The litigation guardian for a minor plaintiff brought a motion seeking to be replaced by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer as litigation guardian.
The moving party argued that the potential costs consequences of an upcoming summary judgment motion created a conflict of interest and justified the substitution.
The court held that concern over possible personal costs liability did not constitute an adverse interest within the meaning of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court further emphasized that the Children’s Lawyer is a litigation guardian of last resort and should not replace a capable and financially able parent absent evidence of true conflict or inability to act.
The motion was dismissed.
