With traditional assets, there is usually an institution involved. A bank, investment platform or insurer can verify the appropriate authority and provide an established process.
Digital assets can be very different.
A cryptocurrency holding may sit on a regulated exchange, on a hardware wallet stored at home, behind a mobile application, or within a self-custody arrangement controlled by one or more private keys.
For solicitors, the first task is therefore not to become a cryptocurrency technician. It is to establish what exists, how it is controlled and whether there is a safe route forward.
1. What digital assets actually exist?
The first question sounds obvious, but an entry such as “Bitcoin” or “crypto” in an asset schedule may tell you very little.
Useful information can include:
- the type of asset;
- the exchange, custodian or wallet involved;
- whether a hardware device exists;
- which phone, computer or email account may be relevant;
- whether more than one wallet or account is involved;
- and whether the deceased left any recovery or continuity instructions.
The objective at this stage is identification, not access.
A useful inventory should help the authorised person understand where the process begins without unnecessarily reproducing highly sensitive credentials.
2. Is the asset held by a provider or in self-custody?
This distinction changes almost everything.
If assets are held through an exchange or regulated custodian, there may be an established deceased-client or estate process. The provider will normally have its own requirements for identity, authority, documentation and account access.
Self-custody is different.
With a self-custodied wallet, there may be no organisation capable of resetting a password or restoring access. Control may depend on a hardware device, seed phrase, additional passphrase, multisignature arrangement or another recovery method established by the owner.
So one of the earliest practical questions should be:
Is there an institution that can assist, or does control depend entirely on the deceased's own technical setup?
3. Who has authority to act?
Legal authority and technical access should be treated as separate layers.
The legal process determines who is entitled to act.
The technical process determines whether that person can actually interact with the asset.
A grant of probate does not unlock a hardware wallet. Equally, possession of a seed phrase does not by itself answer whether the person holding it is legally entitled to use the assets.
That distinction is important because technical access should follow the appropriate legal and fiduciary authority, not replace it.
4. What does the access route depend on?
Once the asset and custody model are understood, the next step is to map the dependencies.
For example:
- Is a particular hardware wallet required?
- Is a PIN needed to use the device?
- Does a seed phrase exist?
- Is there an additional wallet passphrase?
- Is two-factor authentication connected to a phone number or authentication application?
- Does access depend on an email account?
- Are multiple signers required?
- Is another person, adviser or institution involved?
- Are there written recovery instructions?
The important point is not simply whether these items exist.
It is whether the authorised person has a workable sequence for using them.
An estate may contain all the necessary pieces and still lack a usable process.
5. Where is the sensitive material held?
This is where caution becomes particularly important.
A solicitor does not normally need a client's complete seed phrase, private key or full set of recovery credentials simply to document that an access arrangement exists.
A safer inventory can record information such as:
Hardware wallet held in secure location. Recovery material held separately. Contact technical adviser before attempting access.
That is very different from reproducing the actual private key or seed phrase within general estate records.
Sensitive credentials should be treated differently from ordinary asset information because possession may provide direct control of the asset.
The estate therefore needs both information about the access process and appropriate controls around the secrets that make access possible.
6. Has anybody already tried to access the wallet or account?
This question can prevent avoidable problems.
Family members may have already attempted passwords, moved devices, reset phones, contacted providers or experimented with recovery phrases before professional advisers became involved.
Before further action is taken, it is useful to establish:
- what has already been attempted;
- whether any device settings have changed;
- whether recovery material has been copied or shared;
- whether an exchange or provider has already been contacted;
- and whether any transaction has already occurred.
With unfamiliar digital-asset systems, well-intentioned experimentation can make an already complicated situation more difficult.
7. Can the intended process be followed without exposing everything to one person?
Where significant self-custodied assets are involved, continuity planning should ideally avoid creating another single point of failure.
For example, placing the wallet, recovery phrase, instructions and all authentication information together may make access easier, but it can also create a serious security risk.
Depending on the structure, a better process may separate information, devices, signers or recovery materials so that no single person or location provides unilateral control.
The appropriate structure depends on the client and the assets involved. The important point is that succession planning should consider both recoverability and security.
8. When is specialist technical support appropriate?
Many estates will not require specialist involvement.
If the deceased held assets with a mainstream provider and the provider has a clear estate process, the matter may be relatively straightforward.
Specialist technical support becomes more relevant where there are:
- self-custodied assets;
- hardware wallets;
- multiple wallets or devices;
- multisignature arrangements;
- unclear recovery information;
- substantial asset values;
- uncertainty over the correct access sequence;
- or a risk that attempted recovery could compromise the assets.
The role of the technical specialist should remain clearly separated from the solicitor's legal role.
At Pullariani Digital Estate, for example, our work is focused on mapping technical dependencies, identifying access risks and documenting non-custodial recovery and continuity workflows. We do not provide legal or tax advice, hold client assets or private keys, or take unilateral control of transactions.
The legal team remains responsible for the legal authority and estate process. The technical work supports the practical execution behind it.
A practical starting point
When digital assets appear in an estate, the first conversation does not need to begin with blockchain terminology.
It can begin with a small number of ordinary questions:
- What exists?
- Where is it held?
- Who is authorised to act?
- What does access depend on?
- And is there a documented, safe route for the authorised person to follow?
Those questions can quickly reveal whether the estate has a straightforward provider process or a genuine technical-access problem.
For solicitors, that distinction matters.
Because identifying an asset is not the same as being able to administer it, and legal authority does not automatically create technical access.
About the author
Lashar Pulariani is the founder of Pullariani Digital Estate, a specialist technical-estate implementation practice supporting private-client law firms, family offices and fiduciary advisers with the access and continuity side of digital assets.
Pullariani designs and documents non-custodial access, recovery and key-control workflows without holding client assets, seed phrases or private keys.