ByNina A. Kohn
In July 2021, in the midst of her prolonged public battle to end her father’s appointment as her conservator, popstar Britney Spears testified that she had just learned that she could ask for the conservatorship to be ended: “I’m sorry for my ignorance,” she told the judge in her case, “but I honestly didn’t know that.” Spears’ apology suggested that the attorney who had been hired to represent her had not actually informed her of a key option.This month, the American Bar Association (ABA) took an historic step to prevent such problems. It revised its ethics rules for attorneys to make it clear that they must advocate for their clients’ wishes even when their clients are—as Ms. Spears was—under guardianship or conservatorship.
Spears’ situation reflects a national problem
Best estimates suggest 1.3 million American adults are under guardianship or conservatorship, arrangements where a court appointee is granted power to make decisions for an individual who is at risk because the individual cannot make informed decisions. Americans under guardianship or conservatorship lose the right to make any decision the appointee (called a “guardian” or “conservator”) is given authority to make. That can include not only the right to manage finances, but also highly personal decisions like whether to get healthcare treatment, where to live, with whom to socialize, or even what to eat and whether to go to church.
Given the freedoms at stake, it is important that individuals facing a possible guardianship or conservatorship can have an attorney to defend them against it. Likewise, it is important for individuals for whom a guardian or conservator has been appointed to be able to access a lawyer to help them end or modify the arrangement if they object to it.
Yet as Spears’ testimony suggested, lawyers representing people subject to guardianship or conservatorship do not always act as their clients’ advocates. Under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, ethics rules for lawyers created by the ABA, lawyers have long been required to advocate for their clients’ objectives, consult with their clients about how to accomplish those objectives, and provide their clients with the information needed to make informed decisions related to the representation.
As a report issued in December by ABA ethics experts explained, individuals who want to challenge their guardianship or conservatorship “have a due process right to counsel to advocate for their objectives.” But, the report continued, “some lawyers—and even some judges—fail to appreciate this right.” The result: “Individuals in these adversarial proceedings may find that their lawyer is urging actions that are inconsistent with their wishes.”
Consider the case of Robert Fagan, a 71-year-old veteran from Iowa. Over his objections, an Iowa District Court appointed a permanent guardian and conservator for Fagan, granting the appointee the right to make virtually every decision for Fagan. The lawyer who was hired to represent him not only did not object to the arrangement; she recommended the court impose the very arrangement to which Fagan objected. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals undid the appointment, finding that Fagan had been denied representation and observing that “‘[t]he right to representation by counsel … is of the essence of justice.’”
New legal ethics rule
Ethics rules adopted by the ABA this February aim to fix this problem. The newly revised rules address how lawyers should act when representing people with decision-making limitations, including people for whom a guardian or conservator has been appointed. The rules clearly state that lawyers may ethically represent individuals subject to guardianship or conservatorship who wish to challenge or modify that arrangement. And they require attorneys who do so to take direction from the client and to advocate for the client’s objectives—even if that is not what the attorney thinks best. While lawyers are free to express their concerns to their clients, they may not advocate for an outcome that the client does not want.
The new approach (which the author worked with the ABA in developing) represents a major step forward in protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities and those perceived as having limited decision-making abilities. Had it been in effect at the time Ms. Spears’ conservatorship case was active in the California court system, it would have been clear that her attorney was ethically required to advocate for her wishes—including those to end the conservatorship or remove her father as her conservator—even if he thought it was not in her best interest.
State court leaders must act to adopt new ethics rule
For the newly revised ethics rules to be effective, they will need to be formally adopted by state court systems. Early signs are promising. Maryland has already moved forward with similar reforms, and other states are showing interest in adopting the new rule.
State adoption will also help spur needed training for lawyers. As the new rule goes into effect, states, law schools, the ABA, and other legal organizations will have a natural opportunity to teach lawyers about their obligations to vulnerable clients, including those subject to guardianship or conservatorship.
Ethics rule is a critical step in expanding access to justice for people with disabilities
The ABA’s newly revised ethics rules won’t fix every problem with guardianship and conservatorship systems (law reform is also needed). But they address a fundamental one: lack of access to legal advocacy. That won’t only help high-profile celebrities or even the more than one million Americans currently under guardianship or conservatorship. It will also help affirm the basic principle of justice that we all—regardless of disability or perceived capacity—have a right to have a lawyer that defends our rights.
Full Article & Source:
Legal Leaders Take Historic Step To Protect Americans Under Guardianship, Conservatorship
See Also:
Britney Spears



















