Can a lawyer who was consulted by (and declined to represent) a husband in a dissolution later serve as guardian ad litem for the children?

Plain-English summary

The committee considered a possible conflict of interest in being appointed guardian ad litem of children where the lawyer had previously met with the husband for possible representation in the dissolution action. The wife had given her consent to the appointment.

The committee was of the opinion that where the lawyer had been consulted by the husband about possible representation in the marriage dissolution and had declined to undertake that representation, and had then been asked by the husband to act as guardian ad litem in the dissolution proceeding, a fact disclosed to the wife without objection, there would be no conflict of interest in continuing to act as guardian ad litem. By requesting the lawyer to act, the husband had waived any conflict, and because the wife had not objected, there was no conflict.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion does not cite a numbered rule; 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer who consulted with the husband, then declined the case, serve as guardian ad litem in the dissolution?

A: Per the opinion, yes, on these facts. The committee found no conflict where the lawyer declined to represent the husband and was later asked by the husband to serve as guardian ad litem.

Q: Why was there no conflict?

A: The committee reasoned that by requesting the lawyer to act, the husband waived any conflict, and because the arrangement was disclosed to the wife and she did not object, there was no conflict.

Background and rules framework

The opinion addresses a conflict of interest arising from a prior consultation. The lawyer had been a prospective adviser to the husband (consulted about possible representation, then declined) and was later asked to serve as guardian ad litem in the same dissolution. The committee resolved the question on consent: the husband's request to act waived any conflict, and the wife's lack of objection after disclosure meant no conflict remained. The opinion does not cite a numbered Rule of Professional Conduct.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• The opinion does not cite a numbered Rule of Professional Conduct; it resolves the conflict-of-interest question on the parties' consent.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1014: a parent-paid lawyer for a child, a court-appointed guardian ad litem, and consent
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1097: one lawyer representing both spouses in cross domestic-violence cases
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1043: whether the committee will resolve a conflict question on limited facts

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=314

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1234
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s):
Subject: Conflict of interest; lawyer consulted by party to dissolution and later retained as guardian ad litem; consent

The Committee considered your inquiry regarding a conflict of interest in being appointed as guardian ad litem of children where you previously met with the husband attorney for possible representation in a dissolution action. The wife had given her consent to the appointment.

The Committee was of the opinion that where you had been consulted by a husband regarding possible representation in a marriage dissolution and had declined to undertake such representation, and had subsequently been requested by the husband to act as guardian ad litem in the dissolution proceeding, which fact was disclosed to the wife without objection, there would be no conflict of interest for you to continue to act as such guardian ad litem since, by requesting you to so act the husband had waived any conflict, and since the wife had not objected to it, there was no conflict.