The  Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (Section 2307(3) (iii) provides that an attorney-drafter of a will which nominates him or her as an executor can receive a full executor’s commission only if the the testator executes a disclosure statement worded in "substantial compliance" with a specific model. This model requires the testator to acknowledge that he or she has been told that by signing the disclosure statement, there will be a resulting cost to the estate by enabling the drafter to claim a full commission.

In the absence of such a specific disclosure, the executor’s commission of the attorney-drafter will be limited to one half of the normal commission. In the Matter pf the Estate of Reginald Lewis Tackley, 821N.Y.S. 2d 750, New York County Surrogate Renee R. Roth had to decide a novel question involving a claim made by the attorney drafter for a full commission. Even though the requirement of a disclosure statement was first codified in 1995, it was not until November 2004 that specific verbiage was required for the statement . 

In this matter, the decedent died at age 92 in March 2006. His $800,000 estate was left to his life partner who was also named an executrix together with the attorney-drafter of the will. The nominated executrix contended that even though the will executed a month earlier in February 2006 contained a disclosure statement, the statement did not exactly track the language of the model statement required under the law. The Court accepted the pro se argument of the executrix noting that the underlying objective of the statute was to level the playing field between lawyer and client in an area where their personal interests conflict, but as to which only the lawyer is normally familiar. The Court therefore decided that because the disclosure statement failed to comply with the model language, the attorney-drafter would receive only one half a commission and not a full commission.