Ezel / Ethics Opinions / MOLEC

May a Missouri lawyer represent a parent when the lawyer's partner formerly served as guardian ad litem in related custody matters?

Short answer Only with all parties' informed written consent, or with a timely screen, no fee share for the former guardian ad litem, and prompt written notice to the parties and tribunal allowing verification of compliance.
Bar
MOLEC
Issued
2018

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2018. Ask about yours and see what the current Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2018
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
How much weight this carries: Under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 5.30, formal opinions are binding; informal opinions are advisory. Source.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A lawyer sought to represent a parent in a visitation modification while the lawyer's current partner had served as the child's guardian ad litem in two earlier paternity and custody matters.

Rule 4-1.12(a) permits the representation with informed consent confirmed in writing from every party. Without it, Rule 4-1.12(c) requires a timely screen, no fee apportionment to the former guardian ad litem, and prompt written notice allowing parties and the appropriate tribunal to assess compliance.

In practice

Under this opinion, a new guardian ad litem does not remove the former neutral's conflict. Consent or every screening safeguard is required.

Common questions

Q: Can all parties consent? A: Yes, in informed writing.

Q: What does the alternative require? A: Timely screening, no fee share, and prompt written notice.

Q: Does appointment of a new GAL end the issue? A: The opinion still applies Rule 4-1.12.

Background and rules framework

Rule 4-1.12(a) governs consent for a former adjudicative officer, and Rule 4-1.12(c) governs imputation and screening.

Citations and references

  • Missouri Rules 4-1.12(a) and 4-1.12(c); Rule 4-1.12 Comments [4] and [5]

See also

Source

Original opinion text

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

Question: May Attorney represent Parent in a motion to modify visitation of a minor child, where Attorney’s current law partner, prior to practicing in partnership with Attorney, was Guardian Ad Litem of the child in two previous matters relating to paternity and custody of the child, and where the child now has a new Guardian Ad Litem?

Answer: Unless Attorney’s law partner obtains informed consent, confirmed in writing from all parties to the proceeding, pursuant to Rule 4–1.12(a), Attorney may not represent Parent unless, in accordance with Rule 4–1.12(c), Attorney’s law partner is timely screened from any participation in the matter and apportioned no part of the fee therefrom, and unless written notice is promptly given to the parties and any appropriate tribunal to enable them to ascertain compliance with the provisions of Rule 4–1.12. See also Rule 4–1.12, Comments [4] and [5].

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2018. Ezel checks the current Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace