Representation of Parents Individually and as Guardians Ad Litem
Adopted: January 17, 1992
Opinion rules that a lawyer may not represent parents as guardians ad litem for their injured child and as individuals concerning their related tort claim after having received a joint settlement offer which is insufficient to fully satisfy all claims.
Editor's Note: This opinion was originally published as RPC 109 (Revised). See RPC 251 for additional guidance.
Inquiry #1:
Y, the infant son of Mr. and Ms. X, received serious injuries during the course of his birth. Y was profoundly brain damaged as a result of those injuries and will always require around-the-clock institutional care. Mr. and Ms. X have qualified and have been duly appointed as guardians ad litem for Y. They have employed law firm A to represent them in regard to their claim against the obstetrician for negligent infliction of emotional distress. As guardians ad litem, they have also employed law firm A to represent Y's interest in prosecuting a claim for damages relating to alleged medical malpractice. It is apparent that the obstetrician's insurance company would like to settle the case.
Assuming the above facts, what are the ethical considerations for attorneys in law firm A under the following four different settlement scenarios?
Insurance company agrees to settle for a lump sum and tells law firm A to disburse the funds between the parents and the child as the attorneys see fit.
Opinion #1:
Under the facts presented in the inquiry, the attorneys in law firm A represent conflicting interests which cannot be reconciled. Rules 5.1(a), 5.1(b) and 5.7. It is clear that in this scenario, every dollar made available to one of the firm's clients will diminish the amount of the settlement offer funds available to satisfy the claim of the other client.
The parents have a conflict of interest between their personal claims and the claims of the child for whom they are fiduciaries. An attorney may not ethically assist clients in putting themselves in a position where there is a conflict of interest between their personal claims and their fiduciary responsibilities. When, as here presented, the claims are in a conflict situation, the attorney may not ethically represent both claimants and may not divide up a joint offer.
Under the circumstances, law firm A must withdraw from representing both clients. The attorneys may not continue representing either of their clients unless their continuing participation is intelligently consented to by the other client, and this is impossible under the facts stated.
Inquiry #2:
Parents insist that law firm A present child's claim and parents' claim separately, but equal in value, to the insurance company. The attorneys know that parents' claim is traditionally not worth as much as the child's claim, but that the insurance company will be willing to negotiate a settlement as long as the aggregate of both claims does not exceed the insurance company's previous lump sum offer.
Opinion #2:
See the opinion in response to inquiry one.
Inquiry #3:
Insurance company offers one million dollars on the child's claim and one hundred thousand dollars for the parents' claim and will only settle if both claims are discharged. The parents decline on the grounds that the offer to them is inadequate. The attorneys feel that the offer on the child's claim is a superior offer and that the parents' conflict of interest is preventing them from acting in the best interests of the child.
Opinion #3:
See the opinion in response to inquiry one.
Inquiry #4:
Insurance company insists that any offers of settlement shall be a lump sum for both claims. Parents cannot agree how the money should be divided. The attorneys petition the court to hear evidence of the separate claims of parents and child and make a distribution of the funds.
Opinion #4:
See the opinion in response to inquiry one.