Can brothers and sisters be attorneys together?

How to appoint them

Jointly and severally is the usual choice: any sibling can act alone, so a bank visit or a bill does not wait for everyone. Jointly means every decision needs all of them, which sounds fair and often proves unworkable.

A middle option is jointly for specified decisions only — for example selling the donor's home — and jointly and severally for everything else. The wording must be precise, and we check it against the OPG's requirements.

If siblings disagree

• Attorneys appointed jointly and severally can act separately, but should not act against each other
• Persistent disagreement can be referred to the Court of Protection, which is slow and costly
• Preferences recorded by the donor help settle arguments before they start
• Appointing an odd number does not create a majority vote — LPAs have no voting mechanism

Jointly vs jointly and severally, in a sibling context

The difference matters more between siblings than almost any other pairing, because siblings bring decades of family history — old rivalries, different views on money, different closeness to the donor — into the room with them. Appointed jointly, three siblings must sign every bank instruction and every care decision together, which means one sibling who disagrees, or is simply slow to reply, can freeze the whole LPA. Appointed jointly and severally, any one of them can act, so a disagreement between two does not stop the third from paying a bill or attending a hospital meeting.

There is no vote and no casting decision built into an LPA, even with three or five siblings appointed. Whoever holds the majority view has no more legal standing than whoever holds the minority view, which is why the appointment type — not the headcount — is what actually prevents deadlock.

Using a replacement to defuse tension

Where siblings do not get on well enough to act together day to day, a common solution is to appoint the sibling most able to do the practical work — nearest, most organised, or already helping with finances — as the main attorney, and name the others as replacements. Replacements only step in if the main attorney dies, loses capacity, or otherwise cannot act, so a sibling who would rather not be involved in ongoing decisions is not forced into weekly disagreements, but remains available if needed.

This is not a demotion. It reflects who is best placed to do the job, and it is often the arrangement siblings themselves prefer once the alternative — joint decision-making under strain — is spelled out.

Where sibling appointments go wrong on the form

• Choosing jointly by default because it 'feels fairer', without weighing up the deadlock risk
• Not naming a replacement, so the LPA fails entirely if one sibling later cannot act under a joint appointment
• Assuming that appointing more siblings spreads decisions evenly — it spreads paperwork, not necessarily agreement
• Leaving disagreements about money or care unaddressed in conversation, then hoping the LPA wording will settle them later

Worked example

Their mother Eileen has three children — Grace, Robert and Neil — who do not always see eye to eye on money. Grace lives closest and already helps with Eileen's shopping and appointments, so Eileen appoints Grace as sole attorney, with Robert and Neil as replacements should Grace become unable to act. This avoids Robert and Neil having to agree with Grace, or each other, on every decision, while keeping them both available if Grace is ever unable to continue. Eileen also writes down that she wants to stay in her own home for as long as is safely possible, giving all three something clear to work from if a disagreement arises later.

Common questions

Read next

• Can My Attorney Be My Son or Daughter? — Yes
• Jointly or Jointly and Severally? — LPA decision explained
• How Many Attorneys Can I Appoint? — no legal limit
• What to do when attorneys disagree
• How many attorneys should I appoint?