The ABA just rewrote its guidance on clients with decision-making limitations.

Formal Opinion 525 replaces the ABA's earlier diminished-capacity guidance

On September 2, 2026, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility released Formal Opinion 525, Client with Decision-Making Limitations. The opinion interprets ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.14 as amended by the ABA House of Delegates at its February 2026 Midyear Meeting.

The ABA says Formal Opinion 525 substantially revises and supersedes Formal Opinion 96-404, the committee's earlier opinion on clients with diminished capacity.

The amended rule changes the terminology. It replaces "client with diminished capacity" with "client with decision-making limitations." It also changes "normal client-lawyer relationship" to "ordinary client-lawyer relationship."

The rule now defines the term. A person has decision-making limitations when the person has substantial difficulty receiving and understanding information, evaluating information, or making or communicating decisions, even with appropriate supports or accommodations.

The ABA explains that the new language recognizes that limitations may be situational and may change over time. They also do not necessarily prevent a person from making decisions about the person's own legal matters.

The client remains the client, even when decision-making is difficult

A lawyer who concludes that a client has decision-making limitations must, as far as reasonably possible, maintain an ordinary client-lawyer relationship with that client. The lawyer owes the client the same duties owed to any other client.

That includes abiding by the client's decisions about the objectives of the representation.

The opinion encourages lawyers to use supports and accommodations that help the client understand information and participate in decisions. The ABA identifies modified communication methods, plain-language explanations, help from appropriate third parties, and supported decision-making. The ABA Journal's coverage of the amendments also identified text-to-speech software as an example of a support.

Archivar, which publishes The Docket, is an operating system for law firms that answers every call around the clock in English and Spanish and runs intake. At many firms, the first contact about a client with decision-making limitations comes from a relative calling in. That is the moment when the opinion's point about who the client is first matters.

Protective action requires three findings

The opinion permits protective action only in limited circumstances. The lawyer must reasonably believe all three conditions are present: the client has decision-making limitations; the client faces a risk of substantial physical, financial, or other harm; and the client cannot adequately act in the client's own interest to address that risk.

The three-part test follows the opinion's emphasis on maintaining the ordinary client-lawyer relationship. A lawyer's concern about a client's decision does not, by itself, establish that protective action is permitted. The lawyer must also identify a substantial risk and conclude that the client cannot adequately address it.

Before seeking guardianship, the opinion identifies less restrictive options. They include consulting family members, using a durable power of attorney, and seeking appointment of a guardian ad litem for a single litigation matter.

Those options address different circumstances. A family consultation may provide information or assistance. A durable power of attorney may authorize another person to act. A guardian ad litem may be appointed for one litigation matter rather than for broader control over the client's affairs.

Guardianship remains a serious deprivation of rights

The opinion recognizes that guardianship may sometimes be necessary. It also says the appointment of a guardian is "a serious deprivation of the client's rights" and should not be pursued if less drastic solutions are available.

If guardianship does become necessary, the ABA Journal reports that the opinion says the lawyer may file the petition, and that it is preferable for family members or others to pursue the petition instead.

The lawyer must also separate the client's interests from the interests of a person seeking control over the client. A lawyer may not represent a third party, such as a relative, who is seeking a guardianship over the lawyer's own client. That representation would create a conflict of interest.

The amendments also clarify that a person who already has a guardian or other surrogate decision-maker can obtain legal help to challenge that arrangement. (The Docket covered Iowa's rule making guardianship reports confidential separately.)

Opinion 525 does not automatically change state duties

ABA Model Rules and ABA formal opinions are not binding on their own. They govern a lawyer only to the extent that a state's high court adopts the rule. A state's version of Rule 1.14 may still use the older "diminished capacity" wording.

Colorado is one example. Colorado's Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, in its OARC Update September 2026, flagged Formal Opinion 525 and noted that Colorado had not yet adopted the amended Rule 1.14. The update also said practitioners may still find the guidance useful. (The same update announced Colorado's amended Rule 6.5 for one-visit clinics.)

While preparing this piece, the desk found that the ABA's own page for the opinion would not open without a browser verification check, so every point in the article was confirmed against the ABA's published summary of the opinion, the ABA Journal's report of September 2, 2026, and Colorado's September 2026 regulation update before it ran.

The applicable state rule remains the starting point for a lawyer's obligations. The opinion can provide guidance, but it does not by itself amend a state's professional-conduct rules.

Three changes belong in the intake and file record

First, identify the client before responding to a relative's account of the matter. The relative may provide useful information, but the client's own decisions still govern the objectives of the representation unless the applicable rule and the facts permit a different step.

Second, try appropriate supports and accommodations before taking protective action. Record the communication method used, the plain-language explanation provided, any third-party assistance, and the client's response. If protective action is considered, record the analysis of each part of the three-part test: the limitation, the substantial risk, and the client's inability to act adequately in the client's own interest.

Third, screen for a conflict before agreeing to help a family member seek guardianship over a current client. Also check the version of Rule 1.14 adopted in the relevant jurisdiction before relying on the amended ABA language.

Use the client's decisions about representation objectives as the starting point. Treat guardianship as a last resort, not as the first response to a difficult decision.

The old phrase was "diminished capacity." The model rule now says "decision-making limitations."

Supports come first. Protective action needs three reasonable beliefs. Guardianship comes last.

Whether any of it binds a given lawyer still depends on that lawyer's own state rule.