What duties does a lawyer have when a client has decision-making limitations, including when protective action, guardianship, or withdrawal is considered?

Plain-English summary

Opinion 525 interprets the substantially revised Model Rule 1.14 adopted in February 2026 and supersedes Formal Opinion 96-404. The revised rule uses “decision-making limitations” rather than “diminished capacity” and treats those limitations as potentially situational and variable over time.

The lawyer must independently evaluate how the client's limitations affect decisions about the representation. A medical diagnosis may inform but does not control that judgment. The lawyer should consider supports and accommodations, including communication aids, appropriate third-party assistance, a familiar meeting environment, plain language, and supported decision-making, in an effort to preserve the ordinary relationship.

Clients with decision-making limitations retain the protections of the client-lawyer relationship. The lawyer must continue to take direction from and communicate with the client to the extent feasible, respect the client's reasonable objectives and values, and protect information under Rule 1.6. A client's request to include family members or others in meetings does not make those participants the client or permit them to direct the lawyer.

Rule 1.14(b) permits protective action only if the lawyer reasonably believes that the client has decision-making limitations, faces a risk of substantial physical, financial, or other harm without action, and cannot adequately act in the client's own interest to address that risk. The action must serve the client rather than the convenience of the lawyer or others, and should be the least restrictive measure that can address the danger.

A guardianship may be pursued only after less restrictive measures are unavailable or ineffective. The lawyer may petition on the authority granted by Rule 1.14(b) and may recommend a person reasonably believed to be fit, but may not represent a third party seeking guardianship over the lawyer's own client. Withdrawal remains possible under Rule 1.16, although the opinion describes it as disfavored when it would leave the client without needed help.

In practice

Under the opinion, the analysis begins with accommodations and supported decision-making, not substitution of the lawyer's judgment for the client's. Protective action requires a concrete substantial-harm risk, the client's inability to address it, and a response tailored to preserve as much autonomy as possible.

If guardianship becomes the least restrictive effective option, the lawyer may seek it directly under Rule 1.14(b) and must disclose pertinent facts, including the client's wishes, to the court. The lawyer cannot change sides and represent a family member or other third party against the client in that proceeding.

Common questions

Q: Does a diagnosis determine whether the client has decision-making limitations under Rule 1.14?

A: No. The lawyer must make an independent assessment of the client's present ability to receive, evaluate, and communicate information and decisions, while considering a medical evaluation and possible supports or accommodations.

Q: When may the lawyer take protective action?

A: Only when the lawyer reasonably believes all three Rule 1.14(b) conditions exist: decision-making limitations, a risk of substantial harm unless action is taken, and inability to act adequately in the client's own interest to address the risk.

Q: May the lawyer disclose client information while taking protective action?

A: Rule 1.14(c) permits disclosure only to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to protect the client's interests. Otherwise, Rule 1.6 protects the information as it does for any client.

Q: May the lawyer petition for a guardian?

A: Yes, when Rule 1.14(b)'s requirements are met and less restrictive measures are unavailable or ineffective. The opinion says guardianship is a serious deprivation of rights and should not be pursued when a less restrictive solution can protect the client.

Q: May the lawyer represent a family member petitioning for guardianship over the client?

A: No. The opinion treats that representation as adverse to the client under Rule 1.7(a), even if the lawyer believes the petition would benefit the client.

Q: May the lawyer withdraw because of the client's limitations?

A: The lawyer may seek withdrawal under Rule 1.16. The opinion says withdrawal is disfavored when it would leave the client without help and points to protective action as a possible way to continue the representation.

Background and rules framework

Revised Model Rule 1.14(a) requires an ordinary relationship as far as reasonably possible. Paragraph (b) establishes the three conditions for protective action, and paragraph (c) limits disclosure during that action. Rules 1.2 and 1.4 preserve client direction and communication; Rule 1.6 governs confidentiality; Rules 1.7 and 1.9 govern conflicts involving guardians and former clients; and Rule 1.16 governs withdrawal.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rules 1.2(a), 1.4, and 1.6
• Model Rules 1.7(a), 1.9(a), and 1.9(c)
• Model Rule 1.14(a)-(c) and Comments 1-20
• Model Rules 1.16(a)-(b), 2.1, 3.3, 4.3, and 5.4(c)

Cases:

• In re Guardianship of Lillian P., 238 Wis. 2d 449, 617 N.W.2d 849 (Wis. App. 2000)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Opinion 96-404, superseded by Opinion 525

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 96-404: Client under a disability
• Florida Ethics Op. 21-3: Counsel for an alleged incapacitated person
• Wisconsin Ethics Op. EF-25-03: Criminal defendant with diminished capacity
• NY State Bar Op. 1296: Alleged incapacitated person

Source

• ABA announcement: Formal Opinion 525: Client with decision-making limitations
• Original PDF: ABA Formal Opinion 525