After serving as a child's guardian ad litem to review a settlement's adequacy, may the lawyer then represent the child's parents?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned whether a lawyer, after appointment as guardian ad litem for a minor child to review the adequacy of a settlement, may then undertake to represent the parents of that child. The committee was of the opinion that to do so would create a conflict of interest and would therefore be prohibited by RPC 1.7(b)(2).

The committee added that the extent of the lawyer's duties as guardian ad litem depends on the scope of the appointing order, which it characterized as a legal rather than ethical question. It was of the opinion that the lawyer has no duty to give advice to the child's parents except to advise whether the settlement is adequate, and the committee offered no suggestions for other ways to handle the situation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Washington 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

Common questions

Q: Can a child's guardian ad litem go on to represent the child's parents in the same matter?

A: Under this 1989 opinion, no. The committee concluded that doing so would create a conflict of interest prohibited by RPC 1.7(b)(2).

Q: What does the guardian ad litem owe the parents?

A: The committee was of the opinion that the lawyer has no duty to advise the parents except to advise whether the settlement is adequate.

Q: Did the committee define the full scope of the GAL's duties?

A: No. It said the extent of those duties depends on the scope of the appointing order, which is a legal question on which it could not opine.

Background and rules framework

RPC 1.7, Washington's version of ABA Model Rule 1.7, governs concurrent conflicts of interest; subsection (b)(2) at the time addressed representation that would be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another person. The committee applied that provision to a lawyer whose role as the child's guardian ad litem, charged with evaluating the settlement, would conflict with then representing the parents.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest; current clients)
• Washington RPC 1.7(b)(2)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1300: Conflict After a Firm Merger
• WA Ethics Op. 1295: Lawyer Also a Mortgage Broker

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=394

Original opinion text

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

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning whether, after having been appointed as Guardian Ad Litem for a minor child to review the adequacy of a settlement, you may then undertake to represent the parents of the minor child. The Committee was of the opinion that to do so would create a conflict of interest and therefore would be prohibited by RPC 1.7(b)(2). Further, the Committee was of the opinion that the extent of your duties as Guardian Ad Litem depends upon the scope of the order appointing you, which presents a legal rather than ethical question. The Committee was of the opinion that you have no duty to give advice to the child's parents, except to advise whether the settlement is adequate. The Committee can give you no suggestions of other matters in which you might handle the situation.