Paris Jackson raises eyebrows over MJ estate payments

Paris Jackson has formally raised objections over what she sees as questionable legal payments being made by the executors of her father Michael Jackson’s estate. The 27-year-old singer and beneficiary filed court documents on June 24, voicing alarm over substantial sums paid to law firms without sufficient justification or prior approval.

Paris Jackson challenges estate’s unapproved legal payouts

At the center of her concern are "premium payments" made to three law firms. Paris alleges that these payouts include $625,000 disbursed in 2018 for undocumented legal hours—referred to as “uncaptured time” with little to no explanation for why the hours weren’t properly recorded or why they should be compensated in full.

According to reports, two of the three firms received their payments before gaining court authorization, which would violate existing legal protocols requiring only partial fees be paid until judicial review is complete. Paris called the practice a “lavish gratuity” for already well-paid attorneys and criticized the executors for failing to enforce even basic oversight, such as requiring detailed time logs.

The filing further questioned the estate’s lack of urgency in seeking timely court approvals for extraordinary legal expenses. Paris’ lawyer, Craig Peters, added that no written agreement supports the current practice of submitting fee approvals in six-month increments, and he demanded a formal timeline for pending accountings and legal reimbursements.

However, the estate's legal team maintains that everything was above board. Attorney Jonathan Steinsapir defended the payments, noting they were part of the same strategy that has grown the estate’s value to over $3 billion since Michael’s death. He emphasized that the bonuses in question were in line with a decade of similar court-approved payments.

Sources close to the estate pointed out that the bonuses were tied to the high-stakes 2018 sale of Michael Jackson’s EMI stake to Sony, a deal that turned a $50,000 investment in 2012 into nearly $300 million. They insisted the rewards were reasonable for the legal teams involved. A court hearing to further address the matter is slated for July 16.