Close this search box.

Court-Appointed Attorney Must Advocate for Client

Print Article
Court-appointed attorney

Guardianship and conservatorship proceedings can be personally devastating to the proposed ward. The process can result in loss of dignity, autonomy and freedom. The subject of the proceedings should have legal advice; if they don’t already have a lawyer, a court-appointed attorney should be available.

That issue loomed large in a recent Iowa Court of Appeals decision. The case gives us a chance to briefly discuss the role of a court-appointed attorney.

Arizona law requires court-appointed attorney

Though the Iowa case obviously did not involve Arizona law, let’s start with a quick explanation about what happens in Arizona. Any petition seeking appointment of a fiduciary for an adult must indicate whether the proposed ward already has an attorney. If not, the court immediately appoints someone to represent the proposed ward. This occurs whether the petition is for a guardian or conservator.

The role of a court-appointed attorney is to represent the wishes of the proposed ward. It is not to tell the judge what might be in the ward’s best interests, or what the lawyer thinks would help protect his or her client. If the client objects to the guardianship or conservatorship, the court-appointed attorney must pursue that result.

Arizona law also permits the court to appoint a guardian ad litem in some cases. The guardian ad litem will make an investigation and tell the court what he or she thinks would be in the ward’s best interests. The guardian ad litem is usually (but not always) an attorney, but the two roles are very different.

The Iowa case

Last year the Polk County, Iowa, probate court received a petition for appointment of a guardian (of the person) and conservator (of the estate) for a 70-year-old veteran living in the Des Moines area. The court appointed local attorney Hope Wood to represent the proposed ward, and scheduled a hearing.

Ms. Wood apparently decided that her client needed a guardian and conservator, and she filed a report with the court indicating as much. Although her client objected to having anyone appointed, she did not represent that position before the probate judge. She did not suggest limiting the guardian/conservator’s authority.

After the probate judge appointed a guardian and conservator (without any limitations), Ms. Wood appealed on behalf of her client. On appeal, she argued that the probate judge should have appointed only a limited guardian and conservator.

The role of a court-appointed attorney

Though no one had raised the question, the Iowa Court of Appeals ruled that the probate court proceedings were defective. Because Ms. Wood had acted as a guardian ad litem rather than as an attorney, the ward’s rights were violated.

According to the appellate court, the role of a court-appointed attorney is clear. Citing Iowa statutes, the court ruled that an attorney should interview the proposed ward, and also make sure that they understand their rights. The lawyer should explain the proceedings, but represent his or her client’s wishes. In Iowa a court-appointed attorney must file a written report, but only to show that the legal requirements have been met. Ms. Wood should not have told the judge what she thought was in her client’s best interests.

The Court of Appeals, on its own motion, decided that the order appointing a guardian and conservator was deficient. It reversed the order and remanded the proceedings to the probate court. At a new hearing, the court-appointed attorney will represent the proposed ward’s wishes. Matter of the Guardianship and Conservatorship of Fagan, November 8, 2017.

The persistence of confusion

There is a long history of problems with lawyers understanding their roles as court-appointed attorney. When Arizona adopted the appointment of counsel rule in 1974, we got our language from the Uniform Probate Code. That law even said that the court-appointed attorney would have “all the powers and duties of a guardian ad litem.” Though that language was changed after a few years, confusion continued.

To be clear, not every state requires appointment of an attorney in guardianship and conservatorship proceedings. A number of states permit the court to appoint a lawyer upon request, but do not require it in every case. A few states do not require an attorney for the proposed ward at all.

Where it is required, the court-appointed attorney provides an important element in guardianship and conservatorship proceedings. A lawyer can marshal evidence, focus arguments and try to persuade the probate judge. That means the lawyer is also in a good position to explain what would be best, but that is not his or her role.


Stay up to date

Subscribe to our Newsletter to get our takes on some of the situations families, seniors, and individuals with disabilities find themselves in. These posts help guide you in the decision making process and point out helpful tips and nuances to take advantage of. Enter your email below to have our entries sent directly to your inbox!

Robert B. Fleming


Robert Fleming is a Fellow of both the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel and the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys. He has been certified as a Specialist in Estate and Trust Law by the State Bar of Arizona‘s Board of Legal Specialization, and he is also a Certified Elder Law Attorney by the National Elder Law Foundation. Robert has a long history of involvement in local, state and national organizations. He is most proud of his instrumental involvement in the Special Needs Alliance, the premier national organization for lawyers dealing with special needs trusts and planning.

Robert has two adult children, two young grandchildren and a wife of over fifty years. He is devoted to all of them. He is also very fond of Rosalind Franklin (his office companion corgi), and his homebound cat Muninn. He just likes people, their pets and their stories.

Elizabeth N.R. Friman


Elizabeth Noble Rollings Friman is a principal and licensed fiduciary at Fleming & Curti, PLC. Elizabeth enjoys estate planning and helping families navigate trust and probate administrations. She is passionate about the fiduciary work that she performs as a trustee, personal representative, guardian, and conservator. Elizabeth works with CPAs, financial professionals, case managers, and medical providers to tailor solutions to complex family challenges. Elizabeth is often called upon to serve as a neutral party so that families can avoid protracted legal conflict. Elizabeth relies on the expertise of her team at Fleming & Curti, and as the Firm approaches its third decade, she is proud of the culture of care and consideration that the Firm embodies. Finding workable solutions to sensitive and complex family challenges is something that Elizabeth and the Fleming & Curti team do well.

Amy F. Matheson


Amy Farrell Matheson has worked as an attorney at Fleming & Curti since 2006. A member of the Southern Arizona Estate Planning Council, she is primarily responsible for estate planning and probate matters.

Amy graduated from Wellesley College with a double major in political science and English. She is an honors graduate of Suffolk University Law School and has been admitted to practice in Arizona, Massachusetts, New York, and the District of Columbia.

Prior to joining Fleming & Curti, Amy worked for American Public Television in Boston, and with the international trade group at White & Case, LLP, in Washington, D.C.

Amy’s husband, Tom, is an astronomer at NOIRLab and the Head of Time Domain Services, whose main project is ANTARES. Sadly, this does not involve actual time travel. Amy’s twin daughters are high school students; Finn, her Irish Red and White Setter, remains a puppy at heart.

Famous people's wills

Matthew M. Mansour


Matthew is a law clerk who recently earned his law degree from the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. His undergraduate degree is in psychology from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Matthew has had a passion for advocacy in the Tucson community since his time as a law student representative in the Workers’ Rights Clinic. He also has worked in both the Pima County Attorney’s Office and the Pima County Public Defender’s Office. He enjoys playing basketball, caring for his cat, and listening to audiobooks narrated by the authors.