Succession planning in a family office is often treated as a future event: something to address once the next generation is older, the operating business is sold, or the principal is ready to step back. That framing, that ascribes a succession-related event as the trigger for action, is the beginning of the problem.
At Milier Harris, we believe that effective succession planning is an ongoing process of preparing people, clarifying responsibilities and creating the structures through which a family’s wealth, values, assets, and decision-making can continue with real purpose.
A successful transition involves transferring judgement, responsibility, relationships, decision rights and a shared understanding of what the family’s capital is meant to achieve. When these elements are left implicit, even a technically sound estate plan can fail to provide continuity.
The scale of the challenge is clear. UBS reported in 2026 that only 35% of surveyed family offices had a defined succession plan. Its 2025 research had already found that, among offices with a plan, only 26% involved the next generation from the outset.
The issue is rarely a lack of capable advisers, as family offices can easily access sophisticated legal, tax, investment and governance expertise. More often, succession stalls because difficult questions have been postponed or the family has not agreed on the purpose of wealth beyond its preservation.
Succession is mistaken for inheritance
Inheritance answers a necessary but limited question: who receives the assets? Succession must answer a broader set of questions: Who will make investment decisions? Who appoints and oversees external managers? Which family members are entitled to information, distributions or participation in governance? How will the family respond when its members hold different ambitions, risk tolerances or relationships with the operating business?
A will, trust structure or specific holding-company arrangement may establish the legal route through which wealth passes. It does not, by itself, establish how a family office will operate after the founder’s role changes. Nor does it tell the next generation how to balance long-term capital preservation with entrepreneurship, philanthropy, liquidity needs or the expectations of different family branches.
This distinction becomes particularly important where the family office has grown around one individual. The founder may have built the business, selected advisers, approved investments and resolved disagreements without formal process or documentation. That model can work while the founder remains actively engaged. It becomes fragile when continuity depends on knowledge that sits largely in one person’s head.
A succession plan that focuses exclusively on ownership transfer can therefore create an illusion of preparedness. The documents are in place, yet the people responsible for using them have no agreed mandate and no established decision-making process.
Authority remains concentrated for too long
Many transitions are delayed because the current generation finds it difficult to relinquish control. This is understandable. For a founder, wealth is often inseparable from their decades of work, personal reputation and a sense of responsibility to the family and its legacy.
However, a reluctance to delegate can leave successors in an impossible position. They may be expected to assume responsibility suddenly, despite having had limited exposure to investment committees, adviser selection, governance discussions or the practical realities of ownership.
The result is a handover that occurs under pressure: following illness, incapacity, bereavement or an unexpected business event. At that point, the family is making consequential decisions while also managing uncertainty and heightened emotion.
The better approach is progressive transition. Rather than choosing between complete control and abrupt retirement, principals can define stages of involvement. A next-generation family member might first observe governance meetings, then contribute to specified projects, later hold a bounded decision-making mandate, and ultimately take on a formal role with clear accountability when the time is right.
The succession process should be about allowing capability and confidence to develop in a live environment while experienced leadership is still available.
Plans are written, then left untouched
A succession plan must remain aligned with the family’s circumstances, asset base and governance arrangements. This means it must be more than a document that is written once and sealed away to refer to in times of crisis.
Families change. Marriages, divorces, births, deaths, business sales, new ventures, changing jurisdictions and differing levels of involvement can all alter the context in which the original plan was created. An office that once served a founder and two adult children may later need to support several branches of a family, each with different financial and geographical needs and expectations.
Static plans struggle in dynamic families.
Regular review provides an opportunity to test whether the plan still reflects reality. And this analysis should examine more than legal and tax documentation. Families must consider whether governance roles remain appropriate, whether decision-making thresholds are clear, whether successor development is progressing and whether external advisers understand their responsibilities during a transition.
This is where a family constitution or charter can add immense value. This should not be considered a substitute for formal legal documents, and it should not attempt to dictate every future decision. Its purpose is to give the family a shared reference point: a statement of values, participation principles, governance processes and a framework for addressing matters that can otherwise become personal disputes.
PwC has similarly emphasised that succession is not confined to passing ownership or establishing legal structures; it also encompasses communication rules, family governance and the transfer of knowledge, experience and values.
The next generation is involved too late
It is possible to have a well-educated, commercially successful next generation that still feels unprepared for family-office responsibility. Professional achievement does not automatically translate into familiarity with concentrated wealth, fiduciary decision-making, family dynamics or the long-term consequences of capital allocation.
Preparation must be intentional. It should be tailored to the role an individual may eventually hold, rather than based on the assumption that all family members need the same level of involvement.
For one person, preparation may mean developing the confidence to sit on a board or investment committee. For another, it may involve learning how trusts, reporting structures and philanthropic entities work. A family member with no operational role may still need a clear understanding of their rights as an owner, the information they can expect to receive and the channels through which concerns can be raised.
The weakness in current practice is evident in UBS’s findings. In 2025, 43% of family offices with a succession plan regarded preparing the next generation to hold wealth responsibly and in line with family aims as a major challenge. A lack of early involvement makes that challenge harder, because the successor is asked to absorb institutional knowledge only when the transition has become urgent.
Education should not be reduced to investment training. It should include the family’s history, its purpose, the source of its wealth, the responsibilities attached to ownership and the governance standards expected of those who participate.
Family governance is treated as secondary
Family offices often dedicate considerable attention to asset allocation, manager selection and structuring. These are essential disciplines, yet investment sophistication cannot compensate for unclear governance.
When authority is undefined, routine decisions become harder. Who decides whether a family member can launch a venture using family capital? What happens when one branch seeks more liquidity while another wants to retain assets for future generations? How are conflicts between family interests and business interests managed? Which decisions require consent, and which can be delegated?
Without agreed processes, disagreements can become a test of influence rather than a discussion governed by principle. This places strain on family relationships and can also make it difficult for professional executives to operate effectively.
Good governance does not mean imposing corporate bureaucracy on a family. It means creating enough clarity for people to understand where decisions are made, how they are made and what happens when there is inevitable disagreement within the family. The framework should be proportionate to the family’s complexity, but it should be sufficiently robust to function when a senior family member is no longer available to settle every question.
For many families, this work requires a setting in which commercial, personal and intergenerational considerations can be addressed with discretion. Milier Harris supports conversations of this kind by helping families move beyond informal assumptions and towards governance arrangements that reflect their particular ownership structures and priorities whilst balancing their ambitions for the future.
Professional leadership is overlooked
Succession planning must also address non-family leadership. A family office may depend heavily on a chief executive, chief investment officer, finance director or long-standing external adviser. These individuals often hold important institutional knowledge: why specific structures were created, how family preferences have evolved, where historic sensitivities lie and which relationships require careful management.
If their succession is not considered alongside the family’s own transition, the office can face several changes at once. A new family principal may be required to lead a team that is also losing its most experienced executives or advisers.
A resilient plan identifies critical roles, reduces dependency on any single individual and creates an orderly process for retaining and transferring knowledge. It also clarifies the distinction between family authority and professional management. Family members should understand the decisions reserved for them as owners or governors; executives should understand the mandate within which they are expected to operate.
This distinction protects both parties. It gives family members confidence that their objectives are being carried out, while enabling professional leaders to act without constantly navigating informal and shifting expectations.
From intention to continuity
The failure of succession planning is rarely caused by one missing document. It is usually the consequence of treating succession as a private legal exercise rather than an ongoing governance and leadership process.
A stronger approach begins early and remains active. It should:
- Bring the right family members into the conversation before decisions are fixed.
- Establish a realistic pathway for successors to gain experience.
- Separate ownership, governance and management responsibilities.
- Create a forum in which differing views can be addressed constructively, before they become a crisis.
At Milier Harris, we see succession planning as an essential part of long-term family stewardship. It provides an opportunity to define how the family wishes to make decisions, prepare future leaders and preserve the confidence required to manage wealth across generations.
The central question is whether the next generation will be equipped to steward it with sound judgement, appropriate support and a clear sense of purpose. A well-designed succession process gives families the time and structure to address that question before change becomes urgent. By bringing governance, preparation and communication into closer alignment, families can create continuity that extends beyond a transfer of assets and supports the long-term resilience of the family office, and the family itself.
