Asset Protection Marketing That Doesn't Hold Up

Asset protection is a field where clients often can't judge the quality of the work until it's too late. A trust that looks solid on paper may not be tested until a creditor is already at the door. That makes honest marketing unusually important. When a firm overstates what its structure can do, blurs who is actually providing legal services, or misrepresents the case law, clients make irreversible decisions based on bad information.

Our removal policy: This list is about claims, not people. If any firm or attorney listed here corrects the marketing described below, we will update this article and remove them.

Red Alert

1. Steve Oshins

Steve Oshins is a Nevada attorney well known for domestic asset protection trusts. He has repeatedly published lists of "failed" foreign asset protection trust (FAPT) cases to argue that domestic trusts are superior. The problem is that the lists don't hold up when you read the cases.

His chart, "45 FAPT Cases Gone Wrong," included cases that didn't involve foreign trusts and counted a single bankruptcy twice. After we publicly requested a correction, he wrote that he had removed the chart from his prior postings. We appreciate that. But the chart was only one version of the claim.

The count keeps changing. A list of 29 cases appeared in LISI Asset Protection Planning Newsletter #450 on August 13, 2025. It then became a chart of 45, then 21 after the flaws were pointed out, then three articles by other authors. Finally, when he was asked to name a single decision where a properly formed trust failed on the merits, he offered one case, FTC v. Affordable Media. In that case, the settlors served as their own Protectors, held the power to force repatriation, and had already withdrawn over a million dollars.

The 29-case newsletter is still up. Newsletter #450 carries the same defects as the withdrawn chart, and it remains in the LISI archive under his name, dated and numbered. Of the 29 entries, our case-by-case review found that five involve no foreign asset protection trust at all, including Chadwick v. Green, which concerned offshore annuities and a bank account rather than a trust. One case, Riechers, is listed as a failure even though the court accepted the Cook Islands trust as legitimate and declined jurisdiction over its assets. A numbered newsletter is exactly what practitioners cite years later, so leaving it up while removing the chart doesn't correct the record.

His cited sources don't say what he claimed. In an August 2026 LinkedIn exchange, Oshins responded to our point that his list contained no actual failures of a foreign trust by pointing to three other lists: Lee McCullough's list of 20 cases, Derren Joseph's list of 28, and Paul Deloughery's list of 28. We reviewed all three and sent corrections. Every one has since changed: one now carries our corrections inline, one was rewritten so it no longer presents its cases as offshore trust failures, and one was removed entirely. See our fact-check of Derren Joseph's list and our broader piece on Oshins and the offshore case-law record.

To be fair, Oshins raises a real point. Debtors in several published cases were jailed for contempt, and nobody should call that a good outcome. But in those cases the creditor didn't reach the trust assets, and the debtor had kept control or funded the trust too late. That's a planning failure, not proof the structure doesn't work.

2. Lodmell & Lodmell and the Bridge Trust®

The Bridge Trust® is Lodmell & Lodmell's signature product. It starts as a domestic trust, often with the client serving as trustee and beneficiary, and shifts to an offshore trustee only when a threat appears. Lodmell says it keeps assets in the U.S. while avoiding typical offshore costs and paperwork. The firm also says it considers the Bridge Trust® superior in almost every case to a standalone foreign or domestic trust.

Our concern is the timing. The design depends on moving control offshore at the moment a legal threat appears. Lodmell & Lodmell, typically acting as Protector, has exclusive authority to declare an "Event of Duress," which may include legal orders to repatriate assets. A trustee change made after a claim arises invites exactly the scrutiny that timely offshore planning avoids. And until the switch happens, assets held in the U.S. under the client's own trusteeship remain within reach of U.S. courts.

When asked where the case law is, Lodmell's answer is telling. The firm argues the lack of case law is not a weakness but the strategy working as intended. An untested structure is not a proven one.

3. Brian T. Bradley, Esq. (Bradley Legal Corp)

Brian Bradley markets the same Bridge Trust® and works in co-counsel with Lodmell & Lodmell. In one article, he urges readers to upgrade to a system he calls proven in court, by law, and for decades. His co-counsel, meanwhile, argues the absence of case law is the point. Both can't be the whole story.

We published eight reasons to be suspicious of the Bridge Trust®. Bradley responded with a point-by-point answer. Frankly, his response made us more suspicious, not less. Our reply walks through it in detail, but here are the highlights:

• No cases named. Asked for case law, he offered history, volume, and dollars protected, and named no decision: no case, no court, no citation.
• Two of our points conceded. He agreed that a court can control a client serving as their own trustee and order them to hand over the assets.
• The "independent" Protector is your U.S. attorney. In his own answer, the Protector is "your attorney." A U.S. attorney is an officer of a U.S. court and subject to its orders, which limits how independent that role can be at the moment it matters most.

If the Bridge Trust® has been proven in court, clients deserve to see the decisions. If it hasn't, the marketing should say so.

Discount Providers

If you look, you'll find companies offering Cook Islands trusts for as little as $10,000, compared with the $20,000 to $40,000 a law firm typically charges. Before you take the deal, understand why it's cheaper. As we explain here, the discount usually comes from cutting out the attorney. Most discount providers aren't law firms. They're marketing companies, formation services, or promoters.

That changes what you're buying. Without an attorney, there's no attorney-client privilege, so what you tell the provider about your assets can come out in litigation. There's also no bar oversight and little recourse if the provider misleads you or mishandles your money. Before you pay anyone, confirm that you're working with a licensed attorney, get their bar number, and verify that the named offshore trustee is actually licensed.

Yellow Alert

Bryson Stephen, JD (Asset Protection Planners)

Asset Protection Planners recently added Bryson Stephen, JD as an in-house attorney. The same page describes Asset Protection Planners as a trade name of Lawyers Limited PLLC. We are not saying Mr. Stephen has done anything wrong. But Asset Protection Planners and Lawyers Limited are run by Kevin Wessell, a non-lawyer whom a federal court described as the mastermind behind a scheme involving a sham Swedish credit union. The public record is summarized in The Offshore Watchdog's investigation, which we publish. So we'd like to ask Mr. Stephen one question, in good faith: knowing that record, why have you chosen to put your license behind Kevin Wessell and Lawyers Limited? If he responds, we'll publish his answer in full.

What to Ask Any Asset Protection Provider

Before you hire anyone, ask whether the person advising you is a licensed attorney, and in which state. Ask for specific, citable court decisions supporting the structure being sold, not a count or a total of "dollars protected." Ask what happens if a court orders you to repatriate assets, and whether you personally could face contempt. And be wary of anyone who promises you're "immune," "bulletproof," or "impenetrable." Honest planners talk about risk, not guarantees.