Court Opinion

ID: 9680960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:41:41.761089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:31.598103
License: Public Domain

O’CONNOR, Justice,
concurring.
The attorney in this case played a dual role. First, he was appointed as the guardian ad litem under Tex.R.Civ.P. 173.1 Then, the guardian ad litem assumed the role of co-counsel to the mother’s lawyer. The guardian ad litem participated in discovery, conducted part of voir dire, and questioned witnesses during trial. Defense counsel repeatedly objected to the ad litem’s participation in the trial, claiming he should be limited to his role of representing the minor during conflicts with the minor’s mother. The defendant’s objections were overruled.
After the jury returned a verdict adverse to the plaintiffs, the guardian ad litem asked for attorney ad litem fees from the defendant under Tex.R.Civ.P. 173.
Regarding attorney fees, I agree that the guardian ad litem is not entitled to any attorney fees from the defendant. There is no authority under ease law, the Probate Code, or the Family Code for the court to appoint an attorney for the minor to assist as co-counsel and charge attorney fees against the successful party.
Regarding guardian ad litem fees, I would hold, based on the record from the trial *64court, if the court finds good cause to assess fees against the defendant, the guardian ad litem’s fees must be limited to the work he performed resolving conflicts between the mother and minor, approximately 10 hours.

. The attorney was appointed as guardian ad litem under Tex.R.Civ.P. 173, although he was called an attorney ad litem.
By comparison to a guardian ad litem, an attorney ad litem is defined as "an attorney who is appointed by a court to represent and advocate on behalf of a proposed ward, an incapacitated person, or an unborn person in a guardianship proceeding.” Probate Code § 601(1); see also Probate Code i 646 (appointment of attorney ad litem in guardianship proceeding). Once the court appoints a guardian, there is no longer a "proposed ward," but a "ward,” implying that the relationship as attorney ad litem should end once the "proposed ward” has become a "ward.” Id. § 601(27); Coleson v. Bethan, 931 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1996, no writ).