Too often, Florida's legal system has betrayed the citizens who trust it to carry out their last wishes. That could change soon, if officials seize opportunities to increase protections, reimburse victims and rein in lawyers who mislead vulnerable clients.

More than 140,000 people die here each year, many leaving a final gift to family, friends and charity. While most of their estates are administered honestly, an alarming number are not. Trusted lawyers rob inheritances, while their victims get empty promises of repayment. As the horror stories mount, hucksters exploit the fears of elderly Floridians to sell them risky and expensive probate alternatives.

Since these problems were detailed in a Times editorial series three months ago, legal officials have been working to restore public confidence. While some of their ideas are imperfect, they represent the first step toward reform.

Strengthening The Law

With its huge population of retirees, Florida needs a law that respects last wishes without creating layers of red tape. That's the test for state lawmakers now preparing for the 1995 Legislature. They need to provide new safeguards, while bolstering protections already in place.

Probate is designed to work like this: A person signs a will and names an executor to carry out his or her final wishes. After death, the executor and estate lawyer (who can be the same person) pay bills and distribute the remaining money to heirs. Throughout the process, the court stands by to guard against mismanagement and theft.

Since the system doesn't always work, two lawmakers are proposing constructive changes. While the law currently requires no appraisal of estate goods, Sen. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Spring Hill, wants to require executors to obtain professional, independent appraisals before selling other people's valuables. While the law now lets executors wiggle out of reporting their financial deeds, Rep. John Cosgrove, D-Miami, wants to require financial accountings unless heirs provide an informed waiver of this important safeguard.

In the past, politicians have shaped probate law to please probate lawyers; these proposals would put ordinary citizens first. Brown-Waite said she was dismayed by the story of a woman who saw family heirlooms vanish even as she grieved.

"She lost her parents, and a lot of her heritage too," said Brown-Waite. "It's bad enough Florida's known for crime. I don't want it also to be known for crime against people who come here to settle estates."

Reformers will need support at the highest levels. House Speaker Peter Rudy Wallace, D-St. Petersburg, has identified estate reform as "a priority issue." Senate leaders such as Judiciary Chairman Fred Dudley, R-Cape Coral, should also seize this chance to show they care.

Helping Victims

The victims of estate rip-offs are not usually jet-setters who need pocket money for a European holiday. Instead, they are people like Theresa Hile, a cancer patient who had to file for bankruptcy after a lawyer stole the money her mother left to support her.

The Florida Bar's victim fund recently repaid Hile $10,000 of the $172,000 bled from her mother's estate. If the fund's oversight committee has its way, the Bar will soon more fully compensate Hile and other victims of dishonest lawyers.

Chester L. Skipper, chairman of the Clients' Security Fund Committee, has asked the Bar to dig up an extra $674,000 for victim reimbursement. Although that would not fully compensate Hile and other victims of large thefts, it would pay up to $50,000 on reimbursement claims approved from 1992 through next June.

"We ought to do whatever's necessary to discharge these terrible tragedies that happen when lawyers go bad," said Skipper, a St. Petersburg lawyer. "As the old saying goes, it lessens us all."

Skipper's request is a good one, but the Bar should take it one step further. By raising each lawyer's annual contribution to the fund by $40, the Bar could eliminate future cash shortfalls and provide quicker and fuller reimbursement to wronged clients.

Another idea comes from Bruce Marger, chairman of the state probate Bar. Marger has proposed a slight increase in court fees to create a statewide victim's fund. The fund would replace money embezzled by lawyers and non-lawyers in estates and guardianships; the Legislature should give it full consideration.

Derailing The Probate Gravy Train

With barely a whisper of debate, the Legislature last year handed probate lawyers a license to steal. In addition to charging their hourly wage for probate work, attorneys are now allowed to charge an extra 2 percent of an estate's value.

The unscrupulous have used the law to inflate fees without doing a lick of extra work. Stung by public criticism, the Florida Bar will soon ask lawmakers to create a fee system based on percentages alone.

The Bar's proposal is a step in the right direction. It just needs to go on a diet.

Many consumers are unsure how much to pay a lawyer overseeing a probate estate or living trust; the law can help them by providing a schedule of reasonable fees. If the law says a lawyer handling an ordinary $100,000 estate generally deserves a 3 percent fee, for instance, consumers would know to ask questions if the bill climbed above $3,000.

Fees prescribed by law must be simple and minimal, while allowing lawyers and their clients to negotiate a fee that is higher or lower. The Bar's proposal, by contrast, sets percentages that are uneven on small estates and gluttonous on big ones.

Legislators should keep the good points of the Bar's plan while cutting the pork. They should consider a basic fee of 3 percent on smaller probate estates, dropping to 2 percent or lower above $100,000. Living trust fees should be smaller if they involve less work.

If they don't cut the proposed fees, lawyers leave themselves open to charges of making another cash grab. "It's an attempt to keep the fat rolling for the high rollers," says Pinellas Circuit Judge Thomas E. Penick Jr. It's up to lawyers and legislators to prove him wrong. Telling the truth about living trusts

As anxieties about probate have grown, a cottage industry has emerged to sell elderly Floridians on estate planning alternatives. The most common of these is the living trust.

While trusts are a legitimate tool for people with complicated estates, they cost more and provide less court protection than traditional will-based estate plans. You wouldn't have known that to listen to Frank and Judy Spees, a legal team criticized by the Times for selling trusts with scare tactics and half-truths.

The Florida Bar has opened an investigation into the Spees' sales tactics, said Joseph A. Corsmeier of the Bar's Tampa grievance office. The Spees, meanwhile, say they are mending their ways.

"We admit the wrongdoing," Frank Spees said last week. "We'll do everything we can to be good people and be good attorneys."

There are signs that the Spees are making good on that pledge. Their ads -- which once screamed that "anyone who tells you not to get a Living Trust is misinformed or profiting by your mistake!" -- now invite prospective clients to "compare the pros & cons of Living Trusts and 'will-based estate plans.' "

And while the Spees maintain that living trusts are superior, they say they are now making it clear that will-based estates offer the same tax advantages, are less expensive to initiate, and don't drag on as long as the Spees had previously claimed.

Bar investigators should not limit their scrutiny to the Spees. Other lawyers may be using subtler -- but equally slippery -- techniques to mislead clients. They must be stopped.

All in all, these proposals represent an encouraging first step toward reform. If officials follow through on their promises, the New Year could bring Floridians greater protection -- and final dignity.