Can a court-appointed guardian ad litem for a minor go on to represent that minor as her lawyer once she turns 18?

Plain-English summary

The lawyer had been appointed as guardian ad litem for a minor in connection with a settlement. Because the minor was almost 18, the lawyer did not intend to file a report or make recommendations to the court, and wished to represent the minor in the underlying personal injury case once she turned 18. The committee decided that this conduct is prohibited, because it is a violation of RPC 1.15(a), 1.7(b), 1.3, 1.9, 3.4(c), and 8.4(d); may be a violation of RPC 7.3; and may be a breach of a fiduciary obligation under RPC 1.6.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. Washington's cited rules correspond to ABA Model Rules 1.3 (diligence), 1.6 (confidentiality), 1.7 (conflicts), 1.9 (duties to former clients), 1.16 (declining or terminating representation, then numbered RPC 1.15(a)), 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel), 7.3 (solicitation), and 8.4 (misconduct).

Common questions

Q: Can a guardian ad litem become the minor's lawyer once she turns 18?

A: The committee said this conduct is prohibited.

Q: Which rules does the switch violate?

A: The committee said it violates RPC 1.15(a), 1.7(b), 1.3, 1.9, 3.4(c), and 8.4(d), may violate RPC 7.3, and may breach a fiduciary obligation under RPC 1.6.

Q: Does it matter that the GAL filed no report because the minor was nearly 18?

A: The opinion notes the lawyer did not intend to file a report or make recommendations because the minor was almost 18, but the committee still found the planned representation prohibited.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied a cluster of rules to a guardian ad litem who proposed to convert into the minor's personal-injury counsel at majority: RPC 1.15(a) (declining or terminating, then numbered as RPC 1.15, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.16), RPC 1.7(b) and 1.9 (current- and former-client conflicts, corresponding to ABA Model Rules 1.7 and 1.9), RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 3.4(c) (fairness and obedience to court obligations), and RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), with possible violations of RPC 7.3 (solicitation) and a possible breach of fiduciary duty under RPC 1.6. The committee treated the role switch as flatly prohibited rather than curable by consent.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.3 (diligence); Washington RPC 1.3
• ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality); Washington RPC 1.6
• ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest); Washington RPC 1.7(b)
• ABA Model Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients); Washington RPC 1.9
• ABA Model Rule 1.16 (declining or terminating representation); Washington RPC 1.15(a)
• ABA Model Rule 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel); Washington RPC 3.4(c)
• ABA Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation of clients); Washington RPC 7.3
• ABA Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct); Washington RPC 8.4(d)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1696: Tax Collection From a Former Client
• WA Ethics Op. 1707: Selling a Fee Judgment to the Foe
• WA Ethics Op. 1703: Former Client as Opposing Witness

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=786

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1712
Year Issued: 1997
RPC(s): RPC 1.3; 1.6; 1.7(b); 1.9; 1.15(a); 3.4(c); 7.3; 8.4(d)
Subject: Court appointed guardian ad litem seeks to represent minor after age of majority

[The lawyer was appointed as guardian ad litem for a minor settlement. The minor was almost 18, so the lawyer did not intend to file a report or make any recommendations to the court. He wished to represent the minor in the underlying personal injury case once she turned 18.] The Committee decided that this conduct is prohibited because it is a violation of RPC 1.15(a), 1.7(b), 1.3, 1.9, 3.4(c) and 8.4(d); and may be a violation of RPC 7.3, and a breach of a fiduciary obligation under RPC 1.6.