Advocating Without Overreaching: A Model of Intellectual Restraint

One of the most valuable parts of Thomas Gallanis’s article is not only the substance of his proposal, but the method he models for making it.

After laying out reasons to consider a holistic Restatement—reasons grounded in modern practice and teaching—he writes:

The author admits to a mild preference in favor of a holistic Restatement, reflecting the modern approach to practice and teaching in which trusts and estates are combined. But this decision about the project’s scope is for the ALI to make.

This is advocacy done right.

A Preference, Not a Pronouncement

Gallanis does not present his conclusion as inevitable or compelled. He describes it as a “mild preference.” That phrasing matters. It signals that reasonable minds can differ and that the argument is offered as persuasion rather than command.

That is not a loss of force. It is a gain in credibility.

Respect for Institutional Roles

The second sentence is equally important. After arguing that modern teaching and practice support a unified approach, Gallanis explicitly recognizes that the American Law Institute (ALI) must decide what to do with that argument.

That move does two things at once:

• It preserves the integrity of the analysis by separating it from the decision itself.
• It treats the ALI as a deliberative institution rather than a vehicle for an author’s preferred outcome.

Why This Matters for Reform Debates

This series has emphasized that the scope question (one Restatement or two) involves real tradeoffs—coherence versus cost, integration versus institutional capacity. When the choice is genuinely contestable, tone and method matter.

Gallanis’s phrasing models a disciplined approach: argue clearly, support the argument with reasons, acknowledge the institutional decision-maker, and avoid turning preference into mandate.

In that sense, the closing sentence is not a rhetorical flourish. It is the capstone to the entire discussion.

Series Navigation

• Overview: Why Is There a Push for a New Restatement of Trusts and Estates?
• Previous: One Restatement or Two? The Structural Question

Sources

• Thomas P. Gallanis, Time for a New Restatement, Probate & Property, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Jan./Feb. 2026), available on SSRN:
  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6123049