Representing a Minor: A Shared Dilemma in Ontario and Massachusetts

Abstract

This commentary considers what lawyers should do when confidential information from their minor clients indicates that the minor's instructions either present a substantial risk of harm to the minor or are irrational. The commentary then asks readers to decide whether and how their personal resolution should be generalized into the law of professional responsibility. The author compares current Ontario and Massachusetts taw with a new Massachusetts proposal. The author strongly criticizes the proposal as violating the tenuous compromise between "client-directed" and "best- interests" or "substituted judgment" theories that appear to govern in both jurisdictions in favour of a rule that would direct lawyers to follow client instructions in most cases, no matter how harmful to the minor client.