...but for many of the folks I work with, I question how it would actually help. Also, the funds for the lawyer are presumably going to come either from state funds or from the person's own SSI money, and that's just going to decrease the person's services and quality of life.

Many of my clients, upon turning 22, were appointed guardians who are random lawyers who do guardianship for a living. They aren't family members or friends who have any connection to the person's background. Sure, they make sure everything gets signed and taken care of in a timely manner, but most of them don't do any advocating or even have any sort of involvement in the person's actual treatment. When I provide individual therapy for people with this type of guardian, I send them the contract and they fax it back with their signature consenting to the person receiving therapy. I've not ever had one of these lawyer-type guardians call me and ask me what I plan to do with the person, or even just touch base with me to get some basic sense of whether I'm actually a therapist. When I worked in residential programs I never once had one of these guardians come to a meeting about the client -- where we did things like write treatment plans or discuss a proposed move to another type of program. I don't really see how having a second lawyer with no knowledge of the person is going to make things better.

There already are laws in place regarding what guardians can and can't do. It's loose language about the guardian acting in the best interest of the person, but DPPC and DMR and the Arcs and whatnot usually manage to use it to stop guardians from doing things that really aren't in the person's best interest. I had a client whose guardian (one of his parents) wanted to stop by the residential program where I saw him and sit in on his therapy sessions whenever he wanted, saying that it was his right as his guardian. I didn't need a lawyer to solve this. I had the client's insurance company write me a couple-of-sentences letter stating that individual therapy was to be provided in a private and confidential setting, and confidentiality was only to be violated with a release and when it was for the sake of improving treatment, and specifying that this applies to minors and people under guardianship as well. Then I had the DMR case manager explain to the guardian that it violates the person's human rights to have anyone interrupt or eavesdrop during a therapy session, regardless of who it is. If DMR and the insurance company hadn't gotten through to this guardian, I could called DPPC or my licensing board.

I've just not ever run into a situation regarding a sketchy guardian where there isn't already an agency in place to take care of such problems. Maybe there are other types of situations where a lawyer would be needed -- please let me know if there are. Also, would the person making complaints about the guardianship be required to go through DPPC (and DMR/DMH/etc. as appropriate) before being able to secure a lawyer using already-sparse disability services money?