Opinion ID: 2516567
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Weidner Has the Authority To Act as S.H.'s Counsel in this Appeal.

Text: CPS argues that S.H. I granted S.H.'s conservator the authority to make litigation decisions on S.H.'s behalf. It contends that, because Weidner never obtained the approval of the conservator to file the present action, the appeal should be dismissed. S.H. responds that Weidner's representation is proper and protected by the conservatorship statutes. CPS cites In re Conservatorship of Nelsen [28] as support for its argument that Weidner has no authority to represent S.H. In Nelsen, the Minnesota court of appeals held that the conservatee could not contractually retain an attorney without the approval of either the conservator or the court. [29] This reasoning, CPS argues, should apply to the instant case. The court in Nelsen, however, based its decision on the conservatorship order, which required the conservator to approve any contract, except for necessities, which the conservatee might make. [30] The order appointing S.H.'s conservator was not as broad as the order in Nelsen. Rather than granting the conservator authority over all contracts, S.H.'s conservator was only given the authority to make all necessary decisions on [S.H.'s] behalf in the ARI Case, including but not limited to accepting a settlement offer in the ARI Case or proceeding to trial with that litigation. Given the more limited nature of S.H.'s conservatorship, Nelsen does not apply. Furthermore, AS 13.26.195 grants a prospective protected person the right to counsel in the conservatorship proceedings. [31] Weidner is S.H.'s counsel under this statute, having substituted in for the original counsel appointed for S.H. by the court. While Weidner could not take part in any aspect of the ARI litigation, he is properly representing S.H. in the probate proceedings, including S.H.'s petition to terminate the conservatorship and this appeal.