Did Brian Bradley just admit reasons to be suspicious of Bridge Trust?
We raised eight questions about the Bridge Trust®. A promoter published answers. Here is what those answers establish, and what they leave unresolved.
Earlier this year we published eight reasons to be suspicious of the Bridge Trust®. A promoter of the structure, attorney Brian Bradley, published a response headed "every criticism, straight answers."
He addressed none of them. For the most part he restated our points as broader claims we did not make, then answered those instead. Below is each of the eight in turn: our reason to be suspicious in the exact words we published it, his answer in the exact words he published it, and what happened in between.
Our Eight Reasons to Be Suspicious
His Response
The Eight, One by One
1. Case Law
What we said. The claim is that "Bridge Trusts® have been around for 30 years." The reality: "There is zero case law showing any track record for the Bridge Trust®."
What he answered. Under the heading "two different things": "Decades of history. Created nearly 30 years ago by Douglass Lodmell, Esq. Thousands prepared. Protecting well over $5 billion in assets. In real litigation hundreds of times—about five cases a year—and to date, not one has been pierced."
Why that does not answer it. Our point was about case law, and the answer is about history and volume. Those are the two different things. This was the opportunity to name decisions, and not one is named — no case, no court, no citation. A litigation record described in aggregate cannot be read by a prospective client or cited to a judge. Compare the alternative: Cook Islands trust law dates to the 1984 Act as amended in 1989, and we publish a case-by-case review of the decisions applying it, including the ones that went badly for the settlor.
2. The Trustee Guarantee
What we said. The claim is that "your trust is guaranteed to trigger." The reality: "No Trust Company has ever appeared on video to support this claim."
What he answered. "This is just false. Two independent, licensed offshore trustees have put their commitment in writing. Both confirm they will accept and administer the trust upon a properly declared Event of Duress—when properly called upon."
Why that does not answer it. We said no trust company has appeared on video to support the claim. He answered that letters exist. Those are not the same, and the difference is the point.
It has become common for trust companies to put out videos, which is how a company signals it stands behind what it says privately. None has done so here. The reason is that an unconditional guarantee would require a trust company to agree in advance to do something it cannot lawfully do: onboard a client without the background check its own regulator requires. Anti-money-laundering review, source-of-funds verification and sanctions screening apply whenever a trustee actually takes on administration, and no trust company that intends to keep its licence contracts those away years ahead of time. Note also the qualifier inside his own answer — "when properly called upon" — which is where every condition lives.
If the guarantee exists, publish it.
3. Offshore Banking After a Claim
What we said. The claim is that "you can open an offshore bank account after a lawsuit starts." The reality: "No bank has ever gone on video to support this claim."
What he answered. "Not true. Offshore bank accounts are opened after an Event of Duress all the time. Or we can open a Swiss account while the trust is still in its domestic (bridge) phase—so you have offshore banking already in place."
Why that does not answer it. Again the answer is to a claim we did not make. We did not say it cannot be done; we said no bank guarantees it will be done. That remains true, and "all the time" is not a guarantee to any particular client in litigation.
The second half of the answer also works against the structure's main selling point. An offshore account opened during the domestic phase is a foreign financial account, which brings the reporting the hybrid is marketed as avoiding. If banking during the bridge phase is the answer, the reporting advantage goes with it.
4. Serving as Your Own Trustee
What we said. The claim is that "you get control because you can serve as trustee." The reality: "If you serve as trustee, a court can control you and order you to hand over the assets."
What he answered. "True—while you hold control. That's why the Bridge Trust® is built to move control out of your hands when it counts. On a real threat, control passes to an independent offshore trustee, and your attorney (Trust Protector) declares the Event of Duress."
Why that does not answer it. He agrees. The rest is an argument that the structure solves the problem later, which concedes that the problem exists now and makes the protection depend entirely on the handover working — on time, under pressure, with a court already watching. A trust where control was never held domestically never has to execute that handover.
Worth noting the configuration 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 is a limit on how independent that role can be at exactly the moment it matters.
5. Domestic or Offshore
What we said. The claim is that "the Bridge Trust® is an offshore trust." The reality: "The Bridge Trust® is a domestic trust that might later become an offshore trust — but almost any trust could become an offshore trust."
What he answered. "Backwards. The Bridge Trust® is a foreign trust—established under Cook Islands law from inception, foreign the entire time. What's 'domestic' is only its tax treatment under IRC §7701. Foreign in law, domestic for tax."
Why that does not answer it. This is the real disagreement, so take it on directly.
The Bridge Trust® is a domestic trust. It is domestic for tax purposes and domestic for control purposes: a domestic grantor, a domestic trustee, domestic beneficiaries, a domestic protector, and domestic assets. On those facts we do not believe a court would find it to be a foreign trust, and describing it to prospective clients as a foreign trust is a misrepresentation of what it is.
Naming a jurisdiction in a deed does not move anything. State trust codes give effect to a governing-law designation subject to exceptions — Florida's provides that a designation "is not controlling as to any matter for which the designation would be contrary to a strong public policy of this state" — and creditors' remedies are precisely the territory those exceptions occupy. A named successor trustee is also not a trustee presently administering a trust, and a successor appointment does not qualify a trust to claim it sits in that successor's jurisdiction. The full analysis is in does naming a foreign jurisdiction make a trust offshore, and the classification question itself - the two-part test, and why there is no third category - is taken up in the Bridge Trust® is not offshore.
Note too that his answer concedes our second sentence without engaging it: almost any trust could be drafted to become an offshore trust. That is why the drafting is not the distinguishing feature.
6. Offshore Reporting
What we said. The claim is that "offshore reporting requirements for an Offshore Trust are complex." The reality: "With proper guidance, offshore reporting requirements for an Offshore Trust are simple."
What he answered. "'Manageable' skips what it costs. A fully foreign trust triggers Forms 3520 & 3520-A every year with harsh penalties and real cost—running for the entire life of the trust against a lawsuit that may never come. The Bridge Trust avoids all of that—until protection is actually needed."
Why that does not answer it. We will take the other side of this one plainly: we like the offshore reporting.
Start with what it buys you. The filings produce a dated, contemporaneous, government-filed record that the trust was disclosed from the year it was funded — that you reported properly, complied, and were not doing anything you needed to keep quiet. When a creditor's argument is that you hid something, that record is the answer, and it is not an answer you can assemble afterwards. Whether a transfer was disclosed or concealed is an enumerated factor in fraudulent-transfer law, so the paperwork sold to you as a drawback is the same paperwork that helps legitimise the plan in front of a court.
Then the cost. Budget roughly $2,000 to $3,000 a year for a CPA who prepares these returns regularly. Paying that to hold a provable compliance record is not a reason to decline or delay offshore planning; it is closer to a premium on the credibility of everything else in the structure.
Then the difficulty, which is overstated. Handled badly, this reporting is genuinely problematic — but so is flying, and nobody drives instead because aviation has a demanding maintenance regime. With competent guidance your own part is small: you supply the year's records and you sign, and the preparer does the form. What you cannot delegate is making sure it happens, because Form 3520-A falls due before your personal return.
The penalties are overstated in the same direction. IRC §6677 caps the penalties it authorises at the gross reportable amount and excuses failures due to reasonable cause, and since late 2024 the IRS reviews a reasonable-cause statement before assessing rather than assessing automatically. The full case is in foreign trust reporting: what you actually need to know.
So state the trade precisely. The hybrid avoids these filings during its domestic phase, and avoids with them the contemporaneous record of disclosure the filings create — which is most valuable in exactly the situation the plan exists for.
7. Cost
What we said. The claim is that "Bridge Trusts® are a cost-effective alternative to an offshore trust." The reality: "Bridge Trusts® are often more expensive to set up than a proper offshore trust."
What he answered. "Cost is relative. A proper fully foreign trust commonly runs $40,000–$75,000+ to set up, plus annual trustee fees and foreign tax filings—every year. The hybrid usually wins on total cost and keeps offshore protection in reserve."
Why that does not answer it. The figure is not ours. We charge a $25,000 flat fee to establish a fully offshore Cook Islands Trust and $7,000 per year thereafter, covering trustee administration, ongoing legal oversight and trust-protector fees. Those numbers are published, and they have been for some time.
A comparison against $40,000 to $75,000 is not a comparison with us. Ask any provider — including us — for a complete written fee schedule covering setup, annual maintenance and tax preparation, and compare the totals rather than the headline.
8. Changing Trustees and Moving Assets After a Lawsuit
What we said. The claim is that "you can change the trustee and move assets after a lawsuit starts." The reality: "Courts dislike changes after a lawsuit begins and may treat later-stage transfers as a fraudulent conveyance."
What he answered. "Agree—that's why we never do that. The Bridge Trust is created, funded, and offshore-founded before any claim exists. When it triggers, nothing is transferred. It's an administrative succession inside a trust that always existed. Timing is the whole difference—and we're built on the right side of it."
Why that does not answer it. Changing the trustee and moving the assets after a lawsuit is precisely what the structure relies on, and describing it otherwise misrepresents how the Bridge Trust® operates. The answer agrees with the principle and then renames the practice.
Something does change at the trigger, and it changes in response to a legal threat: who administers the trust, and on most descriptions where the assets are held. Calling that an administrative succession does not remove it from a court's view, because the steps still have to be carried out by people and institutions a court can reach — a domestic trustee, a protector, a U.S. bank. Any of them can be ordered to preserve the status quo while a dispute is heard, and an order directed at any one of them can interrupt a sequence that has not finished.
What We Take From the Exchange
Eight reasons to be suspicious. Two answers that agree with us, four that answer a broader claim than the one we made, and the two that matter most resting on assertions a prospective client cannot check: a litigation record with no decisions named, and commitment letters described but not published.
None of that makes the Bridge Trust® unlawful. It is lawful, it is sold by licensed attorneys, and reasonable people choose it. Our point is narrower and more practical — what you are able to verify before you commit is the only protection you have before a dispute arrives.
Do not leave your planning resting on claims you are asked to take on trust. Our recommendation is structural rather than promotional: put the trustee, the administration and the banking in place before there is a claim, so that fewer things have to happen correctly once there is one. If you want to compare the two approaches against your own exposure, talk to our attorneys.
Bridge Trust® is a registered trademark of its owner. The structure was pioneered and popularized by the law firm of Lodmell & Lodmell, and is referenced here for purposes of comparison and commentary.
Frequently asked
Frequently asked questions
We are not aware of a reported decision addressing the trademarked Bridge Trust® structure by name. Promoters describe extensive litigation experience and say no such trust has been pierced, but no decisions are cited in support. That is the difficulty: an unciteable track record cannot be checked by a prospective client, and a structure with no reported decisions interpreting it is less predictable than one courts have already applied.
Promoters point to written commitments from licensed offshore trustees. A written commitment is not the same as the guarantee being marketed. An unconditional guarantee would require a trust company to agree in advance to onboard a client without the background check its regulator requires, and no trustee that intends to keep its licence will do that. Notably, no trust company has gone on camera to back the claim. If the guarantee exists, it can be published.
That is the central disagreement. Promoters describe it as foreign in law from inception, organized under Cook Islands law, with only its tax classification domestic under IRC section 7701. Our position is that it is a domestic trust - domestic for tax purposes and for control purposes, with a domestic grantor, trustee, beneficiaries, protector, and assets. A governing-law designation is given effect by state trust codes subject to exceptions, and it does not by itself relocate property or administration. On those facts we do not believe a court would treat it as a foreign trust.
For a straightforward structure, budget roughly $2,000 to $3,000 a year for a CPA who prepares foreign-trust returns regularly. Those filings also produce something useful: a dated, contemporaneous record that the structure was disclosed from the start, which is the opposite of the concealment a creditor has to allege. Whether avoiding that cost is worth what it is traded for is the actual question.
Not against our published pricing. We charge a $25,000 flat fee to establish a fully offshore Cook Islands Trust, with $7,000 per year in annual fees. Any comparison citing $40,000 to $75,000 as the price of a fully foreign trust is not describing our engagement. Ask any provider for a complete written fee schedule covering setup, annual maintenance, and tax preparation before comparing.