Can ChatGPT Write Your Will?

Full analysis

Texas elder-law attorney John Key Ross and financial planner Devin Carroll walk through a real ChatGPT-generated will belonging to a man in his early 80s, cataloguing its legal defects clause by clause. The takeaway: an AI-drafted will can look legitimate to a layperson, pass witness and signature requirements, and still be riddled with problems that will cost the estate money, invite litigation, and fail to do what the person intended.

What was covered

• The will itself. The document was 100% ChatGPT-generated, signed, and witnessed. John Key Ross received it when the man's bank sent him to get legal help. Devin Carroll, a CFP reviewing it for the first time on air, said it looked legitimate to his untrained eye — then Ross dismantled it section by section.
• Joint will. The document was a single will for both spouses. Ross cited Stanley Johansson's Texas Probate Code commentary calling it "absolute malpractice" for any attorney to draft a joint will, because ambiguity about whether the surviving spouse can later change it is a recipe for litigation.
• The "$1 inheritance" myth. The will left each of seven children $1 as their "formal inheritance," reflecting a widespread fiction that you must leave a natural heir something to disinherit them. Ross said this is total fiction — and actively counterproductive, because a $1 bequest gives that child legal standing to participate in probate proceedings.
• The "formal reading of the will" clause. The will required each child to be physically present at a "formal reading of the will" or forfeit their share. Ross explained no such proceeding exists in U.S. law; it is a Hollywood invention. A forfeiture conditioned on an event that cannot legally occur is an unenforceable clause — and likely a litigation time bomb.
• Lady Bird deed conflict. The will stated a Lady Bird deed (a Texas-specific transfer-on-death deed for real estate) had already been executed concurrently — which was false. More fundamentally, Ross explained that any asset transferred by a Lady Bird deed, beneficiary designation, or transfer-on-death deed passes outside the will entirely; no will language can control it.
• Missing technical elements. The will named an "executor" rather than an "independent executor" (a Texas distinction that determines whether court approval is needed for every action, significantly raising cost). It set executor compensation at 10% of net estate proceeds — well above the statutory norm. It lacked a self-proving affidavit (a notarized attachment that lets the will be admitted to probate without hunting down the original witnesses). It included no survivorship or per stirpes language to handle a child predeceasing the testators. And it omitted a waiver of executor bond, meaning the executor must post a bond or get all seven beneficiaries to consent.
• ChatGPT reviewing its own work. Both Carroll and Ross uploaded the same will to ChatGPT and asked it to critique the document. The AI scored it a 2 out of 10 overall, gave litigation avoidance a 0, and flagged nearly every flaw Ross had identified — demonstrating the model can critique competently even when it produces poor output if the prompt doesn't constrain it well.

Notable claims & predictions

• John Key Ross: "Stanley Johansson — considered one of the gods of Texas probate law — says it is absolutely malpractice for any attorney to draft a joint will." (Ross citing the standard Texas probate reference.)
• John Key Ross: "The only formal reading of a will occurs in Hollywood." Requiring physical presence at such an event as a condition of inheritance is equivalent to requiring a child to "arrive on a unicorn."
• John Key Ross: Leaving a child $1 to "disinherit" them is counterproductive — it creates standing for that child to participate in probate, request an inventory, and show up at hearings, creating "a monumental pain in the rear" for a dollar of value.
• John Key Ross: A will that lacks a self-proving affidavit requires the original witnesses to be located and brought to court to testify, making probate significantly more expensive and potentially impossible.
• Devin Carroll and John Key Ross (jointly): A bad will may be worse than no will at all — without a will, the state's probate code dictates distribution in relatively clear language; a defective will muddies those instructions and invites litigation.
• John Key Ross: AI produces much better output on narrow, single-clause tasks than on full documents; a will drafted by feeding it one section at a time with a well-structured prompt would be "a whole lot better — still not good, but a whole lot better."

Fact check

The "$1 to disinherit" rule — accurately called fiction. Ross is correct that no U.S. state requires leaving a natural heir any minimum bequest to disinherit them. The $1 practice is a persistent myth. His additional point — that a $1 gift actually creates legal standing for that heir in probate — is a real consequence worth heeding.

Lady Bird deed bypasses the will — accurate. Any asset with a named beneficiary or a transfer-on-death mechanism (including Lady Bird deeds, IRAs, life insurance, payable-on-death bank accounts) passes outside the probate estate. Will language cannot redirect those assets. This is well-established law and not specific to Texas.

"Independent executor" vs. "executor" in Texas — accurate as a Texas-specific point. Ross correctly notes this is a Texas rule; the distinction and its cost implications do not apply in all states. Readers in other states should verify their own state's rules.

The Claude "federal government shut it down" claim — unverified. Carroll mentioned that the federal government intervened to shut down a version of Claude because it "was just too good" and "posed some kind of security risk," and that it has since been turned back on. This account is vague and unverified. Neither speaker claimed certainty about the details, and Carroll acknowledged he might be "getting some of this screwed up." Don't rely on this as a factual account of any regulatory action.

No claims that fail scrutiny on the core estate-planning points — the legal analysis Ross provides is consistent with established probate law, appropriately scoped to Texas where Texas-specific rules apply.

Why this matters for you

• If you have a will drafted by an online service or AI, get it reviewed. The problems Ross identified — missing self-proving affidavit, no independent-executor designation, no survivorship language, executor bond requirement — are not obvious to a layperson and do not prevent a document from looking valid. A one-time review by an estate-planning attorney in your state is inexpensive compared with the litigation costs these gaps can trigger.
• Check that your will and your beneficiary designations point the same direction. Assets with named beneficiaries (IRAs, 401(k)s, life insurance, payable-on-death accounts, transfer-on-death deeds) pass outside your will entirely. If your will directs your executor to do something with those assets, that language is void. The only control is the beneficiary designation itself.
• The "$1 to disinherit" practice is not just useless — it is actively harmful. If you intend to exclude a child or other heir, simply omit them; consult your attorney about how to word that exclusion cleanly in your state. Adding a $1 gift creates standing for that person to participate in and complicate your probate.
• A joint will covering both spouses is a specific hazard. If you and a spouse share one will document rather than having individual wills, ask an estate attorney in your state whether the surviving spouse can amend it after the first death — and what happens if that question ends up in court.