Guardian Ad Litem Is Not Immune from Legal Malpractice Claim

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a guardian ad litem (GAL), an attorney appointed to represent the legal interests and the best interests of a minor child in a legal proceeding, is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity from legal malpractice suits. The trial court had dismissed a legal malpractice claim against a GAL arising from the GAL’s alleged failure to provide competent representation to an infant child in a dependency matter. In the underlying matter, the child was removed from the parents’ care and placed, not with next of kin, but in foster care, before ultimately being returned to the parents after the GAL was removed. The trial court held that the GAL performed a quasi-judicial adjudicatory function based upon her statutory duty to assist the court in determining the child’s best interests and, thus, was entitled to immunity from a legal malpractice suit. 

On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, finding that it could not rule upon an issue of first impression involving policy considerations by the litigants, such as whether GALs are entitled to judicial immunity. 

The Supreme Court rejected the Superior Court’s basis for reversing the trial court, succinctly noting that the Superior Court has the authority to decide such matters. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the order reversing the trial court, holding that GALs are not entitled to judicial immunity from legal malpractice claims. The court noted, “[a] dependency GAL is a lawyer with professional responsibilities to the client pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It is counterintuitive to insist that eliminating the possibility of malpractice suits is the way to incentivize proper representation of a child. Like adults, children deserve competent representation, as well as recourse if they do not receive it.” 

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}