Fisk, Season 3, Episode 3 "I'm The Fisk"

Thanks for reading!  A blog is not a lawyer; it is meant to foster thought and reflection.  Always seek counsel from an attorney licensed in your home state.  If you found this post helpful, consider posting it on your favorite social media platform.  Be well!