Private client advice in Asia is becoming broader, more international and more difficult to deliver through isolated disciplines. Founders and wealthy families increasingly require support across business ownership, capital deployment, taxation, succession, governance and the movement of family members and assets between jurisdictions.

For Kevin Lee, Head of Private Client, Asia at Charles Russell Speechlys, this requires a conception of private wealth that extends beyond conventional tax and trust planning. His focus is private capital: supporting founders, entrepreneurs and closely held businesses as they grow, prepare for an exit and eventually redeploy wealth across investments, structures and generations.

That breadth is becoming more important as families span multiple countries, mainland China tightens restrictions on capital outflows and tax authorities gain greater visibility over offshore assets and arrangements. Lee argues that advisers must understand how these issues intersect, identify risks early and be willing to assemble the right cross-border team rather than attempting to control every aspect of the relationship.

Key Takeaways

  • Charles Russell Speechlys approaches private wealth through a broader private capital model spanning business growth, exits, capital deployment, family structures and succession.

  • Restrictions on capital outflows and greater transparency are increasing demand for compliant planning among families with connections to mainland China.

  • Cross-border families require coordinated advice from practitioners who can identify jurisdictional risks and involve appropriate specialists early.

  • Equal inheritance does not always produce a fair outcome when some family members actively build or manage the family business while others do not.

  • Flexible succession arrangements can adapt to changing circumstances, but they must be supported by credible family governance and decision-making mechanisms.


A Private Capital Model Built Around Founders and Families

Charles Russell Speechlys was formed through the merger of two UK firms and remains headquartered in London, with offices across a selective international network. Although it operates as a full-service firm, Lee was particularly attracted by its focus on private capital.

That positioning reflects how he views the private client market. Rather than defining private wealth primarily through tax, trusts and estate planning, he sees it as encompassing almost every major decision a founder, entrepreneur or closely held business may face.

This can include advice during the growth of a company, preparations for a liquidity event, the transaction itself and the subsequent investment or structuring of the proceeds. The firm also acts for founder families and single-family offices.

“The attraction of private capital is that it reflects the full journey of the client,” Lee says. “It is not simply about putting a trust in place or dealing with a tax issue. It covers what a founder does while building a business, what happens on an exit and how the proceeds are then redeployed.”

The model allows private client practitioners to draw on colleagues with different technical capabilities, giving founders and their families access to coordinated advice across the commercial and personal dimensions of their wealth.

Lee also sees value in working within an organisation whose management understands the dynamics of private client work. Conventional metrics and key performance indicators (KPIs) do not always translate neatly into a practice built around long-term relationships and mandates that can evolve over many years.

“A private client practice does not always fit comfortably within metrics designed for every other part of a law firm,” he says. “It helps when the organisation understands the clients, the time horizons involved and the way these relationships develop.”

Capital Mobility and Compliance Are Reshaping Client Needs

Lee’s client base is both regional and international. From Hong Kong, a substantial proportion of the families he advises have roots or continuing connections in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), even where individual family members or assets are now located elsewhere.

Their challenges frequently centre on how capital can be deployed, how family mobility affects existing structures and how succession plans interact with the laws of several jurisdictions at once. These questions become particularly difficult where capital remains in mainland China or offshore arrangements depend on funds moving out of the country.

China’s restrictions on capital outflows have therefore become one of the most significant issues in Lee’s practice. On top of this, the wealth management sector in Asia is now grappling with the new tax laws which China has imposed on offshore trusts with PRC tax resident connections. Families may still want to invest internationally, restructure ownership or support relatives overseas, but they need to do so within a more constrained and closely scrutinised environment.

 

“The old approach of finding a workaround is disappearing, if it has not disappeared already,” he says. “Transparency is increasing, and families understand that they need a more sophisticated and compliant route.”

 

Lee believes this environment is strengthening the case for international advisers capable of examining both the immediate transaction and its wider legal and tax consequences. What appears to be a question about deploying capital can quickly involve residence, beneficial ownership, succession, reporting obligations and the treatment of income across several countries.

The value of advice, in his view, lies not in identifying the most expedient mechanism, but in developing a structure that can withstand greater regulatory visibility and remain workable as the family’s circumstances change.

Complex Families Need Coordinated Advice

The challenge increases when a family spans three generations and several continents. Laws may be changing simultaneously in each relevant jurisdiction, while family members acquire new residences, citizenships, businesses or tax connections.

Lee does not suggest that every adviser must become an expert in every legal system. He does, however, believe private client practitioners need enough cross-border awareness to recognise where specialist advice is required before a structure or transaction is implemented.

That involves engaging colleagues in other offices, working with trusted external advisers and resisting the instinct to retain complete control over the client relationship.

“It takes more than one adviser now,” he says. “The important thing is not to hold on to every part of the relationship out of insecurity. The objective should be to assemble the best combined advice for the family.”

Lee has encountered cases where an issue in one jurisdiction was overlooked because it appeared less significant than a more obvious US, UK or mainland Chinese exposure. Hong Kong is one example. Its territorial tax system can encourage the assumption that offshore income will automatically fall outside the local tax net, but the position has become more nuanced, including through rules affecting certain foreign-sourced income.

Singapore can present similar complications, while the PRC tax regime must also be considered where family members, assets or businesses retain a mainland connection.

“People sometimes assume that Hong Kong tax does not need to be examined because it is a territorial system,” Lee says. “That can be dangerous. It may not be the largest issue in the structure, but it still needs to be factored into the analysis.”

Effective private client advice therefore depends increasingly on coordination. The lead adviser must understand the family well enough to see the full picture, while also recognising when an issue has moved beyond their own jurisdictional or technical competence.

Unequal Contribution Complicates Succession

Intergenerational wealth transfer remains one of the dominant themes in private wealth, but Lee cautions against treating succession as a simple process of transferring ownership from parents to children.

He is seeing founders involve younger family members in the business at an earlier stage where those individuals demonstrate genuine interest. At the same time, siblings within the same family often have very different levels of engagement.

One child may take operational responsibility for the company, preserve the family’s principal source of wealth and assume the commercial risks associated with leadership. Another may have no interest in the business but still expect to participate equally in the family estate.

That makes equal distribution difficult to reconcile with perceived fairness.

“If one or two family members are generating the wealth while others are effectively living from it, a completely equal outcome may not feel appropriate,” Lee says. “But finding an alternative that keeps the family harmonious can be challenging.”

Cultural expectations can influence the answer. In some families, siblings may be more willing to work collectively for the benefit of the wider group, even where their roles or contributions differ. In others, the family member carrying the operational burden will expect explicit compensation or a larger economic interest.

Each solution creates further complications. Additional remuneration may have tax consequences. Unequal distributions may create resentment. A fixed ownership split may appear reasonable when agreed but become increasingly distorted if the business later performs far better or worse than anticipated.

Lee is therefore cautious about succession plans that rely too heavily on fixed percentages. A founder may decide that a 60:40 allocation is fair at a particular moment, but that judgement is based on circumstances that may subsequently change.

 

“A percentage can look fair today and become unfair later,” he says. “The difficulty is that nobody can predict how the business, the family or the wider market will develop.”

 

Flexibility Requires Credible Governance

Lee generally favours preserving flexibility in succession planning, but recognises that flexibility creates its own governance challenge. Once the founder is no longer present, someone must have the authority and legitimacy to revise an arrangement that no longer produces an equitable result.

That may require trustees, a family council, a board, an independent committee or another decision-making mechanism capable of assessing changing circumstances. The essential question is not only whether a structure can be amended, but who should make that decision and according to what principles.

“If the founder’s original arrangement no longer works, there needs to be a credible way of adapting it,” Lee says. “Flexibility without governance simply moves the problem to the next generation.”

The appropriate balance between certainty, adaptability, reward and family cohesion will depend on the culture of the family, the nature of the business and the willingness of family members to accept differentiated outcomes.

Lee does not claim that there is a universal answer. Instead, he sees governance as the mechanism through which families can respond to developments that the founder could not reasonably have predicted.

Developing the Industry’s Own Next Generation

The succession challenge is not confined to wealthy families. Lee believes the private wealth industry must also consider how its own expertise will be transferred to younger practitioners.

Private bankers, lawyers, accountants, trustees and other advisers frequently discuss next-generation engagement among their clients, yet the development of their own successors can receive less sustained attention.

Education is part of the answer. Lee would like firms to send more emerging practitioners to industry forums, technical sessions and professional development programmes rather than reserving these opportunities primarily for senior figures.

“Firms should not only send people at my stage of their careers,” he says. “They should send the people who are expected to succeed us, so that this knowledge is already ingrained by the time they take over.”

He is reluctant to generalise about the ambition of younger professionals, but questions whether some people entering the industry view their current role as a long-term vocation. Where an individual does not expect to remain in a sector for decades, they may be less inclined to master its technical and interpersonal demands in depth.

Private client work is particularly dependent on accumulated judgement. Technical knowledge matters, but so does the ability to recognise family dynamics, anticipate unintended consequences and understand how decisions in one area can affect a client’s wider affairs.

For motivated younger practitioners, Lee sees a significant opportunity. Those who actively seek knowledge from senior colleagues and invest in learning the profession can differentiate themselves quickly.

“If you are serious about the career, learn the trade from the people above you before they leave,” he says. “That knowledge gives you a genuine head start.”

The responsibility nevertheless sits on both sides. Younger advisers must demonstrate curiosity and commitment, while firms and senior practitioners must create meaningful opportunities for them to observe, participate and gradually assume responsibility.

**

Kevin is speaking at our upcoming Wealth Planning & Structuring Forum – Hong Kong 2026, which takes place on Wednesday 28th October from 9.00am to 4.00pm at the The St. Regis.

View the event homepage HERE.