The new documentary You Can See Everything, which takes a deeply unexpected look at Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, has hit screens with a significant splash this month. Directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, the film was kept entirely under wraps until its surprise premiere, immediately generating intense public buzz and widespread speculation regarding what it ultimately reveals about its central subjects.

For many followers of contemporary media, it came as a shock that Fielder would choose to direct a documentary about Holmes. For years, Fielder has carved out a distinct niche in alternative reality television, first through his critically acclaimed Comedy Central series Nathan For You and subsequently with HBO’s The Rehearsal. While those projects probe the nuances of the human psyche in uniquely constructed ways, Fielder readily acknowledges within You Can See Everything that he is far from an expert in chemistry, corporate governance, or the complex legal mechanics of the Theranos fraud case. As filming progressed, Fielder’s on-screen persona appears increasingly bewildered by his own presence in the narrative, a state of confusion that ultimately serves as a central structural theme of the documentary itself.

Because the production team maintained a strict veil of secrecy prior to its release, audiences have largely praised the experience of watching the film unfold inside a theater without preconceived notions. However, the revelations captured on camera—particularly those concerning Holmes’s domestic partnership and legal arrangements—have sparked broader public conversations far beyond the cinematic merits of the project, bleeding directly into questions of estate law and fiduciary responsibility.

While the documentary ostensibly focuses on Holmes, it devotes a substantial amount of runtime to her partner, Billy Evans, and the dynamics of their relationship. Following Holmes’s reporting to a federal prison camp to serve her lengthy sentence for defrauding investors, Evans reveals on camera that he possesses a power of attorney (POA) on her behalf.

Throughout the film, Evans explains that this legal instrument grants him broad rights to act on Holmes’s behalf across various facets of her life and business affairs. The documentary captures him utilizing her personal X social media account to post messages directly to the public without explicitly indicating that the posts are authored by him rather than Holmes herself, and notably without seeking her real-time approval for the content. Furthermore, the film shows him developing an artificial intelligence avatar of her likeness and collaborating on a new business enterprise while she remains incarcerated, noting that he is largely making operational decisions for both of them in her absence.

Debra Taylor, managing partner and wealth adviser at Carson Wealth, notes that the documentary vividly illustrates how far the public often assumes a power of attorney actually reaches, and what misconceptions regularly surround such legal documents.

To better understand these implications, legal and financial experts have weighed in on what a power of attorney legally entails, how it functions in practice, and where the boundaries of such authority lie under the law.

What "Powers" Does a Power of Attorney Grant?

A power of attorney is a formal legal document that designates an agent—sometimes referred to as an attorney-in-fact—to make decisions and take actions on behalf of another person, known as the principal, typically in the event of their incapacitation or inability to manage their own affairs. Generally, estate planning involves two distinct instruments: a medical power of attorney, which authorizes an agent to make healthcare and treatment decisions, and a financial power of attorney, which governs monetary, property, and business assets.

According to Taylor, a broadly drafted financial power of attorney can indeed provide an agent with extensive authority over the principal’s commercial and business interests. However, she emphasizes that certain significant actions—such as making financial gifts, altering designated beneficiaries on accounts, or establishing trusts—usually cannot be executed unless the power is explicitly and expressly granted within the text of the document itself. In fact, many U.S. states mandate specific, statutory language within the document to authorize sensitive transactions, including major banking maneuvers or asset transfers.

Despite this broad scope, experts clarify that holding a power of attorney does not grant carte blanche over every aspect of a principal’s personal life or public voice. A power of attorney empowers an agent to sign documents, execute financial transactions, and conduct business on the principal’s behalf, but it does not legally transform the agent’s personal opinions into the literal words of the principal. Furthermore, legal authorities point out that in the vast majority of jurisdictions, an agent holds no inherent legal right to access the contents of the principal’s private email accounts or direct messages unless that specific privilege is explicitly written into the governing document.

Can Power of Attorney Be Triggered by Incarceration?

Within the documentary, Evans asserts that Holmes signed the power of attorney document prior to her imprisonment, vesting him with the authority to manage her ongoing business decisions while she serves her time. This has raised public questions regarding whether the onset of a prison sentence automatically triggers a power of attorney to take effect.

Taylor explains that powers of attorney are strictly governed by state law, meaning that the legal rules dictating when a document becomes active and what it is legally permitted to authorize can vary significantly from one jurisdiction to another.

There are several distinct categories of powers of attorney recognized in estate planning. A durable power of attorney typically goes into effect the moment it is signed and remains continuously active unless the principal formally revokes it or passes away. A limited power of attorney grants authority for specific, narrowly defined matters and often includes a predetermined expiration date or time parameter. Meanwhile, a springing power of attorney is designed to remain dormant until a specific, predetermined future event occurs, most commonly the mental incompetence or medical incapacity of the principal.

While most springing powers of attorney are traditionally tied to cognitive incapacity, Taylor notes that many states do allow individuals to establish alternative triggers, such as incarceration, provided the document explicitly names a designated third party to verify in writing that the triggering event has indeed taken place. However, she points out that in many practical scenarios, executing a durable power of attorney that becomes effective immediately is often the preferred route. Springing documents frequently require the agent to jump through bureaucratic hoops to prove that the trigger has occurred, and financial institutions can notoriously slow down or hesitate to accept that proof precisely when urgent action is required.

Recourse When an Agent Acts Against Best Interests

By legal definition, an agent acting under a power of attorney assumes a fiduciary duty toward the principal. This means the law strictly requires the agent to act with absolute loyalty, prioritize the principal’s best financial and personal interests above all else, actively avoid conflicts of interest, and maintain meticulous records of every financial transaction executed on the principal’s behalf.

If a principal is not incapacitated and comes to believe that their designated agent is violating these duties or acting against their best interests, they maintain the legal right to revoke the power of attorney. Taylor recommends executing a formal, signed written revocation and providing explicit notice to every financial institution, business partner, or entity that possesses a copy of the original document.

Assuming the principal retains their mental capacity, they also hold the legal standing to pursue civil litigation against the agent for breach of fiduciary duty. In cases involving severe misconduct, fraudulent activity, or blatant betrayal of trust, serious misuse of a power of attorney can even be prosecuted as criminal theft or financial exploitation.

Addressing Suspected Misuses by Another Person’s Agent

The documentary makes it clear that director Nathan Fielder harbors deep skepticism regarding Evans’s actions and the breadth of control he exercises, though Holmes herself is not shown expressing any misgivings or complaints on screen.

For third-party observers who suspect that an agent is utilizing a power of attorney in a manner contrary to the principal’s best interests, options depend heavily on the observer’s relationship to the principal. Family members, legal heirs, designated caregivers, or relevant government agencies can formally petition a court of law to review the agent’s conduct and examine their transaction records. In situations involving older individuals or vulnerable adults, concerned parties can also report potential exploitation to Adult Protective Services.

Financial institutions also serve as an important frontline defense against potential abuse. Banks and brokerage firms possess the legal authority to refuse to honor a power of attorney if they suspect fraudulent activity or undue influence, and they frequently place temporary administrative holds on suspicious withdrawals, transfers, or trades when dealing with impaired or vulnerable clients. Nevertheless, legal experts caution that if the principal is found to still possess full mental capacity, courts and institutions will generally defer to the choices and autonomy of the principal, even if outside observers disagree with those choices.

Choosing a Spouse or Partner as an Agent

When considering who to designate as an agent in a power of attorney, Taylor notes that a spouse or romantic partner is traditionally the most logical first choice, given that a life partner is typically the most familiar with an individual’s personal wishes, financial landscape, and long-term goals. However, she highlights that relying solely on a partner carries inherent logistical vulnerabilities.

Couples age simultaneously, meaning there is a distinct possibility that both partners may require assistance concurrently, rendering them unable to serve effectively for one another. Because of this, estate planning professionals universally recommend naming a successor or backup agent in the initial paperwork. Furthermore, the possibility of the relationship ending must be factored into long-term planning. While many states feature statutory laws that automatically revoke a spouse’s authority under a power of attorney the moment a divorce is filed or finalized, not all jurisdictions handle dissolution the same way, making it critical to update legal documents immediately upon separation.

Taylor also points out a critical distinction in the case of Holmes and Evans, who are not legally married. Unlike a formal divorce, the dissolution of a non-marital partnership does not automatically terminate a power of attorney under state law. If Holmes wished to strip Evans of his authority, she would be required to take active, affirmative steps to legally revoke the document. In blended families or non-traditional relationships, estate planners often recommend naming an adult child as a co-agent or requiring the primary partner to provide periodic financial reports to a secondary individual to head off potential conflicts down the line.

Ultimately, experts advise that any power of attorney document should be reviewed periodically—ideally every few years and whenever the principal relocates across state lines—to ensure the paperwork remains compliant with evolving local laws and reflective of current life circumstances.

While You Can See Everything is a cinematic work carefully constructed around themes of suspicion and voyeurism, legal professionals stress that the public should not let the dramatic narrative discourage them from utilizing powers of attorney as essential estate planning tools. When properly drafted and executed with trusted individuals, these legal instruments remain vital for ensuring that personal finances and healthcare decisions are managed according to an individual’s explicit wishes. And when it comes to the complex domestic and legal reality shared by Holmes and Evans, the situation ultimately reinforces an old adage: the true dynamics behind closed doors can rarely be fully captured from the outside, even by a documentary crew attempting to film every waking moment.