Precision Communication with Trustees: Phrases for Instructing vs Requesting Actions

1) Framing the distinction and the compliance rationale

In trust administration, the difference between instructing a trustee and requesting action from a trustee is not merely stylistic; it flows from the legal architecture of the trust and the fiduciary obligations owed to beneficiaries. When you “instruct,” you are relying on a defined power, right, or role described in the trust deed or applicable law—such as a protector’s reserved power to direct investments, a settlor’s reserved power to appoint or remove trustees, or a beneficiary’s consent right under certain jurisdictions. In contrast, when you “request,” you acknowledge that the trustee retains ultimate decision-making authority and must exercise independent judgment consistent with the trust’s purposes and the beneficiaries’ best interests.

This distinction directly affects compliance. An improperly framed instruction—one that assumes authority where none exists—can compromise the trustee’s independence, create evidentiary risk in an audit or dispute, and erode the validity of the trustee’s decisions. Conversely, a request framed too weakly when you actually hold a reserved power can create delay, invite second-guessing, or dilute accountability. Compliance, therefore, depends on the clarity of roles: who holds which power, under what clause, and for which domain (e.g., distributions, investments, appointment of advisors, or disclosure to tax authorities).

Tone and formality also matter. An instruction should be concise, unambiguous, and explicitly grounded in the relevant power. It should present the instruction, reference the authority, and state the decision parameters. A request should be respectful, explicit about the decision the trustee is being asked to consider, and supportive of the trustee’s need for due diligence. The tone should show that the requester recognizes the trustee’s fiduciary independence and duty to document a rational basis for any decision.

Finally, risk management relies on accurate classification. In many private client contexts, trustees work alongside protectors, investment committees, and tax advisors. Mislabeling a request as an instruction (or vice versa) causes friction and slows workflows, because parties must unwind the communication, ask for clarifications, or seek legal advice to reconcile the message with the deed. Clear, correct framing helps maintain rapport, ensures decisions withstand scrutiny, and prevents scope creep by stating exactly what is within scope and what requires separate approval or documentation.

2) Decision tree for selecting “instruct” versus “request”

Selecting the right mode starts with the governing documents. Before drafting your message, map the situation to the deed’s structure and any ancillary instruments (letters of wishes, protector guidelines, investment management agreements):

• Identify the decision domain. Is the matter about distributions, investments, appointment/removal of advisors, disclosure of information, or administrative steps (banking, KYC, filings)? The domain determines which power is relevant.
• Confirm the power holder. Does the trust deed reserve a power to the settlor, a protector, an appointor, or an investment committee? Alternatively, is the matter within the trustee’s general powers subject to fiduciary discretion?
• Check any conditions precedent. Some powers require consent from another party, notice periods, or adherence to a prescribed process (e.g., written notice, unanimous committee vote, or consultation with named advisors).
• Assess jurisdictional overlays. Certain jurisdictions impose mandatory trustee duties that cannot be fettered. Even where a protector has a power to direct, the trustee may retain a minimal review obligation. Align your framing with these legal constraints.
• Consider the risk profile and timing. If the action is sensitive (e.g., distributions to connected persons, high-value transactions, cross-border tax disclosures), the trustee’s appetite for documentation and sign-off will be higher. This may influence whether you frame a communication as a formal instruction with clear authority or as a request that invites the trustee’s processes.

Once these checks are complete, choose the mode:

• Use “instruct” when the deed gives you a direct power to direct the trustee in the specific domain and you have satisfied any preconditions. Your message should explicitly cite the clause and the scope of the power to signal compliance.
• Use “request” when the trustee holds the decision-making authority and must exercise discretion. Your message should outline the rationale, provide supporting information, and explicitly invite the trustee’s assessment and conditions (e.g., internal approvals, legal or tax review).

When in doubt, err on the side of requesting while flagging any potentially relevant power for the trustee’s awareness. This balances speed and defensibility: you signal that a power might apply without prematurely invoking it. If the trustee confirms that a directive form is necessary and appropriate, you can reframe quickly and issue a formal instruction with the required references.

3) Phrase bank and micro-templates to avoid ambiguity and scope creep

Precision in wording reduces confusion and audit risk. The following principles shape effective phrases: anchor the action to the correct authority, separate rationale from authority, specify scope and limits, and anticipate documentation needs. Keep your verbs consistent with the mode (“instruct/require/direct” vs “request/ask/invite”). Also, spell out deliverables, timeframes, and escalation paths to close gaps that cause scope creep.

• Authority signposting:

  • For instructions: “Under clause [X] of the trust deed, I/We [holder of the reserved power] direct the trustee to…” This removes ambiguity about whether you are exercising a power and where that power resides.
  • For requests: “We request that the trustee consider the following action…” This acknowledges the trustee’s discretion while stating the desired outcome clearly.

• Scope clarity:

  • Add boundaries: “This instruction relates solely to [domain] and does not extend to [excluded areas].” This prevents readers from inferring broader mandates.
  • For requests, add decision parameters: “If the trustee requires additional information to assess this request, please specify the documents and timeline.” This prevents open-ended due diligence loops.

• Evidence and rationale separation:

  • Provide rationale as background, not as authority: “The purpose of this action is [purpose]. The authority to proceed is [clause or process].” Distinguishing these avoids conflating the why with the legal basis.

• Timeframes and dependencies:

  • For instructions: “Please implement by [date], subject to standard operational checks.” This signals urgency while allowing for compliance steps.
  • For requests: “If acceptable, kindly confirm approval by [date], or let us know any conditions precedent or internal approvals.” This sets expectations without dictating fiduciary judgment.

• Documentation and audit trail:

  • For instructions: “Please record this direction and retain supporting documents alongside this instruction for the file.”
  • For requests: “Please document your decision and the rationale, and share any resulting conditions or undertakings.”

• Limiting downstream obligations:

  • State exclusions: “This message does not authorize [related action]; separate approval will be sought if required.” This counters scope creep.

• Contingencies:

  • Offer fallback: “If [condition] is not met, please hold implementation and escalate per the escalation pathway below.” This embeds control.

Micro-templates structure entire communications so that every element is in the right order and nothing essential is omitted. For instructions, the sequence is authority → action → boundaries → timing → documentation → point of contact. For requests, the sequence is purpose → requested action → supporting information → trustee discretion acknowledgement → timing → documentation → point of contact. Maintaining these sequences reduces back-and-forth and shortens decision cycles.

4) Decision checkpoints and escalation language for compliance, auditability, and rapport

Even well-framed communications benefit from checkpoints that help you detect when the mode, scope, or risk posture needs to change. Decision checkpoints are brief internal or external confirmations that the action remains aligned with the deed, the risk profile, and the trustee’s processes. They prevent missteps such as issuing an instruction where consent is missing or treating a request as approved without formal confirmation.

Useful checkpoints include:

• Authority confirmation: Before issuing an instruction, confirm that the specific clause, role, and conditions precedent are satisfied. If a consent is required (e.g., protector consent to a distribution), confirm it in writing before sending the direction. If not yet available, keep the communication as a request and flag the pending consent.
• Conflict and capacity review: Verify that the power-holder is acting within role, not as a conflicted beneficiary or advisor. If conflicts exist, include a line noting how they are managed (e.g., recusal or independent advice). This aids the trustee’s file and protects the record.
• Proportionality and risk: For high-value or sensitive actions, pre-agree with the trustee what level of due diligence they require. Then embed that into your message: either a directive that acknowledges standard checks or a request that invites those checks explicitly.
• Documentation sufficiency: Ask whether any additional documents are needed for implementation—resolutions, consents, identification documents, or tax analysis. Build timelines around these to avoid last-minute delays.

Escalation language preserves rapport while keeping momentum. It should be calm, procedural, and linked to the governance framework, not personal pressure. The goal is to surface issues early, agree on next steps, and prevent silence from stalling the matter. Effective escalation includes:

• Timing checkpoint: “If we do not receive confirmation by [date], we will escalate to [role, e.g., chair of the trustee board/protector] to ensure alignment on the required process and timing.” This sets expectations without implying fault.
• Process clarification: “If this falls outside the trustee’s delegated authority or current risk appetite, please indicate the appropriate approval route and any additional materials required so we can proceed efficiently.” This invites solution-focused responses.
• Authority recalibration: “If the trustee considers this action unsuitable under [policy/mandate], please state the specific reasons. Depending on that explanation, we may invoke [named clause] and issue a formal direction limited to [scope], subject to your standard checks.” This reminds the trustee of possible next steps while encouraging a reasoned decision.

Auditability improves when you separate facts, analysis, and authority; show how each decision checkpoint was satisfied; and keep a clean record of communications. A simple discipline is to label attachments and references explicitly (e.g., “Authority: Deed clause X; Consent: Protector letter dated Y; Rationale: Tax memo Z”). This helps any reviewer—internal, regulatory, or judicial—trace the path from request or instruction to implementation.

Finally, rapport is preserved by consistently acknowledging the trustee’s duties, giving them the materials they need to form a defensible decision, and avoiding tone that implies control where none exists. Even when exercising a genuine power to direct, you can maintain a collaborative stance by recognizing operational realities: settlement timelines, banking cut-offs, KYC refreshes, or investment committee calendars. When you pair precise authority with pragmatic timing and documentation, you show respect for the trustee’s processes while achieving the necessary outcome.

By applying these four components—clear framing, a structured decision process, disciplined phrasing and templates, and proactive checkpoints and escalation—you create communications that are both fast and safe. You reduce ambiguity, protect fiduciary independence, and keep teams aligned. Over time, this approach builds a predictable rhythm of collaboration: instructions are used only when powers truly apply, requests are supported to enable timely decisions, and every message contributes to a robust, auditable record. This is the foundation of precision communication with trustees: choosing the right mode, stating it clearly, and guiding the process to completion without compromising compliance or relationships.