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

Heading: Did CPS Violate Professional Responsibilities or Duties It Owed S.H.?

Text: S.H. claims that CPS ignored its fiduciary duty to him, and its duty to use reasonable care [23] and to exercise the utmost good faith, integrity, fairness, and fidelity. [24] He implies that CPS decided to settle not because it held S.H.'s interests to heart but because his case required a lot of time, and after a certain period it was apparent that it would not bring in a large fee for CPS. Alaska Rule of Professional Conduct 1.14(b) permits a lawyer to seek the appointment of a guardian or take other protective action with respect to a client only when the lawyer reasonably believes that the client cannot adequately act in the client's own interest. If the requirements of Rule 1.14 are met, a lawyer may seek a guardian to protect the client's interests despite the client's disapproval. Because we have concluded that the superior court did not err in appointing a conservator, we necessarily conclude that CPS acted reasonably in filing its petition. We accordingly reject S.H.'s argument that CPS acted disloyally or breached any duty by filing the petition.