Not just a media headline, but a global cases study in family decision-making and succession, the Murdoch family dispute has lessons far and wider.

The legal tussle of involving the family of media tycoon Rupert Murdoch over a trust – raising questions about the future direction of the media businesses such as News Corp and titles such as the Wall Street Journal – has been instructive. It is a classic sort of clash that will be pored over and examined by private client advisors and trust experts for years. 

Who better than to wade into this muddy terrain than Matthew Erskine, a lawyer who is also a member of Family Wealth Report’s editorial board, and a frequent contributor to these pages? The editors thank Matthew for his insights; the usual editorial disclaimers apply to views of guest writers. Email tom.burroughes@wealthbriefing.com and amanda.cheesley@clearviewpublishing.com if you wish to comment.

As both an observer of global family ownership succession and an advisor to ultra-high net worth clients, I wrote, a year ago, an article in Forbes about the growing controversy surrounding the Murdoch Family Trust. In that article, I gave my opinion on what the Murdock family could do to resolve the succession crisis. The saga has since reached a high-profile resolution, with some of my recommendations being validated and others not. This case underscores the perennial challenges - and imparting urgent lessons - for advisors and family members personally and professionally charged with generational stewardship of complex, emotionally laden, and valuable enterprises (1).

The origins: Foundation and fissures
My earlier analysis focused on the structural and emotional roots of the Murdoch conflict. Created in 1999 after Rupert Murdoch’s divorce from his second wife, the Murdoch Family Trust was designed to balance the interests of Rupert’s children from different marriages, controls roughly 28.5 per cent of News Corporation, and secure continuity for a global media empire. Crucially, while all children stood to benefit economically, only the eldest four were granted voting rights - an attempt to balance legacy and power, but one that sowed the seeds of later discord (1).

Last year, the stakes rose dramatically when Rupert, at 93, sought to amend what had been positioned as an “irrevocable” trust. His stated intent was to secure exclusive operating control of News Corp and related media holdings for his chosen successor and eldest son, Lachlan Murdoch. The move shocked and united his other voting-rights-endowed children - James, Elisabeth, and Prudence - who worried about both business continuity and ideological direction. When a Nevada judge allowed Rupert to petition for trust modification (pending proof of good faith and benefit to all heirs), the battle drew public scrutiny and legal analysis across the globe (2, 1).

Precedent and pattern: Lessons from past dynasties
As I argued then, the Murdoch saga echoes famous trust disputes in other media families: the Bancroft family of Dow Jones, the Binghams of Louisville, the Chandlers of Times Mirror, the Scripps, and the Pulitzers. History’s consistent message is that, while trusts and holding entities are designed to prevent chaos, they are susceptible to family rifts, generational value gaps, and changing visions for legacy (1).

These cases remind us that the tension between maximizing value, preserving “founder intent,” and maintaining family harmony is not just a business issue - these are deeply human dilemmas. Every trust provision is shaped as much by emotional fallout as by legal counsel.

The settlement: Anatomy of a resolution
Recent months finally brought the high-stakes dispute to a negotiated settlement. Lachlan Murdoch now assumes uncontested leadership of the family media dynasty, affirming the founder’s vision. James, Elisabeth, and Prudence have exited with multi-billion-dollar payouts and are barred from diluting Lachlan’s voting control or interfering in future family governance via non-compete agreements (3, 4, 5).

Notably, this outcome underlines several key points:
-- The trust, though “irrevocable,” was ultimately subject to renegotiation and legal leverage.
-- A financial settlement - not a shared management arrangement - emerged as the only durable solution.
-- Non-compete clauses and structured liquidity were essential for continuity and peace (4, 5, 3).

Reflections: Where my past guidance was upheld - and where It was challenged
Validated recommendations
In last year’s analysis, I called for:
-- Robust governance frameworks: This case proves the necessity of clear rules for decision-making and illustrates the need to stress-test legacy structures as families evolve (6, 1).
-- Proactive succession planning: Surprise and secrecy breed conflict. Advisors must facilitate open, early dialogue, however uncomfortable (7, 1).
-- Professional facilitation and mediation: Neutral experts and legal counsel were central to reaching an orderly outcome, as predicted (6, 7, 1).
-- Liquidity and exit planning: The ultimate exit of non-aligned heirs was made possible by clear valuation and payout terms, supporting my prior advice to enable fair exits (5,3).
-- Transparency and communication: Although painful, direct engagement among stakeholders proved both necessary and ultimately productive (7,1).

Challenged assumptions
I also assumed that:
-- Irrevocable means unchangeable: Evidently, legal action and family flexibility can overcome even the most carefully drafted documents (4,6).
-- Shared stewardship can always work: The Murdoch settlement shows that, in some cases, divided control undermines value and peace, and a split - with clear roles or exits - may offer the most stable resolution (3,5).
-- Founders can always dictate the future: The risk of judicial or negotiated override of donor intent is real; legal instruments alone are not a guarantee (4,6).

Universal lessons for advisors to UHNW clients
The Murdoch resolution and its historical antecedents highlight several urgent lessons for advisors:
-- Review structures regularly: Laws, family dynamics, and values can shift faster than documents. Periodic review is critical (6,7).
-- Engage all parties early: Candid, facilitated discussions, perhaps with neutral mediators, prevent toxic surprises (7,1,6).
-- Plan for orderly exits, not just cooperation: Liquidity and clear protocols for exit help avert deadlocks (5,3).
-- Balance business and family: Recognizing when to unify or separate is as important as structuring for harmony (1,7).
-- Anticipate “tragedy of the commons” dynamics: Control and benefit among heirs must be thoughtfully aligned to discourage self-interest and depletion of value (1).
-- Recognize limits of irrevocability: Build periodic review or renegotiation mechanisms or acknowledge real-world limits of assumed permanence (4,6).
-- Use outside experts: Experienced advisors add technical and emotional value, improving both compliance and buy-in (6,7).

Conclusion
The Murdoch Family Trust saga is not just a media headline; it is a global case study in succession, governance, and family decision-making. Advisors have a unique responsibility to foster robust dialogue, review legacy documents, and balance continuity with adaptability. When business, family, and legacy all collide, governance and communication - not just technical solutions - are the true keys to successful transitions (3,7,4, 6).

Footnotes
1.    Erskine, Matthew F., “Succession: The Brewing Controversy of the Murdoch Family Trust.” August 8, 2024 
2.    New York Times, “Inside the Deal Ending the Murdoch Succession Fight,” September 8, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/business/media/murdoch-family-trust-succession-deal.html
3.    Bloomberg Law, “Murdoch Family Settles Suit Over Trust, Puts Lachlan on Top,” September 8, 2025. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-08/murdoch-family-settles-suit-over-trust-puts-lachlan-in-charge
4.    Reuters, “Real-life ‘Succession’ ends: Lachlan Murdoch takes control and siblings take cash,” September 8, 2025.
5.    BBC News, “Murdochs reach deal in succession battle over media empire,” September 8, 2025.
6.    Spears, “What the Murdoch succession saga teaches elite families about power and legacy,” September 8, 2025.
7.    Mishcon, “Succession planning in family businesses: lessons from Rupert Murdoch’s trust dispute,” January 29, 2025.
 

Links to the notes

1.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewerskine/2024/08/08/succession-the-brewing-controversy-of-the-murdock-family-trust/
2.  https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/murdoch-family-settles-suit-over-trust-puts-lachlan-on-top-1  
3.  https://talbotlawpc.com/blog/2025/1/21/trust-wars-the-murdoch-familys-legal-struggle-and-its-implications      
4.  https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/rupert-murdoch-fails-in-bid-to-change-family-trust-new-york-times-reports-1.7139053      
5.  https://www.fool.com.au/2025/09/09/news-corp-finalises-murdoch-family-trust-settlement-what-it-means-for-investors/     
6.  https://www.ainvest.com/news/murdoch-family-trust-reaches-settlement-fox-2509/         
7.  https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/08/media/murdoch-lachlan-rupert-succession-court