AI, Genetics, and Digital Assets Lead 2026 Estate Planning Scholarship
What Happened
The ACTEC Foundation announced the winners of its 2026 Mary Moers Wenig Student Writing Competition on July 29, 2026. The competition, which received a record 33 submissions from law students across the country, highlights the most pressing emerging issues in trust and estate law. This year's entries reflected a field grappling with artificial intelligence, genetic data privacy, digital asset succession, and shifting federal tax structures.
Luke D. DeFio of Albany Law School claimed first place for his paper titled "The Witness That Wasn't: Electronic Wills, Generative AI, and the Coming Collapse of Probate Authentication." His work examines how generative AI threatens the integrity of electronic will execution and authentication — a question with direct consequences for courts, families, and estate planning practitioners nationwide. DeFio receives a full-tuition scholarship to the Heckerling Graduate Program in Estate Planning at the University of Miami School of Law, a $5,000 cash award, and publication in the ACTEC Law Journal.
Second place went to Cassandra Nelson of New York University School of Law for her analysis of federal tax changes affecting trust and estate taxation after 2026. Third-place honors went to two papers: one from Chloe Clements of Howard University School of Law on fiduciary duty and post-mortem genetic data, and one from Heather Goss of Louisiana State University on the estate tax valuation of AI-reanimated likenesses. Honorable mention recipients addressed charitable planning vehicles, heirs' property, digital asset succession reform, and hybrid asset protection trusts. The winning papers are being considered for publication in the ACTEC Law Journal.
What It Means
The themes running through this year's winning papers are not abstract academic exercises. They reflect real gaps in existing law that families and estate planners encounter today. The first-place paper on electronic wills and generative AI raises a fundamental question: if AI can convincingly simulate a person's voice, signature, or video image, how does a court confirm that an electronic will actually reflects the wishes of the person who signed it? This concern hits close to home for District of Columbia residents, where will execution requirements already carry specific formal demands.
In Washington, DC, a valid will requires the signature of the testator and 2D.C. Code § 18-103Verified Jul 15, 2026View source witnesses. DC does not recognize handwritten wills, meaning informal or unsigned documents carry no weight under the law. Notarization is not required, but the absence of a self-proving affidavit option — which DC does not make available — means witnesses may need to testify in probate court to confirm a will's authenticity. As AI-generated content becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish from authentic human communication, the authentication burden that DeFio's paper addresses becomes more acute in jurisdictions like DC that already lack streamlined self-proving mechanisms. Families relying on electronic documents face the greatest exposure. Understanding the role of witnesses in trusts and wills has never been more important than in this environment of technological disruption.
The second-place paper on federal tax changes after 2026 carries immediate relevance for District of Columbia residents in particular. DC imposes its own estate tax with an exemption of $4,988,400D.C. Code § 47-3702Verified Jul 13, 2026View source — well below the current federal estate tax exemption of $15,000,00026 USC 2001(c), 2010; P.L. 119-21 §70106Verified Jul 13, 2026View source per individual. Because DC maintains a standalone estate tax, residents face a two-layer exposure that most Americans do not. DC's top estate tax rate reaches 16%D.C. Code § 47-3702Verified Jul 13, 2026View source, which applies to estates exceeding the DC exemption threshold. Any federal legislative changes that affect trust deductions, itemized deduction limits, or trust income taxation — the precise subject of Nelson's second-place paper — ripple directly into DC estate plans. The third-place paper on post-mortem genetic data also raises a question that DC's probate framework has not yet addressed: who controls inherited genomic information, and what fiduciary duties attach to that data after death? These are not hypothetical concerns. Genetic testing services now hold the biological data of tens of millions of Americans, and no clear statutory framework governs what happens to that data when the account holder dies. For a deeper look at how estate tax and inheritance tax interact at the state level, the SimplyTrust guide on estate tax versus inheritance tax breaks down the distinctions clearly.
The honorable mention paper on digital asset succession reform also carries practical weight for DC residents. The paper critiques the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, which governs how executors and trustees access a deceased person's digital accounts and assets. DC has adopted frameworks that allow fiduciary access to digital assets, but gaps remain in how those assets are valued, transferred, and taxed. For estates that include cryptocurrency, social media monetization, or intellectual property stored digitally, these gaps create real planning vulnerabilities. Probate proceedings in DC typically run 12 monthsD.C. Code § 20-751 (PR fees), § 20-753 (attorney fees) (verified from code.dccouncil.gov)Verified Jul 14, 2026View source to 18 monthsD.C. Code § 20-751 (PR fees), § 20-753 (attorney fees) (verified from code.dccouncil.gov)Verified Jul 14, 2026View source, and the creditor claim period extends 6 monthsD.C. Code § 20-903Verified Jul 14, 2026View source from the date of publication — time during which digital assets can depreciate, become inaccessible, or generate taxable income with no clear fiduciary guidance. Families with significant digital holdings benefit from understanding how to include digital assets in trusts to avoid these complications.
Context from SimplyTrust
The research emerging from this year's competition underscores how rapidly estate planning law is evolving — and how much the stakes differ depending on where a person lives. For DC residents, the combination of a standalone estate tax with a $4,988,400D.C. Code § 47-3702Verified Jul 13, 2026View source exemption, a probate process that can take 12 monthsD.C. Code § 20-751 (PR fees), § 20-753 (attorney fees) (verified from code.dccouncil.gov)Verified Jul 14, 2026View source to 18 monthsD.C. Code § 20-751 (PR fees), § 20-753 (attorney fees) (verified from code.dccouncil.gov)Verified Jul 14, 2026View source, and formal will execution requirements that offer no self-proving shortcut creates a planning environment where preparation matters enormously. DC does allow independent administration, which can reduce court involvement during the settlement process. DC also recognizes transfer-on-death deeds, giving property owners one additional tool to direct real estate outside of probate. Readers who want to understand the core vocabulary of estate planning — including terms like probate, fiduciary duty, and digital assets — can start with the Glossary of Basic Estate Planning Terms. For those weighing whether a trust offers a better path than a will alone, the SimplyTrust overview of avoiding probate with a trust explains how trust structures bypass the DC probate process entirely.
The scholarship highlighted by the ACTEC Foundation's competition represents the direction estate planning law is heading. AI authentication of wills, genetic data as a fiduciary asset, and the valuation of digital likenesses are no longer distant concerns — they are arriving faster than most state legislatures can respond. Staying informed about these developments helps families make estate planning decisions that hold up as the law catches up. The SimplyTrust estate planning news section tracks legislative and legal developments as they unfold, offering analysis grounded in current state-specific data.