On behalf of the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel (NCCRC), I write to provide input on VA SB 345. While we support the bill’s appointment of counsel provisions, we urge the Committee to do more, as the right to counsel underpins all the substantive rights at stake for vulnerable adults in such proceedings. The NCCRC, organized and funded by the Public Justice Center, is an association of individuals and organizations committed to ensuring meaningful access to the courts for all. Founded in 2003, our mission is to encourage, support, and coordinate advocacy to expand recognition and implementation of a right to counsel for low-income people in civil cases that involve basic human needs, such as mental and physical health. At present, the NCCRC has over 1,000 participants and partners in 47 states, a number of whom are in Virginia. Currently, the majority of states provide a right to counsel for unrepresented protected persons in guardianship cases, so Virginia is in the minority in making such appointment discretionary. VA SB 345 would take a small step towards addressing this deficiency, but we are concerned there still be many situations where counsel is not appointed for the respondent despite being greatly needed. We therefore urge the Committee to require appointment of counsel in all cases where counsel has not been retained for the following reasons. First, virtually every fundamental right is at stake in guardianship: liberty, association, bodily integrity, and so on. In such a scenario, it is imperative that the protected person have an attorney who represents and advocates for their desired wishes so that such fundamental rights are fully protected. Second, both existing Virginia law and SB 345 will only lead to counsel being appointed if the court perceives the need, but the court is not in the best position to evaluate that need without hearing from the protected person. Without access to legal counsel and that confidential relationship, there is a risk that respondents will either (a) not understand matters sufficiently to know to object to or contest the petition so as to trigger the appointment of counsel; or (b) fear to disclose their reasons for objecting to someone with whom they do not enjoy attorney-client privilege. Third, the categorical appointment of counsel approach is widely and increasingly used across the country. Recently, California abandoned the approach currently used in Virginia and requires the court to appoint counsel in any conservatorship where the proposed conservatee “has not retained legal counsel and does not plan to retain legal counsel, whether or not that person lacks or appears to lack legal capacity.” In 2017 Nevada followed suit by removing the requirement that a protected person request counsel and instead requires the appointment of counsel. Finally, the Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Other Protective Arrangements Act comments, “Mandatory appointment has been strongly urged by the A.B.A. Commission on Law and Aging (formerly known as the A.B.A. Commission on Legal Problems of the Elderly) and helps ensure that the respondent’s rights are fully represented and protected in the proceeding.” We greatly appreciate that Virginia is taking a close look at its guardianship code in order to protect the rights of particularly vulnerable adults and are happy to answer questions about our recommendation if any arise.