(a) When a client’s capacity to make adequately considered decisions in connection with a representation is diminished, whether because of minority, mental impairment or for some other reason, the lawyer shall, as far as reasonably possible, maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship with the client.

(b) When the lawyer reasonably believes that the client has diminished capacity, is at risk of substantial physical, financial or other harm unless action is taken and cannot adequately act in the client’s own interest, the lawyer may take reasonably necessary protective action, including consulting with individuals or entities that have the ability to take action to protect the client and, in appropriate cases, seeking the appointment of a fiduciary, including a guardian, curator or tutor, to protect the client’s interests.

(c) Information relating to the representation of a client with diminished capacity is protected by Rule 1.6. When taking protective action pursuant to paragraph (b), the lawyer is impliedly authorized under Rule 1.6(a) to reveal information about the client, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the client’s interests.

Background

The Louisiana Supreme Court reenacted this rule on January 20, 2004. It became effective on March 1, 2004. However, the ABA amended Model Rule 1.14 on February 9, 2026. The ABA rule now differs from the Louisiana Rule in several respects.

The most apparent difference is the title itself. Louisiana retains the older title “Client with Diminished Capacity,” while the ABA has retitled the rule “Client with Decision-Making Limitations.” This change in nomenclature reflects a broader shift in how the ABA conceptualizes the issue — moving away from language that describes the client as having a deficiency in “capacity” (a term with specific legal connotations regarding competency) and toward language that focuses on functional limitations in the decision-making process.

Turning to paragraph (a), the structural and substantive differences are significant. Louisiana’s version describes the triggering condition as a client whose “capacity to make adequately considered decisions in connection with a representation is diminished, whether because of minority, mental impairment or for some other reason.” The revised ABA rule takes a fundamentally different approach. Rather than identifying causes of the limitation (minority, mental impairment, or otherwise), the ABA now provides a functional definition: a person has decision-making limitations “if the person has substantial difficulty receiving and understanding information, evaluating information, or making or communicating decisions even with appropriate supports or accommodations.” This functional definition is entirely absent from the Louisiana rule. The ABA’s inclusion of the phrase “even with appropriate supports or accommodations” is particularly notable, as it reflects contemporary thinking about supported decision-making and signals that the rule applies only when limitations persist despite efforts to accommodate the client — a concept not addressed in Louisiana’s version.

Additionally, the revised ABA paragraph (a) specifies that the duty to maintain the ordinary relationship applies “including when the client’s decision-making limitations impact the client’s ability to provide direction to the lawyer or make reasoned, informed choices.” Louisiana’s rule contains no such elaboration. There is also a minor wording difference: Louisiana uses “normal client-lawyer relationship” while the ABA uses “ordinary client-lawyer relationship.”

Paragraph (b) reveals both structural and substantive divergences. The revised ABA rule separates the three conditions for protective action into numbered sub-paragraphs — (1) the client has decision-making limitations, (2) the client is at risk of substantial harm unless action is taken, and (3) the client cannot adequately act in the client’s own interest to address the risk — making the requirements more discrete and easier to parse. Louisiana’s version presents these same conditions in a single unbroken sentence. 

The most significant substantive difference in paragraph (b) involves the examples of protective action. Louisiana’s rule expressly illustrates what protective action may include: “consulting with individuals or entities that have the ability to take action to protect the client and, in appropriate cases, seeking the appointment of a fiduciary, including a guardian, curator or tutor, to protect the client’s interests.” The revised ABA rule, by contrast, eliminates all examples from the black-letter text. It simply states that the lawyer “may take reasonably necessary protective action to address the risk” without specifying what form that action might take. The older version of the ABA rule had listed “seeking the appointment of a guardian ad litem, conservator or guardian” as examples. By removing these examples, the revised ABA rule avoids privileging any particular form of protective action — especially guardianship, which has come under increased scrutiny — and gives lawyers broader discretion to pursue the least restrictive alternatives. Louisiana’s rule, meanwhile, still foregrounds guardianship-type remedies (using the civil law terminology of “fiduciary,” “guardian,” “curator,” and “tutor”) as express options in the rule text.

The ABA’s revised paragraph (b) also adds the trailing phrase “to address the risk” in two places, tying the protective action more directly to the identified risk of harm. Louisiana’s version lacks this specificity.

Paragraph (c) presents differences in framing rather than substance. Louisiana states that when taking protective action, “the lawyer is impliedly authorized under Rule 1.6(a) to reveal information about the client, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the client’s interests.” The revised ABA version drops the “impliedly authorized under Rule 1.6(a)” framework entirely and simply states that “the lawyer may reveal information related to the representation to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to protect the client’s interests.” This change accomplishes two things. First, it decouples the disclosure authority from the specific “implied authorization” mechanism of Rule 1.6(a), making it a more freestanding permission. Second, it shifts from an objective standard (“reasonably necessary”) to a subjective-with-objective-overlay standard (“reasonably believes necessary”), giving the lawyer somewhat more latitude while still requiring that the belief be objectively reasonable. Louisiana retains the older, purely objective “reasonably necessary” formulation anchored to Rule 1.6(a). Another subtle difference: Louisiana authorizes disclosure of “information about the client,” while the ABA authorizes disclosure of “information related to the representation” — a potentially broader category.

In summary, Louisiana Rule 1.14 remains substantively closer to the pre-revision ABA Model Rule from 2002. It retains the “diminished capacity” framing, identifies causes rather than defining the condition functionally, includes specific examples of protective action using Louisiana civil law terminology, and ties its disclosure authorization to the implied-authority mechanism of Rule 1.6(a). The revised ABA Model Rule reflects a modernized, disability-rights-informed approach that defines the triggering condition by functional criteria rather than diagnostic labels, acknowledges the role of supports and accommodations, strips specific remedies (particularly guardianship) from the black-letter text to encourage least-restrictive alternatives, and creates a more flexible disclosure standard.

Comments to ABA Model Rule 1.14

Client Abilities and Limitations 

[1] A client’s decision-making limitations do not diminish the lawyer’s obligations under the Rules or the importance of treating the client with attention and respect. Except as provided in this Rule, a client with decision-making limitations is owed all the protections under the Rules ordinarily afforded by the client-lawyer relationship.

[2] Decision-making limitations can be situational in nature and can vary in degree and over time. A client may have decision-making limitations with regard to certain issues and not others. A client with decision-making limitations often can understand, deliberate upon, and reach conclusions about matters affecting the client’s own well-being. For example, some adults with substantial decision-making limitations, including those due to intellectual, developmental or cognitive disabilities, mental health conditions or substance abuse disorder, can make legal decisions. In addition, even if unable to make some or all decisions, persons with decision-making limitations, including even very young minors, may have preferences and values that can guide the lawyer’s representation.

[3] A client’s decision-making limitations may be affected by multiple factors. Sometimes decision-making limitations can be alleviated or eliminated by using supports or making accommodations to enhance the client’s decision-making abilities, and such use can assist the lawyer in maintaining an ordinary client-lawyer relationship. Examples of supports and accommodations include communication devices or services, assistance of appropriate third parties or supported decision-making, environmental changes (e.g., conducting client meetings in a familiar setting), and using plain language or otherwise modifying the lawyer’s communication and counseling techniques for the client.

Ordinary Client-Lawyer Relationship 

[4] Lawyers are required to maintain, as far as reasonably possible, an ordinary client-lawyer relationship with clients with decision-making limitations. An ordinary client-lawyer relationship requires, among other things, abiding by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of the representation; keeping a client informed about the status of the matter and explaining matters to the extent reasonably necessary for a client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; and rendering candid advice to a client. See Rules 1.2, 1.4, and 2.1. An ordinary client-lawyer relationship is based, in part, on the assumption that the client, when properly advised and assisted, can make and communicate reasoned, informed decisions about important matters. When the client has decision-making limitations, however, maintaining an ordinary client-lawyer relationship may not be possible in all respects. In particular, a client with decision-making limitations may have limited ability to make or communicate legally binding decisions. 

[5] The client may wish to have family members or other persons participate in discussions with the lawyer. The lawyer should seek the client’s informed consent to the presence of such persons. See Rule 1.6(a). If the presence of such persons assists in the representation, the lawyer should document that role when such documentation could help avoid a waiver of the attorney-client evidentiary privilege. 

Nevertheless, the lawyer must keep the client’s interests foremost and, except for protective action authorized under paragraph (b), must look to the client, and not family members or other persons, to make decisions on the client’s behalf. Whenever possible, the lawyer should afford the client the opportunity to communicate privately with the lawyer without the presence or influence of others.

[6] When a family member or another seeks a lawyer’s services on behalf of an individual who may have decision-making limitations, the lawyer should identify who the client is and seek to establish an ordinary lawyer-client relationship with that client. When a family member or another seeks the lawyer’s assistance in drafting a legal document to be executed by an individual who may have decision-making limitations, the lawyer should be alert to the possibility of undue influence or fraud.

[7] When the client has granted an agent authority to make decisions, including an agent acting under a power of attorney, the lawyer nevertheless should take direction from the client and maintain communication with the client to the extent feasible unless the client has otherwise directed or is unable to provide direction. In addition, a lawyer may consult with and represent a person who seeks to challenge the actions of an agent or terminate or modify the agent’s appointment. When representing a client in such situations, the lawyer must take direction from the client and advocate for the client’s objectives. 

When a court has appointed a guardian, conservator or other appointee who is not a guardian ad litem to act on behalf of a lawyer’s client or prospective client, a lawyer should ordinarily look to the court appointee for those decisions on behalf of the client or prospective client over which the appointee has authority.

However, a lawyer may consult with and represent a person subject to guardianship or conservatorship who seeks representation to challenge or modify the terms of that arrangement, or who seeks representation with regard to any other matter over which the person retains decision-making authority. When representing a client in such situations, the lawyer must take direction from the client and advocate for the client’s objectives.

If a lawyer represents the guardian, conservator, or agent of a person with decision-making limitations, and is aware that the guardian, conservator or agent is acting adversely to the person’s interest, the lawyer may have an obligation to prevent or rectify the misconduct.

[8] When a client in a criminal matter appears to have decision-making limitations, the lawyer’s ethical duty to render competent representation and to protect the client’s constitutional rights may require the lawyer to seek a competency evaluation or other mental health evaluation to determine whether the client is capable of deciding whether to testify or to plead guilty or to determine whether the client can meaningfully participate in preparation for trial, sentencing or another adjudicatory process. Because a client’s liberty may be at stake, these questions are uniquely difficult. Judicial decisions vary regarding whether, without the client’s informed consent, a lawyer for the accused may or must raise doubts with the court about the competency of the accused. In such situations, lawyers should inform themselves of relevant judicial decisions and other authority in the jurisdiction and are encouraged to seek guidance from other organizations and resources, such as the ABA Defense Function Standard on Establishing and Maintaining an Effective Client Relationship and the ABA Criminal Justice Standards on Mental Health.

[9] A lawyer representing a minor should be mindful that the minor may have decision-making limitations due to age and stage of development. As with adult clients with decision-making limitations, the lawyer for a minor with decision-making limitations should, as far as reasonably possible maintain an ordinary client-lawyer relationship. Accordingly, a lawyer for a minor capable of providing direction ordinarily should advocate for the minor’s objectives of the representation. See Rule 1.2(a). In assessing the minor’s decision-making limitations, including with regard to providing direction on a legal matter, a lawyer should consider a variety of factors such as the minor’s developmental stage, cognitive ability, emotional development, ability to communicate, ability to understand consequences, and consistency of decisions, the informed opinions of professionals and others with knowledge of the child’s abilities and limitations, and the factors identified in Comment [13].

[10] A lawyer acting as guardian ad litem for a person is often tasked with advocating for the best interest of that person. Because the lawyer’s assessment of what is in the best interest of that person may diverge from that person’s objectives, lawyers who simultaneously act as a guardian ad litem for a person and provide direct legal representation of that person may find themselves in an ethically untenable position and should consider the need to withdraw as counsel or request to be relieved of the guardian ad litem appointment.

[11] A lawyer representing a client with decision-making limitations can employ a variety of techniques to ensure that the lawyer’s representation is competent. For example, the lawyer can use developmentally appropriate interviewing and counseling skills when representing a minor, employ or invite the client to use supports and accommodations that make it easier for the client to understand and communicate information, or meet with the client at a place and time where the client is likely to have less difficulty providing direction. To identify and learn such techniques, lawyers can seek guidance from resources developed by professional associations and others with expertise in working with individuals with decision-making limitations.

Taking Protective Action

[12] If a lawyer reasonably believes that a client is at risk of substantial physical, financial or other harm unless action is taken, and that an ordinary client-lawyer relationship cannot be maintained as provided in paragraph (a), paragraph (b) permits the lawyer to take protective measures the lawyer deems necessary. Such measures could include: consulting with family members; using a reconsideration period to permit clarification or improvement of circumstances; using voluntary surrogate decision-making tools such as durable powers of attorney; or consulting with support groups, healthcare professionals, other professional services, adult-protective agencies, or other persons or entities that have the ability to protect the client. In taking any protective action, the lawyer should be guided by such factors as the wishes and values of the client to the extent known, the client’s best interests, and the goals of minimizing intrusion into the client’s decision-making autonomy, maximizing client capacities and respecting the client’s family and social connections. In litigation involving the capacity of the client, such as a guardianship or conservatorship proceeding, the lawyer should advocate for the client’s expressed position regarding what, if any, protective action should be taken.

[13] In determining the extent of the client’s decision-making limitations, the lawyer should consider and balance such factors as: the client’s ability to articulate reasoning leading to a decision; variability of state of mind and ability to understand consequences of a decision; appreciation of the substantive fairness of a decision; the consistency of a decision with the known long-term commitments and values of the client; and whether supports or accommodations could alleviate factors contributing to decision-making limitations. A lawyer’s reasonable belief that the client cannot make and communicate reasoned, informed decisions may be based on the lawyer’s own observations. In forming a reasonable belief, a lawyer should ordinarily not rely exclusively on a medical diagnosis, but rather should consider the client’s functional abilities and whether the limitations in the client’s abilities could be alleviated by the use of accommodations or supports. In forming a reasonable belief, a lawyer who is aware of a healthcare professional’s evaluation of the client’s current abilities and limitations should take such evaluation into consideration. However, the lawyer should recognize that the evaluation may have been done for a different purpose, and that the evaluator may have evaluated the client based on standards that differ from the relevant legal standard and at a time when client’s abilities differed from the present.

[14] A determination that a client has decision-making limitations need not have been made by a healthcare professional or court for a lawyer to form a reasonable belief that a client has such limitations. Nevertheless, in appropriate circumstances, the lawyer may seek guidance from a healthcare professional with relevant expertise or with knowledge of the client’s abilities or limitations. If obtaining such guidance requires revealing confidential information about the client and the client does not or cannot give informed consent, it is permissible only if it is a reasonably necessary protective action under paragraph (b).

[15] If a lawyer reasonably believes that the client meets the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this Rule, the lawyer may consider whether appointment of a guardian ad litem, conservator or guardian is necessary to protect the client’s interests. For example, if the client has substantial property that should be sold for the client’s benefit, effective completion of the transaction may require appointment of a guardian or conservator, which may be temporary or limited in nature, or a court order in lieu of such an appointment. In addition, rules of procedure in litigation sometimes provide that minors or persons with decision-making limitations must have their interests represented by a guardian ad litem or next friend if they do not have a general guardian. In many circumstances, however, appointment of such a legal representative may be more intrusive, expensive or traumatic for the client than circumstances in fact require. Evaluation of such circumstances is a matter entrusted to the professional judgment of the lawyer. In considering alternatives, however, the lawyer should generally advocate the least restrictive action on behalf of the client, and be aware of any law that so requires. The lawyer should also communicate with the client regarding such protective action to the extent feasible unless doing so is not necessary for the client to make informed choices about the representation and would be detrimental to the client or the lawyer’s ability to protect the client’s interests. See Rule 1.4.

[16] If another person has petitioned a court for an appointment of a conservator or a guardian or another restriction on the client’s legal capacity, the lawyer may not advocate for such an appointment or restriction if the client opposes it. If the lawyer represents a client who is a respondent in a proceeding for guardianship or conservatorship, the lawyer must advocate for the client’s objectives if known or ascertainable.

[17] Taking protective action under paragraph (b) of this Rule does not, without more, require the lawyer to terminate the representation. However, the lawyer must inform the client of the protective action and should consider whether withdrawing from the representation has become necessary under Rule 1.16(a). For example, the lawyer may have a conflict of interest necessitating withdrawal in light of the particular protective action, the subject of the representation, the nature of the client-lawyer relationship, and other relevant considerations. See, e.g., Rule 1.7.

Disclosure of Information When Taking Protective Action 

[18] Disclosure of the client’s decision-making limitations could adversely affect the client’s interests, including constitutional or other legal rights. For example, raising the question of decision-making limitations could, in some circumstances, lead to proceedings for involuntary civil commitment. Information relating to the representation is protected by Rule 1.6. When taking protective action pursuant to paragraph (b), the lawyer may reveal information about the representation without the client’s informed consent, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the client’s interests. Nevertheless, given the risks of disclosure, paragraph (c) limits what the lawyer may disclose in consulting with other persons or entities or seeking the appointment of a legal representative. At the very least, the lawyer should determine whether it is likely that the person or entity consulted with will act adversely to the client’s interests before discussing matters related to the client.

Emergency Legal Assistance

[19] In an emergency where a substantial health, safety or financial interest of a person with decision-making limitations is threatened with imminent and irreparable harm, a lawyer may take legal action on behalf of such a person even though the person is unable to establish a client-lawyer relationship or to make or communicate reasoned, informed judgments about the matter. Such action may be taken when the person has consulted with the lawyer or when another acting in good faith on that person’s behalf has consulted with the lawyer.

Even in such an emergency, however, the lawyer should not act unless the lawyer reasonably believes that the person with decision-making limitations has no other lawyer, agent or other representative available to act. The lawyer should take legal action on behalf of the person with decision-making limitations only to the extent reasonably necessary to maintain the status quo or otherwise avoid imminent and irreparable harm. A lawyer who undertakes to represent a person with decision-making limitations in such an exigent situation has the same duties under these Rules as the lawyer would with respect to a client.

[20] A lawyer who in an emergency acts on behalf of a person with decision-making limitations who is unable to establish a client-lawyer relationship should keep the confidences of the person with decision-making limitations as if dealing with a client, disclosing them only to the extent necessary to accomplish the intended protective action. The lawyer should disclose to any tribunal involved and to any other counsel involved the nature of the lawyer’s relationship with the person with decision-making limitations. The lawyer should take steps to regularize the relationship or implement other protective solutions as soon as possible. Ordinarily, a lawyer would not seek compensation for such emergency actions taken.

Annotations

Generally

Dealing with an incapacitated—or potentially incapacitated—client presents difficult, and sometimes intractable, issues. Paragraph (a) of this rule directs the lawyer to maintain a normal lawyer-client relationship with the client if at all possible. Thus, even if a client appears to be moderately or intermittently impaired, the lawyer must communicate and consult with the client just as the lawyer would with any other client.

However, if the lawyer reasonably believes that the impairment has substantially affected the client’s ability consistently to make reasoned decisions regarding the matter, the lawyer should consider seeking the appointment of a curator, tutor, or other legal representative. In deciding whether this or similar action is appropriate, the lawyer generally should pursue the “least restrictive action” necessitated by the circumstances. ABA Comm. on Ethics & Pro. Resp., Formal Op. 96-404 (1996). Once a curator or tutor has qualified for office and has received appropriate letters from the court, the lawyer generally should seek direction from that fiduciary rather than from the incapacitated client. Nevertheless, vis-à-vis the fiduciary and the incapacitated person, the “client” remains the incapacitated person for purposes of determining whose best interest should be protected.

Although Louisiana Rule 1.14 has not yet been amended to conform to the ABA’s February 2026 revision of Model Rule 1.14—now retitled “Client with Decision-Making Limitations”—Louisiana lawyers can and should look to the revised rule and its substantially expanded comments for practical guidance in representing clients whose decision-making abilities are compromised. Under current Louisiana Rule 1.14, a lawyer must maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship “as far as reasonably possible” and may take “reasonably necessary protective action” only when the lawyer reasonably believes the client has diminished capacity, faces substantial harm, and cannot adequately act in the client’s own interest. To properly discharge these duties, Louisiana lawyers should begin by adapting their communication methods—using plain language, visual aids, interpreters, or other accommodations—to maximize the client’s ability to understand, deliberate, and direct the representation. Where possible, lawyers should explore supported decision-making, which involves enlisting trusted family members, social workers, or other support persons to help the client receive and evaluate information, rather than defaulting to the substitution of a lawyer’s or third party’s judgment for that of the client. Protective action, including seeking the appointment of a guardian, curator, or tutor, should be treated as a last resort after less restrictive alternatives have been considered and found inadequate. Throughout, the lawyer should document the process—communication efforts, accommodations attempted, alternatives explored—rather than recording conclusory assessments of the client’s competence.

The comments to revised ABA Model Rule 1.14 offer Louisiana lawyers significant persuasive authority in navigating these difficult situations, as the Louisiana Supreme Court has long treated the comments to the ABA Model Rules as persuasive guidance in interpreting the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct. The new comments provide a roadmap that Louisiana lawyers can use in several important respects. First, they explicitly recognize supported decision-making as an ethical accommodation that enhances a client’s ability to make legal decisions rather than an abdication of professional responsibility. Second, they emphasize that decision-making limitations are context-specific and variable—a client may be perfectly capable of directing routine matters while needing assistance with complex transactions—discouraging lawyers from making sweeping judgments about a client’s global capacity. Third, the comments clearly state that guardianship or conservatorship “may be more intrusive than circumstances require” and should not be reflexively pursued, aligning with cases in which lawyers have faced discipline or malpractice liability for initiating guardianship without adequate justification or for failing to advocate for the least restrictive alternative. Fourth, the comments clarify that a lawyer may ethically represent a client who already has a guardian or legal representative, including in challenging the scope of that authority. Louisiana lawyers who familiarize themselves with these expanded comments and integrate their principles into practice will be better positioned both to serve their clients and to defend their professional judgment if challenged. 

Representing Minors

A lawyer representing a minor is entitled to learn through discovery the location of the lawyer’s client, even though the client is in foster care. See In Interest of Genusa, 381 So. 2d 504, 506 (La. 1980). Moreover, a lawyer representing a child who “has no legal representative to whom the attorney may look in making decisions… may be forced to make them himself.” Id. at 505. In so doing, the lawyer should “consider all the circumstances,” and act in the best interests of the client. Id.

Disciplinary Sanctions

The Louisiana Supreme Court imposed disbarment where a lawyer’s violation of Rule 1.14 was “egregious” because he “intentionally used his legal skills” to take advantage of an “obviously vulnerable victim.” In re Letellier, 742 So. 2d 544 (La. 1999);In re Cofield, 937 So. 2d 330, 343 (La. 2006) (finding that lawyer breached his fiduciary obligations as a trustee for a mentally-disabled client, engaged in questionable transactions with the client, and attempted to thwart attempts by the client’s family to remove the lawyer as trustee) (citing In re Letellier, 742 So. 2d 544 (La. 1999)); see also In re Maxwell, 44 So. 3d 668, 675 (La. 2010) (imposing permanent disbarment on lawyer for misconduct towards incapacitated client); Maunsel W. Hickey et al., Incapacity of Clients or Family Members, 1 La. Prac. Est. Plan. § 4:149 (2018 ed.)

Notes

This page was last updated October 2026.