Terminology
Terminology is sometimes confusing. At times, the terms “guardian” and “conservator” are used interchangeably. Georgia formerly used the term/phrase “guardian of the person” to describe a fiduciary making personal decisions and “guardian of the property” to describe the fiduciary making financial decisions (Note 1). Tennessee describes a guardian as a fiduciary appointed for a minor, while conservator describes a fiduciary appointed for a disabled adult (Note 2).
Georgia now distinguishes the terms, with “guardian” describing the fiduciary making personal decisions and “conservator” describing the fiduciary making decisions regarding property and finances (Note 3). See also Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act, § 102(2) (defining conservator) and § 102(3) (defining guardian). Although some find use of the term pejorative, in most instances, the subject of a guardianship or conservatorship is referred to as the “ward” (Note 4).
Who is the client?
The initial task in every representation is identifying the client (Note 5). Whether an action is contested or uncontested, the petitioner’s interests are generally adverse those of the alleged ward (Note 6). For that reason, it is unlikely that an attorney would represent both the petitioner and the ward (Note 7). Nonetheless, in some States Rule 1.14 of the Rules of Professional Conduct permits (or requires) protective action on behalf of a client where the lawyer reasonably believes the client has diminished capacity. In some States, this includes seeking the appointment of a guardian. See, e.g., Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.14(b). (Note 8).
When initially approaching a case, often the attorney explores whether he or she can have a prospective ward sign a power of attorney and/or advance directive (Note 9). In a hypothetical case where Mr. Jones asks you about taking care of his mom, can you first try to get a power of attorney and health care advance directive signed and, if that proves unsuccessful, still represent Mr. Jones as petitioner? Did you become mom’s attorney by preparing documents for her signature? What do you do if mom asks what the documents mean? Does the exercise of explaining the documents constitute giving mom legal advice? Can you give mom legal advice after speaking with a prospective guardian or conservator about the possibility of filing a guardianship petition? If you do speak with mom about executing those documents and she declines to sign them, can you still represent Mr. Jones in a guardianship action against mom?
The difficulty in resolving these issues is acknowledged (without being resolved) in J. Krauskopf et al., Elderlaw: Advocacy for the Aging, Second (West 1993), § 9.7. “The attorney who practices elder law is often presented with a difficult problem in determining who is actually the client. When the attorney is contacted by an adult daughter to establish a guardianship for her mother because the daughter believes the mother to be incapacitated, the attorney should consider whether he or she has a duty to the mother. Under most circumstances, the duty of the attorney is predominately to the daughter/proposed guardian and will involve advocating the guardianship on behalf of the daughter client and educating her about the rights, powers, duties and responsibilities of her position.” The lines are even more blurry when the attorney was hired to protect family wealth. Id. “Can the attorney represent the family, or are the interests so disparate that an inherent conflict of interest prevents multiple representation of the parties?”
Rule 1.7(a) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct provides: “A lawyer shall not represent or continue to represent a client if there is a significant risk that the lawyer’s own interests or the lawyer’s duties to another client, a former client, or a third person will materially and adversely affect the representation of the client.” Rule 1.7(c)(2) provides that informed consent to joint representation is not possible if the representation “includes the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same or substantially related proceeding.” Comment 7 explains subsection (c)(2): Paragraph (c)(2) prohibits representation of opposing parties in the same or a similar proceeding including simultaneous representation of parties whose interests may conflict, such as co-plaintiffs or co-defendants. An impermissible conflict may exist by reason of substantial discrepancy in the parties’ testimony, incompatibility in positions in relation to an opposing party.
Rule 1.14 (which varies from State to State) addresses situation where the attorney-client relationship has attached and the client has diminished capacity. Georgia’s Rule 1.14 provides as follows:
a. When a client’s capacity to make adequately considered decisions in connection with a representation is diminished, whether because of minority, mental impairment or for some other reason, the lawyer shall, as far as reasonably possible, maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship with the client.
b. When the lawyer reasonably believes that the client has diminished capacity, is at risk of substantial physical, financial or other harm unless action is taken and cannot adequately act in the client’s own interest, the lawyer may take reasonably necessary protective action, including consulting with individuals or entities that have the ability to take action to protect the client and, in appropriate cases, seeking the appointment of a guardian ad litem, conservator or guardian (Note 10).
c. Information relating to the representation of a client with diminished capacity is protected by Rule 1.6. When taking protective action pursuant to paragraph (b), the lawyer is impliedly authorized under Rule 1.6(a) to reveal information about the client, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the client’s interests.
The ACTEC Commentaries to Rule 1.14 address situations where the lawyer is hired to represent the fiduciary and where the lawyer represents a client with diminished capacity (Note 11). The ACTEC commentaries indicate that if the lawyer did not previously represent the alleged ward, then the client is the fiduciary; the lawyer may nonetheless owe certain duties to the disabled person. If the lawyer represented an individual with diminished capacity prior to the incapacity, then the lawyer may continue to represent the client. In some cases, a lawyer may represent the guardian or conservator of a former client if the representation is not directly adverse. The commentaries indicate this is not possible if there is a significant risk that joint representation of one would materially limit obligations owed to the other. Although the commentaries do not offer any examples, situations where the representation “might” not be adverse include representing the individual who was designated by the client as guardian or conservator if the person to be appointed indicates that he or she will follow the wishes of the former client. The best practice would likely involve bringing the matter to the Court’s attention and allowing the Court to determine whether continued representation is possible after full disclosure.
BLOG POSTS
Rights of the ward; impact on voting and testamentary capacity; O.C.G.A. § 29-4-20
Georgia Guardianship law presupposes that the guardian must act in the best interests of the Ward. In that regard, O.C.G.A. § 29-4-20 states certain rights the Ward has. O.C.G.A. § 29-4-20 provides: (a) In every guardianship, the ward has the right to: (1) A qualified guardian who acts in the best interest of the ward; […]
Temporary medical consent guardianship; O.C.G.A. § 29-4-18
In some cases, no one can be found who will consent to medical procedures for a patient. O.C.G.A. § 29-4-18 provides a solution by allowing any interested party to file a petition to become a temporary medical consent guardian. It is worth noting that “a temporary medical consent guardian shall not be authorized to withdraw […]
Conduct of emergency guardianship hearing; limitations on emergency guardianship; O.C.G.A. § 29-4-16
If an emergency guardianship is warranted, O.C.G.A. § 29-4-16 sets the requirements for how the hearing is conducted. O.C.G.A. § 29-4-16 provides: (a) The court shall conduct the emergency guardianship hearing, at the time and date set forth in its order, to determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence of the need for an […]
Guardianship Appeal Statute is purely statutory
In Matter of Doze, 717 SW 3d 240 (2025), a Missouri Court affirmed the decision below appointing Queen Doze’s father as her guardian. The case began when Queen’s sister, Mariah Doze, filed a Petitioner for Appointment of a Guardian and/or Conservator. Mariah alleged that her sister, who was 21 years old, had an “intellectual disability […]
Prerequisite findings prior to appointment of emergency guardian; evaluation; notice; hearing; O.C.G.A. § 29-4-15
All things being equal, a Petition for Emergency Guardianship should be denied in favor of a permanent petition. The reason is because emergency petitions are usually ex parte proceedings while the permanent petition allows all interested parties to present their arguments. O.C.G.A. § 29-4-15 provides: (a) Upon the filing of a petition for an emergency […]
Petition for appointment of emergency guardian; requirements of petition; O.C.G.A. § 29-4-14
Petition for Appointment of Emergency Guardian An emergency petition usually begins as an ex parte proceeding. In limited circumstances, an emergency guardianship is necessary. However, in most cases, the petition should be denied in favor of a permanent petition under O.C.G.A. § 29-4-10. In In re Farr, 322 Ga. App. 55 (2013), the probate court […]
Requirements of order granting guardianship; service O.C.G.A. § 29-4-13
Requirements of Order Granting Guardianship The Order included with Standard Form 12 includes the required elements found in O.C.G.A. § 29-4-13, but it should be modified as appropriate. For example, if there is a mediated resolution, the terms of the settlement should be incorporated into the Final Order. O.C.G.A. § 29-4-13 provides: (a) The court […]
Judicial review of pleadings and evaluation report; findings; hearing, O.C.G.A. § 29-4-12
Judicial Review of Pleadings and Evaluation Report The prejudice is that petitions for guardianship and conservatorship should be denied. That is why clear and convincing evidence is required before one may be imposed. In Bookholdt v. Brown, 224 Ga, 737 (1968), the Court said: “Among our most cherished rights, as American citizens, are the freedom […]
Prerequisite judicial finding of probable cause; notice; petition; evaluations; reporting requirements, O.C.G.A. § 29-4-11
Prerequisite Judicial Finding of Probable Cause The presumption under Georgia law is that a guardianship is unnecessary and should be dismissed unless clear and convincing evidence is produced to support prerequisite judicial findings. For that reason, subsection (b) requires dismissal if the Court’s initial review of the Petition finds there is no probable cause to […]
Petition for appointment of guardian; requirements for petition, O.C.G.A. § 29-4-10
Last updated 9/5/2025 Petition for Appointment of Guardian In Georgia, a Petition for Guardianship is filed on Georgia Probate Standard Form 12. Care should be used because the forms are updated from time to time. As pointed out in other cases, an objection is not a Petition. The standard form generally requires a response to […]
