What are a Florida lawyer's duties when appointed to represent an alleged incapacitated person in an emergency temporary guardianship, including ex parte hearings?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer appointed to represent an alleged incapacitated person in a petition for emergency temporary guardianship asked how to meet ethical obligations when Florida Statutes section 744.3031(2) allows the hearing to proceed ex parte, or when the hearing occurs before the lawyer can contact the client. The opinion notes that under Florida law the appointed attorney represents the client's expressed wishes to the extent consistent with the Bar rules, and that Erlandsson v. Erlandsson holds court-appointed counsel must defend against the petition if the client opposes it, even if counsel believes guardianship is in the client's best interest.

The opinion frames the duties of competence (Rule 4-1.1), diligence (Rule 4-1.3), communication (Rule 4-1.4), abiding by the client's objectives (Rule 4-1.2), and the diminished-capacity rule (Rule 4-1.14), which directs the lawyer to maintain a normal relationship as far as reasonably possible and to take protective action only when necessary. If there is too little time before the hearing, the opinion advises seeking a continuance to allow communication with the client.

If a continuance is denied or the court orders an ex parte hearing, the opinion concludes the lawyer may still represent the client without communication. Drawing on the comment to Rule 4-1.4 about acting in exigent circumstances and informing the client afterward, the opinion directs the lawyer to investigate as reasonably practicable (including the client's previously expressed wishes and relevant documents), and at the hearing to present any good-faith defenses and evidence found, cross-examine the petitioner's witnesses, test the evidence, ensure the petitioner proves every essential element, and, in an ex parte hearing, ensure the petitioner meets the statutory burden for proceeding ex parte. The lawyer must then notify the client of the proceedings and their outcome.

In practice

This 2021 opinion holds that an appointed lawyer's obligations can be reconciled with the emergency-guardianship statute even where the lawyer cannot communicate with the client because of time constraints or a court order. The opinion makes the controlling steps investigating as reasonably practicable, testing the petitioner's case, protecting the client's procedural rights (including the statutory basis for any ex parte proceeding), and notifying the client afterward. Where the lawyer can ascertain the client's wishes, the opinion treats those wishes as directing the representation; where it can seek more time, the opinion points first to a continuance.

Common questions

Q: What does a Florida lawyer do if appointed to a guardianship case but cannot reach the client before the hearing?

A: The opinion advises first seeking a continuance to allow communication. If that is denied or the court orders an ex parte hearing, the lawyer may proceed by investigating as reasonably practicable and testing the petitioner's evidence, then notifying the client of the outcome under Rule 4-1.4.

Q: Must counsel oppose the guardianship even if it seems to be in the client's interest?

A: If the client opposes it, yes. The opinion relies on Erlandsson v. Erlandsson, under which court-appointed counsel must defend against the petition when the client opposes it, even if counsel believes a guardianship would benefit the client.

Q: What must the lawyer check in an ex parte hearing?

A: The opinion directs the lawyer to ensure the petitioner proves every essential element of the guardianship and, for the ex parte proceeding, that the petitioner meets the statutory burden of establishing the necessity of proceeding ex parte under section 744.3031(2).

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rules 4-1.1 (competence), 4-1.2 (scope and client objectives), 4-1.3 (diligence), 4-1.4 (communication), and 4-1.14 (client with diminished capacity) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, the Florida analogs of Model Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.14, alongside Florida Statutes section 744.3031(2) on emergency temporary guardianship.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.1 / Fla. Rule 4-1.1 (competence)
• Model Rule 1.2 / Fla. Rule 4-1.2 (scope; client objectives)
• Model Rule 1.3 / Fla. Rule 4-1.3 (diligence)
• Model Rule 1.4 / Fla. Rule 4-1.4 (communication)
• Model Rule 1.14 / Fla. Rule 4-1.14 (client with diminished capacity)

Statutes:

• Fla. Stat. section 744.3031(2) (emergency temporary guardianship; ex parte proceedings)

Cases:

• Erlandsson v. Erlandsson, 296 So. 3d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), duty of appointed counsel to defend against a contested guardianship

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/opinion-21-3/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2021/06/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-21-3.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 21-3
March 23, 2021
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
The obligations of a lawyer who has been appointed by a court to represent an alleged incapacitated person in a petition for emergency temporary guardianship obligations under the rules may be harmonized with statutory requirements even where the inquirer is unable to communicate with the client, either by time constraints or court order. The lawyer must investigate as reasonably practicable under the circumstances, cross examine the petitioner’s witnesses, test the petitioner’s evidence, present any appropriate testimony or other evidence found during investigation, ensure that the petitioner proves all essential elements of the guardianship, protect the client’s procedural rights, and, if the hearing is held ex parte, that the petitioner has met the burden of establishing the necessity of the ex parte proceeding under the statute. The lawyer must then notify the client of the proceedings and their outcome. RPC: 4-1.1, 4-1.2, 4-1.3, 4-1.4, 4-1.14 Florida Statutes: F.S. §744.3031(2) Cases: Erlandsson v. Erlandsson, 296 So. 3d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). The Committee gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the Real Property Probate and Trust Law Section in responding to this inquiry. A member of The Florida Bar has inquired about the inquirer’s ethical obligation when appointed by a court to represent an alleged incapacitated person in a petition for emergency temporary guardianship. The inquirer states that the alleged incapacitated person has due process rights under both the state and federal constitution, including the right to testify, present evidence, call witnesses, confront and cross-examine witnesses, and have the hearing either open or closed. However, Florida Statutes §744.3031(2) allows the proceeding for emergency temporary guardianship to be held ex parte on a showing that it is necessary to prevent substantial harm to the alleged incapacitated person. The inquirer asks how to represent the client in accord with the inquirer’s ethical obligations when a court has ordered that the hearing be held ex parte or when a hearing is held before the inquirer has the ability to contact or communicate with the alleged incapacitated person to whom the inquirer has been appointed to represent. Florida statutes provide that an “[a]ttorney for the alleged incapacitated person . . . shall represent the expressed wishes of the alleged incapacitated person to the extent it is consistent with the rules regulating The Florida Bar.” Fla. Stat. Ann. § 744.102 (West). Interpreting the statute, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals has determined that a court-appointed counsel for the respondent is obligated to defend against a guardianship petition if the client opposes it, even if the lawyer believes that a guardianship would be in the client's best interests. Erlandsson v. Erlandsson, 296 So. 3d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). In Erlandsson, the client was present and clearly wished to contest the proceedings.

Lawyers generally owe all clients specific duties imposed by the Rules of Professional Conduct. Among them, lawyers must competently and diligently represent clients. Rules 4-1.1 and 4-1.3, Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers must communicate with clients about their representation and give clients enough information that clients can make informed decisions about their representation under Rule 4-1.4. Lawyers also must abide by clients’ decisions relating to the objectives of their representation under Rule 4-1.2. When a client’s ability to make decisions about their own legal matters is impaired, lawyers must treat them the same as other clients as much as possible and can take protective action only when reasonably necessary because the client cannot act in the client’s own interests under Rule 4-1.14. Where the ability to communicate with the client or the client’s ability to make decisions in a matter is impaired due to the client’s disability, the lawyer must comply with Rule 4-1.14. However, if the inquirer lacks time to communicate with the client because the hearing is scheduled to be held shortly after the appointment, the inquirer should seek a continuance under appropriate circumstances to allow the inquirer to communicate with the client and ascertain the client’s wishes. Regarding the duty to communicate, the comment to Rule 4-1.4 provides as follows: Subdivision (a)(2) requires the lawyer to reasonably consult with the client about the means to be used to accomplish the client’s objectives. In some situations – depending on both the importance of the action under consideration and the feasibility of consulting with the client – this duty will require consultation prior to taking action. In other circumstances, such as during a trial when an immediate decision must be made, the exigency of the situation may require the lawyer to act without prior consultation. In such cases the lawyer must nonetheless act reasonably to inform the client of actions the lawyer has taken on the client’s behalf. Thus, if the continuance is denied, or the court orders an ex parte hearing, the inquirer may nevertheless represent the client although the inquirer is unable to communicate with the client. The inquirer, as reasonably practicable under the circumstances, must investigate the factual background leading to the guardianship as well as what evidence may be relevant to the proceedings. Investigation should include determining to the extent possible whether the client has previously expressed the client’s wishes regarding guardianship or what those wishes might be. When unable to communicate with the client, the inquirer may investigate by interviewing the individuals listed on the relevant pleadings and attempting to locate and review any estate and incapacity documents previously executed, for example. At the actual hearing, the lawyer must competently and diligently represent the client. If the inquirer has been able to ascertain the client’s wishes through investigation, those wishes will dictate the appropriate action. For example, if the inquirer has been able to determine that the client would oppose a guardianship, the inquirer should raise any good faith defenses to the guardianship in the hearing, presenting appropriate evidence gathered in the inquirer’s investigation, cross-examining the petitioner’s witnesses, testing the evidence presented by the petitioner, ensuring that the petitioner proves all essential elements to establish a guardianship,

and making appropriate arguments. See, Rules 4-1.1, 4-1.3, 4-3.1, Rules of Professional Conduct. Even if the evidence is unclear or indicates that the client may not have opposed a guardianship, the inquirer should protect the client’s procedural rights. In protecting the client’s rights in the proceedings, the inquirer should ensure that the petitioner has met the petitioner’s burden to establish that the guardianship is necessary and, if the hearing is being held ex parte, that the petitioner has met the burden of establishing that the ex parte proceeding meets the statutory criteria and any other requirements. The inquirer then has the obligation to notify the client of the proceedings and their outcome under Rule 4-1.4. In sum, the inquirer’s obligations under the rules may be harmonized with statutory requirements even where the inquirer is unable to communicate with the client, either by time constraints or court order. The inquirer still must investigate as reasonably practicable under the circumstances, cross examine the petitioner’s witnesses, test the petitioner’s evidence, present any appropriate testimony or other evidence found during investigation, ensure that the petitioner proves all essential elements of the guardianship, protect the client’s procedural rights, and, if the hearing is held ex parte, that the petitioner has met the burden of establishing the necessity of the ex parte proceeding under the statute. The inquirer must then notify the client of the proceedings and their outcome.