I'm sorry I won't be able to join you for the Bar meeting next week, though I'm glad to snare some comments on the GAL seminar. It is good to hear that there are favorable comments from the attendees - several others have shared those kinds of responses to me.

The conference was very well attended - pre-registration was closed at 200, and another 10 were registered on the day of the conference. There are plans to do video replays in Kansas City and St. Louis, and I've volunteered to moderate if needed. The speakers were varied, from lawyers and judges to victim advocates and a speaker from Washington D.C. on gender/ethnic issues. All of the speakers drew many questions from the audience, and some of the discussion was very lively. The second day there was a good bit of discussion on the 'practicalities' of following the standard, especially for solo or rural practitioners. Specifically, there were some comments that there would be people refusing to serve as GALs if the standards were going to be in place . Of course there were many more who were in favor of the standards. and understood that they were written for the children. not the attorneys. There was also debate about the 'enforceability' of the standards, i.e. since they were not Supreme Court Rule, what was their effect. The panel of judges agreed that they would be looking to the standards for guidance on the GAL's duties, though as I understand it the consensus was that it would generally be up to local practice, and that as it was the voice of the Supreme Court there should be some deference given to them. One attorney said that failure to follow the standards was per se malpractice, though that comment was generally not agreed with.

I have heard from the Bar that the comments were generally favorable. I do not have the formal report yet. I'll be happy to share that with you as soon as I receive it.

.

.

1