FAMILY LAW
Melissa Gustafson
In C.L. v. OPA, 500 P.3d 995 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct are used to determine whether a guardian ad litem (GAL) has a disqualifying conflict of interest and the superior court must permit limited discovery for determining if a disqualifying conflict exists. (Id. at 996). In four Child in Need of Aid (CINA) cases, the superior court appointed Brenda Finley as GAL. (Id.). Finley disclosed that she is a foster parent in another CINA case, but she stated that this would not affect her ability to be an impartial GAL. (Id.). The parents in each of the CINA cases moved for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Finley should be disqualified as a GAL due to her relationship with the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) as a foster parent. (Id.). The supreme court affirmed the use of the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (specifically Rule 1.7(a)) for determining GAL disqualifying conflicts – instead of the Alaska Code of Judicial Conduct – reasoning that a GAL fulfills many of the same functions as a lawyer, and therefore, acts as an advocate in court. (Id. at 999–1000). The supreme court reversed the denial of the parents’ request for an evidentiary hearing, reasoning that the confidential nature of Finley’s ties to OCS as a foster parent permitted the parents to conduct limited discovery into the GAL’s potential conflicts of interest, as permitted by CINA Rule 8(f). (Id. at 1001). The supreme court held that the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct are used to determine whether a guardian ad litem (GAL) has a disqualifying conflict of interest and the superior court must permit limited discovery for determining if a disqualifying conflict exists. (Id. at 996).
