Opinion ID: 1401390
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Was It Error to Impose the Costs of Conservatorship on CPS?

Text: The superior court imposed the costs of the conservatorship on CPS. CPS, arguing that it was error to do so, cites a comment to Alaska Professional Conduct Rule 1.14 that implicitly envisions the client bearing the cost of conservatorship. [34] S.H. argues that the judge had authority to impose the costs on CPS. Alaska Statute 13.26.230 states: If not otherwise compensated for services rendered, any ... conservator or special conservator... appointed in a protective proceeding is entitled to reasonable compensation from the estate. Neither S.H. nor the court nor the master has cited any statutory authority for imposing this cost on the petitioner, and we are aware of none. Such a practice also seems contrary to the implication inherent in the comment to Rule 1.14. Where the purpose of the conservatorship is to protect the client's property, it is not obvious why the petitioner, even if it is the client's law firm, should bear the cost of the conservatorship. It is logical that normally the cost be charged against the estate thus preserved. Concluding that it was error to impose the conservatorship costs on CPS, we remand to the superior court with directions to impose those costs in accordance with AS 13.26.230.