Close this search box.

Lawyer For Proposed Ward Must Advocate Client’s Wishes

Print Article


At age 61 Sonny Lee is living at the College View Nursing Home in Frederick, Maryland. A little over two years ago Mr. Lee, a lifelong alcoholic, passed out in a public park, was hospitalized and ultimately placed in the nursing home. In recent months his condition has improved somewhat, but his daughter and one son are engaged in a court battle over whether a guardian should be appointed to make Mr. Lee’s medical decisions, and if so who should be named.

In 1993 Mr. Lee signed a power of attorney giving his daughter Sonya authority to handle his financial affairs. After his condition worsened, Sonya Lee decided that she needed the court’s involvement in handling her father. She later testified that she reached this conclusion after her father appeared at his bank in the company of other family members and incoherently attempted to withdraw money from his accounts.

When Sonya Lee filed her guardianship petition an attorney was automatically appointed to represent her father. That attorney visited Mr. Lee several times, talked to other family members, and filed a report with the court. She reported that Mr. Lee’s best interests would be served by appointing a guardian and conservator (in Maryland the latter is a “guardian of the estate”). Although there were disputes in the family, she said, Sonya Lee was best qualified to serve as guardian and conservator.

Shannon Lee, one of Mr. Lee’s sons, disagreed. He maintained that his sister had already taken advantage of their father, and she should not be appointed. In fact, he argued, Mr. Lee did not really need a guardian at all, but he wanted to tell the court what he thought should happen with his own future.

Mr. Lee’s appointed lawyer, however, refused to permit him to testify, citing the negative effect it would have on Mr. Lee to have to take sides between his children in a formal court proceeding. The judge agreed, and refused to accept any testimony on whether Mr. Lee needed a guardian in the first place—that issue, said the judge, was resolved when Mr. Lee’s attorney agreed that appointment of a guardian and conservator was necessary.

After Sonya Lee was appointed as her father’s guardian her brother appealed. His father’s constitutional rights were abridged, he argued, when the appointed lawyer failed to advocate for Mr. Lee’s wishes. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals agreed.

The appellate court also directed the trial judge to hold a meaningful hearing on Mr. Lee’s need for guardianship, and to take medical testimony about his condition. The doctors’ reports filed with the original petition, said the court, were nine months old, failed to provide even minimal information, and simply concluded that Mr. Lee needed a guardian. In re Lee, June 28, 2000.

In Arizona the process would probably have proceeded quite differently. Although court-appointed attorneys in Pima County (Tucson) were expected to file a report and recommendations for the “best interests” of their clients at one time, since the mid-80s they have been taught to advocate for their clients’ wishes. In other words if Mr. Lee had wanted to testify in an Arizona court, his lawyer would have taken whatever steps were necessary to give him the opportunity to be heard. In fact, the appointed lawyer would have almost certainly have argued that no guardianship was necessary, and insisted on testimony from doctors, social workers and others familiar with Mr. Lee’s history and circumstances.

The reports from Mr. Lee’s physicians would also have been different in Arizona, or at least in the two larger counties. Both Phoenix and Tucson courts require detailed information from physicians before granting a request for guardianship or conservatorship, and it is unlikely that the cursory reports submitted in Maryland would suffice.

Even with Arizona’s relatively enlightened approach to guardianship and conservatorship, however, the proceedings tend to be paternalistic and the wishes of potential wards are often dismissed as misguided or impractical. Although lawyers and courts almost always have the ward’s best interests at heart, the system often fails to pay enough attention to the very subjects it seeks to protect. At least now Maryland proceedings will move toward greater respect for the wishes and autonomy of incapacitated adults.

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.