In a case which we find shocking—before our Supreme Court rendered its opinion—a trial court deprived a plaintiff of her right to decide for herself whether to accept a settlement offer. It did so by appointing a guardian ad litem (GAL) for her and authorizing the GAL to make this critical decision. And it did all this without ever finding her incompetent to make this decision for herself or even holding a competency hearing. Moreover, it approved the GAL’s decision to accept a settlement offer over plaintiff’s strenuous objections.

We also find shocking the fact that the attorney who was representing the plaintiff, S.T., in a significant personal injury matter did not advise her about any of the steps he was taking to deprive her of her decision-making authority, a lapse criticized by the Supreme Court. Thus, he applied for the appointment of a GAL without serving her with a copy of his motion, thereby keeping her in the dark; did not advise her about a scheduled in-camera conference with the court at which the appointment of the GAL was to be decided; and did not advise her about the purpose of a psychiatric examination he had scheduled to obtain a report for use in his GAL application.