The Ethical Obligations of a Court-Appointed Guardian ad Litem as Opposed to the Obligations held by a Court-Appointed Attorney
By Khodadad “Ko” Sharif
For all intents and purposes, an attorney appointed by the court to represent a party is in an attorney-client relationship with the party and bound by the rules of professional conduct. On the other hand, an attorney appointed as a Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”) answers to the court, and represents the ward’s best interest, not their wishes. The GAL does not enjoy an attorney-client relationship with the ward and owes no duty of confidentiality except when the GAL is involved in a privileged matter. “A guardian ad litem is not a party to an action, but merely the representative of record of a party.” Estate of Cochems, 110 Cal. App. 2d 27, 29 (1952). The appointment of a GAL can be under Section 372 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 1003 of the California Probate Code. When a person, whether a minor or not, lacks the capacity to make decisions, if the court determines that the appointment of a GAL would help represent their best interest, then a GAL is appointed. “[T]he authority of the guardian ad litem in relation to the suit is equal to what would be the authority of the ward if he were an adult.” In re Guardianship of Price, 61 Cal. App. 592, 599 (1923). Additionally, the GAL is protected by the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity.