SB250

SB250: Currently, a respondent in an adult guardianship matter is entitled to an attorney if they are financially unable to employ one and the office of public advocacy will be appointed, and the court is permitted to appoint counsel for a child respondent if “the court determines the interests of the minor are or may be inadequately represented.” The new law would require the court to appoint an attorney for guardianship respondents if (a) the respondent requests an appointment; (b) the visitor recommends an appointment; or (c) the court determines the respondent needs representation. It would also establish a procedure for the appointment of a guardian or conservator on an emergency basis and provide for a RTC “[i]mmediately upon filing of a petition.” Current law provides a presumptive RTC for adults in matters related to guardianship removal; the new law would make clear that the court shall appoint an attorney for guardianship removal or in matters related to the appointment of a successor if the individual is not represented and any of the same three factors apply (request, visitor recommendation, court determines that there is a need for representation). As to conservatorships, current law requires appointment of counsel for minors or alleged incapacitated respondents (w/o mention of indigency, request requirements, etc). The new law would require appointment if any of the same three factors are met. Related to conservatorship removal, termination or modification, the current law appears to be silent as to whether the RTC applies; the new law would require an attorney if any of the three factors are met. The new law also provides for “Other Protective Arrangements” as a less restrictive alternative to guardianship — in such matters the respondent has the right to appointed counsel if any of the three factors apply. Finally, the law would modernize language, changing “ward or a protected person” to “individual subject to guardianship or conservatorship.”