Santa Clara County Grand Jury • 2023-2024

Conservatorships:

33 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 9 findings

F1
The PDO found it difficult to compile conservatorship data that was requested by the Civil Grand Jury because of the limited tracking of outcomes and other limitations in the case management software used by the PDO. Their system does not track post-adjudication conservatorship cases, which makes it impossible to collect and analyze data, track outcomes, and efficiently monitor the status of older cases.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1
The Legislature hereby declares that, except as otherwise specifically provided by law, each proposed ward has the right to have an attorney before a guardianship is imposed to ask the court for relief, and each ward has the right to: a. Have an attorney at any time during a guardianship to ask the court for relief. b. Receive notice of all guardianship proceedings and all proceedings relating to a determination of capacity unless the court determines that the ward lacks the capacity to comprehend such a notice. c. Receive a copy of all documents filed in a guardianship proceeding. d. Have a family member, an interested party, a person of natural affection, an advocate for the ward or a medical provider speak or raise any issues of concern on behalf of the ward during a court hearing; either orally or in writing, including, without limitation, issues relating to a conflict with a guardian. As used in this paragraph, “person of natural affection” means a person who is not a family member of the ward but who shares a relationship with the ward that is similar to the relationship between family members. e. Be educated about guardianships and ask questions and express concerns and complaints about a guardian and the actions of a guardian, either orally or in writing. f. Participate in developing a plan for his or her care, including, without limitation, managing his or her assets and personal property and determining his or her residence and the manner in which he or she will receive services. g. Have due consideration given to his or her current and previously stated personal desires, p
R1a
The PDO should develop a tracking system that is capable of accurate, detailed, and timely data collection. This recommendation should be implemented
R1b
The PDO should develop data analytics that establish metrics in conservatorship cases and track data on subjects like conservatorships denied or avoided, proceedings that result in protecting the conservator, and cases that are terminated. This recommendation should be implemented
F2
The PDO indicated that they are the attorney of record for more than 3000 probate conservatees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The PDO should ascertain which of their conservatorship cases should be terminated due to the conservatee’s death. This recommendation should be implemented
F3
The PDO does not actively monitor post-adjudicated probate conservatorship cases in the County where an estate is not involved.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3a
The PDO should review all probate conservatorship cases where they are attorney of record to determine what case management and case monitoring responsibilities are owed to these clients based on changes to various California laws that expressly require zealous advocacy and new standards for establishing and maintaining a probate conservatorship.
R3b
The PDO should adopt a proactive case management model for all cases for which it is attorney of record. This recommendation should be implemented
F4
The PDO currently has one attorney assigned to handle probate conservatorships. The number of proposed conservatees that will need representation from the PDO is likely to grow because of the mandatory appointment and the gaining population in the County. Under the new legislative guidelines that have recently been enacted (e.g., zealous advocacy, changes to conservatorship standards), it seems infeasible that one attorney can provide sufficient representation for the number of conservatees in the County that will need representation from the PDO.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4a
The PDO should research and determine the ideal caseload per attorney and the staffing needed to accommodate a proactive style of case management that accounts for recent legislative changes. This recommendation should be implemented
R4b
The PDO should evaluate its resource needs to best serve the growing needs of conservatees in the County and request appropriate funding from the County. This recommendation should be implemented
F5
The current PDO attorney is compliant in the required probate conservatorship training. The Civil Grand Jury’s concern is that there is currently just one lawyer in the PDO that is handling probate conservatorships. This leaves little opportunity for cross-training and peer-to-peer collaboration. Further, the supervisor of this division is not required to have probate conservatorship expertise.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The PDO should cross train staff specific to conservatorship law and develop written materials to ensure that institutional knowledge is maintained despite attorney turnover. This recommendation should be implemented
F6
A cognitively impaired client may struggle to challenge or complain about the quality of their legal representation. The PDO does not have formal performance standards or probate case reviews, and the direct supervisor is not required to have expertise in probate law.
Related Recommendations (3)
R6a
The PDO should establish detailed performance standards and quality management standards for conservatorship attorneys. These standards should be monitored by a supervisor knowledgeable in conservatorship law and advocacy. This recommendation should be implemented
R6b
The PDO should randomly select a percentage of cases for quality review for each attorney annually. New attorneys should submit for review all written pleadings to the supervisor in the first year. This recommendation should be implemented
R6c
The PDO should have regular staff meetings for all staff handling probate conservatorships to discuss policies and cases to ensure uniformity in service and goals. This recommendation should be implemented
F7
The Nevada Model has a standing order with the court to establish access to clients' records. This saves a significant amount of time and resources.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The PDO should explore streamlined ways for attorneys to get needed information in preparation for probate conservatorship cases. For example: • Hospital records • Doctors’ office records • Bank records • Family records • Guardian records • Regional center records This recommendation should be implemented
F8
The GAP achieved success by developing a plan that tracked conservatorship-related data, created a training program, and implemented best practices for case management, which were all designed to effectuate client-directed services that embodied the ideal of zealous advocacy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
The PDO should consult with a third party to evaluate its current policies and processes for conservatorship defense and develop a strategic plan for best practices. This should include detailed data collection and analysis, caseloads, outcomes, training, staffing, and quality assurance controls. The strategic plan should be re-evaluated regularly. This recommendation should be implemented
F9
The Civil Grand Jury found the PDO’s staff to be very helpful and committed to improving the performance of conservatee representation. The dedication of the attorney was evident and appreciated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
Page 26
No recommendation.

Conclusions 11

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

County of Santa Clara Agency