If a parent hires and pays a lawyer to represent their child in a dependency case, can that lawyer contact the child directly when the court has appointed a guardian ad litem?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned a parent who employed a lawyer to represent a child who was the subject of a juvenile dependency proceeding, where the court had appointed a guardian ad litem for the dependent child. The questions were whether the lawyer hired by the parent could have direct contact with the child, and whether there was an inherent conflict of interest because the lawyer had been selected and paid by the parent.

The committee was of the opinion that there is no inherent conflict of interest merely because the lawyer is paid by a third party. But because the guardian ad litem is in effect for the client, the committee concluded that RPC 1.8(f) requires the guardian ad litem's consent before any direct contact between the lawyer and the dependent child, and before any representation of that child.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Is it a conflict for a parent to pay for a child's lawyer in a dependency case?

A: Under this 1987 opinion, not inherently. The committee said there is no inherent conflict merely because the lawyer is paid by a third party.

Q: Can the parent-paid lawyer contact the child directly?

A: Only with the guardian ad litem's consent. The committee concluded that, because the guardian ad litem is in effect for the child, RPC 1.8(f) requires that consent before any direct contact or representation.

Q: Why did the guardian ad litem's consent matter?

A: The committee treated the guardian ad litem as standing in for the client, so the consent RPC 1.8(f) requires for a third-party-paid representation had to come from the guardian ad litem.

Background and rules framework

RPC 1.8(f) (Washington's version of ABA Model Rule 1.8(f)) addresses a lawyer accepting compensation for representing a client from someone other than the client, and conditions that arrangement on the client's informed consent and protection of the lawyer's independent judgment and the client's confidences. The committee applied RPC 1.8(f) to a parent paying for a child's lawyer, treating the guardian ad litem as the person who must consent on the child's behalf.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.8(f) (compensation from one other than the client)
• Washington RPC 1.8(f)

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 1063: Conflict When a Relative Pays the Fees
• ABA Formal Op. 03-430: Insurance Staff Counsel Representation

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=125

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Your inquiry concerns a situation wherein a parent employs a lawyer to represent a child who is the subject of a juvenile dependency proceeding, and the court has appointed a guardian ad litem for the dependent child. The issue arises as to whether the lawyer employed by the parent may have direct contact with the child or whether there is an inherent conflict of interest because the lawyer had been selected and paid by the parent. The Committee was of the opinion that there is no inherent conflict of interest merely because the lawyer is being paid by a third party, but that since the guardian ad litem is in effect for the client, RPC 1.8(f) requires that the guardian ad litem's consent be given prior to any direct contact between the lawyer and the dependent child and any representation of that child.