The American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility released a formal opinion Wednesday providing updated guidance for lawyers representing clients with decision-making limitations. Formal Opinion 525 is intended to help lawyers fulfill their professional responsibilities while respecting the rights, preferences and dignity of clients with decision-making limitations.
Opinion 525 says that a lawyer who determines that his client has decision-making limitations is obligated under Rule 1.14 to maintain an ordinary client-lawyer relationship insofar as possible. It also says that lawyers owe clients with decision-making limitations the same obligations as any other client, including abiding by the client’s decisions regarding the objectives of the representation.
This opinion addresses questions such as: How does a lawyer go about determining the extent of the client’s decision-making limitations? May the lawyer consult with family members or others? May the lawyer petition the court to appoint a guardian for the client?
Is the lawyer ever obligated to do so? May the lawyer represent a third party petitioning for guardianship? May the lawyer support the appointment of a particular guardian? When may the lawyer withdraw from representing the client?
Formal Opinion 525 substantially revises and supersedes ABA Formal Opinion 96-404 following the ABA’s adoption in February 2026 of a revised Model Rule 1.14. The revised rule replaces the term “diminished capacity” with “decision-making limitations,” recognizing that cognitive or other limitations may be situational, may change over time and do not necessarily prevent a person from making decisions about their own legal matters.
In limited circumstances, a lawyer may take protective action when the lawyer reasonably believes that the client has decision-making limitations, faces a risk of substantial physical, financial or other harm and cannot adequately act in the client’s own interest to address that risk.
Formal Opinion 525 recognizes that guardianship may sometimes be necessary but stresses that guardianship represents a serious deprivation of individual rights. Lawyers should not pursue guardianship when less restrictive alternatives are available. A lawyer may petition for guardianship on the client’s behalf under Model Rule 1.14. However, a lawyer may not represent a third party seeking guardianship over the lawyer’s own client because doing so would create a conflict of interest.
The opinion encourages lawyers to use appropriate supports and accommodations to help clients understand information and participate in decisions. These measures may include modified communication methods, plain-language explanations, assistance from appropriate third parties and supported decision-making.
Formal Opinion 525 also makes clear that lawyers must independently assess a client’s decision-making limitations rather than simply relying on a medical diagnosis or professional evaluation. Considerations may include the client’s ability to understand relevant information; explain the reasoning behind decisions; appreciate the consequences of decisions; and make choices consistent with the client’s values and commitments.
Although lawyers may withdraw from representation under Model Rule 1.16 when permitted, withdrawal is generally disfavored when it would leave a client without needed assistance. Whenever possible, lawyers should remain engaged, accommodate the client’s limitations and use appropriate protective measures while preserving the client’s autonomy and objectives.
The Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility periodically issues ethics opinions to guide lawyers, courts and the public in interpreting and applying the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
Opinion 525 says that a lawyer who determines that his client has decision-making limitations is obligated under Rule 1.14 to maintain an ordinary client-lawyer relationship insofar as possible. It also says that lawyers owe clients with decision-making limitations the same obligations as any other client, including abiding by the client’s decisions regarding the objectives of the representation.
This opinion addresses questions such as: How does a lawyer go about determining the extent of the client’s decision-making limitations? May the lawyer consult with family members or others? May the lawyer petition the court to appoint a guardian for the client?
Is the lawyer ever obligated to do so? May the lawyer represent a third party petitioning for guardianship? May the lawyer support the appointment of a particular guardian? When may the lawyer withdraw from representing the client?
Formal Opinion 525 substantially revises and supersedes ABA Formal Opinion 96-404 following the ABA’s adoption in February 2026 of a revised Model Rule 1.14. The revised rule replaces the term “diminished capacity” with “decision-making limitations,” recognizing that cognitive or other limitations may be situational, may change over time and do not necessarily prevent a person from making decisions about their own legal matters.
In limited circumstances, a lawyer may take protective action when the lawyer reasonably believes that the client has decision-making limitations, faces a risk of substantial physical, financial or other harm and cannot adequately act in the client’s own interest to address that risk.
Formal Opinion 525 recognizes that guardianship may sometimes be necessary but stresses that guardianship represents a serious deprivation of individual rights. Lawyers should not pursue guardianship when less restrictive alternatives are available. A lawyer may petition for guardianship on the client’s behalf under Model Rule 1.14. However, a lawyer may not represent a third party seeking guardianship over the lawyer’s own client because doing so would create a conflict of interest.
The opinion encourages lawyers to use appropriate supports and accommodations to help clients understand information and participate in decisions. These measures may include modified communication methods, plain-language explanations, assistance from appropriate third parties and supported decision-making.
Formal Opinion 525 also makes clear that lawyers must independently assess a client’s decision-making limitations rather than simply relying on a medical diagnosis or professional evaluation. Considerations may include the client’s ability to understand relevant information; explain the reasoning behind decisions; appreciate the consequences of decisions; and make choices consistent with the client’s values and commitments.
Although lawyers may withdraw from representation under Model Rule 1.16 when permitted, withdrawal is generally disfavored when it would leave a client without needed assistance. Whenever possible, lawyers should remain engaged, accommodate the client’s limitations and use appropriate protective measures while preserving the client’s autonomy and objectives.
The Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility periodically issues ethics opinions to guide lawyers, courts and the public in interpreting and applying the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
