Scott Rahn, Founding and Managing Partner of RMO LLP, shares his thoughts on conservatorship and the Britney Spears case with Private Client Global Elite. 

The #FreeBritney movement has been rapidly growing thanks to the New York Times’ recent documentary “Framing Britney.” The documentary brings heightened awareness to the concept of conservatorships and highlights some of the issues with having an icon such as Britney Spears under such control at the age of 39.

The court-established conservatorship certainly made sense at the beginning when Britney was the world’s biggest pop star and succumbed to a breakdown in 2007 and 2008 that generated  very public images of her with a shaved head. A media horde followed her every move as she checked into rehab and twice into a psychiatric ward. At that time, a Spears acquaintance, Sam Lutfi, seemed to gain influence over her affairs, which worried Spears’ family and friends.

Soon after the second psychiatric hospitalization, Spears’ father, Jamie, petitioned for a temporary general probate conservatorship. On Feb. 1, 2008, the Los Angeles Superior Court placed Spears under a temporary conservatorship with Jamie as her temporary conservator and a co-conservator, attorney Andrew Wallet, overseeing her estate.

Jamie Spears got a restraining order against Lutfi, alleging that Lutfi he had been drugging, isolating and verbally abusing Britney.  By the end of 2008, the conservatorship became permanent.

But in the past few months, Britney is said to be in good mental health and has been described by her lawyer as a “high-functioning conservatee.” Britney no longer wants Jamie in control of her finances and livelihood, and her argument for having a voice in despite being conserved is compelling – she isn’t asking for the conservatorship to end, only that a qualified corporate fiduciary who can act as an impartial ruler over her well-being be given authority.

Until recently, Jamie has enjoyed de facto control over Britney and her affairs. That changed when a judge ruled against her father in February in denying his request to have control over her investments.

In our experience with the California probate courts, fighting conservatorship abuse and modifying or terminating a conservatorship is challenging, especially where the conservatee is disabled.  However, where abuse can be proven objectively, or where can be demonstrated that the conservatee no longer requires the protections of a conservatorship because he or she has recovered from the circumstances that necessitated the conservatorship in the first place and are now able to make their own financial and life decisions the process can be successful.  Here, in a case like Britney’s, where so much of the celebrity’s life has been managed for so long, even before the conservatorship, it may be even more difficult to make this showing, certainly without medical and behavioral experts who can discern her capability to care for herself.

This most recent court ruling shows us that courts take conservatorships very seriously, and try diligently to evaluate the need for a conservatorship and who is acting in the capacity of conservator to make sure that the conservatee is cared for.  However, until Britney expresses a desire to terminate the conservatorship and shows the court that she is capable and prepared to manage her own affairs, it appears unlikely that the court will end the conservatorship as some fans want.  Still, Britney is relatively young, certainly for the average conservatee, and recent developments just show us that her voice is growing and she wants to be heard, which may be the first sign since the conservatorship began in 2008 that a request to terminate the conservatorship may not be too far off in the distant future.

If you would like to discuss further, Scott can be can be reached at (424) 320-9444 or [email protected]. Scott represents beneficiaries, professional and corporate fiduciaries in contested trust, estate and probate litigation and conservatorship matters and related estate administration issues.