August is National Make-A-Will Month. To mark the occasion, the Legacy Innovation and Virtual Estate Planning Coalition (LIVE) released a new white paper, “Electronic Wills Around the World: The Evolving Policy Landscape.” The paper examines the varied approaches jurisdictions are taking to electronic wills, from the United States and the United Kingdom to Australia, Canada, China, and beyond.

The central takeaway is clear: The legal landscape remains fragmented, with the validity of electronic wills varying significantly across jurisdictions. In some countries, estate law is governed at the state or provincial level, creating inconsistent national frameworks.

This fragmentation matters because will-execution formalities serve an essential purpose. They protect testamentary intent, deter fraud and coercion, and provide reliable evidence for probate courts. But rules designed for paper do not necessarily offer greater protection. A carefully designed legislative framework for electronic wills can combine traditional safeguards with identity verification, tamper-evident records, secure storage, and a detailed audit trail, protections that paper documents often lack.

Jurisdictions are generally pursuing one of three approaches: recognizing fully electronic wills, permitting only certain digital steps, or retaining traditional wet-ink requirements. The United States, British Columbia, and the Australian state of Victoria have adopted more comprehensive reforms. New South Wales and Queensland, by contrast, permit limited measures such as remote witnessing or electronic signatures for certain documents. These approaches highlight an important distinction: allowing witnesses to participate remotely does not necessarily make the will itself electronic.

Many jurisdictions remain cautious. The United Kingdom has considered legislation authorizing electronic wills, but continues to rely on the Wills Act 1837. Mexico permits electronic execution only in narrow circumstances, while China recognizes audio and video wills but not fully electronic wills. New Zealand and South Africa also generally require wills to be printed, signed, and witnessed in person.

Courts in some jurisdictions may validate a will that does not satisfy ordinary formalities under the harmless-error rule. Although this safeguard can prevent an unjust result, it is no substitute for clear legislation. Validation often requires costly and time-consuming litigation after the testator’s death, when the person who created the document can no longer explain their intentions.

The international experience demonstrates that modernization does not require sacrificing testamentary safeguards. Electronic-will laws can incorporate reliable identity verification, clear evidence of intent, secure storage, tamper-evident technology, audit trails, and appropriate witnessing requirements.

The policy question is no longer whether technology will affect estate planning—it already has. The question is whether governments will establish clear, protective standards or leave families navigating inconsistent rules and expensive post-death litigation. Thoughtful policy reform can preserve the integrity and solemnity of will-making while making estate planning more accessible, efficient, and consistent with how people manage other important affairs today.