.
It does sound like a good insurance plan.... But it occurred to me as I read your comment that there may be two or three elements that deter the RF from using NDAs.
1. The RF are old fashioned and prefer to rely on mutual trust and respect (which I prefer too when employing people who work closely with me- if you feel you can't rely on people to be trustworthy from the start, then why are you employing them?).
2. If the NDA is broken and the RF litigates, then members of the family would have to give testimony in Court. They have always strenuously avoided having to appear in person as witnesses in Court. (Until the rabid stoat got sucked into the palaver by a whip-smart, sue-happy American
shark lawyer and he went for it, hell for leather!)
3. The government and its legal people aren't keen on NDAs because, it was explained to me by a lawyer, these instruments can be abused to hide all sorts of nefarious/unlawful activities. The advice is generally, not to enter into an NDA. (Obviously the Official Secrets Act is a very different kettle of fish.)
An additional issue comes to mind where Ms Whip-smart is concerned. You just know that if you give her a boundary it's a red rag to a bull and she'd have been like a pig in shit making the RF get her into a Court! Imagine the spectacular victim act....
[Trying to think of ways to introduce more animals into this post...there's only 5... for some reason I feel it needs more....]