## Facts

- K.G.F., an adult woman diagnosed with bipolar disorder (mixed rapid cycling), voluntarily admitted herself to a Helena hospital in October 1999 when her condition worsened and she expressed suicidal thoughts.
- The State initiated involuntary civil-commitment proceedings under Montana law while K.G.F. was hospitalized.
- The district court appointed counsel for K.G.F. and, after a hearing, ordered her involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.
- In the commitment proceedings, appointed counsel provided minimal representation, including inadequate client consultation, no meaningful independent investigation, failure to call witnesses, limited cross-examination of the State’s witnesses, and failure to pursue less restrictive alternatives to institutionalization.
- K.G.F. appealed, asserting she was denied effective assistance of counsel in the commitment process.

## Issues

1. Whether a person subject to involuntary civil commitment in Montana has a constitutional and statutory right to effective assistance of counsel.
2. Whether the Strickland v. Washington criminal ineffective-assistance test governs effectiveness claims in civil-commitment proceedings.
3. Whether appointed counsel’s performance in K.G.F.’s commitment hearing satisfied the applicable effectiveness standard.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court reversed the involuntary commitment order and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that individuals facing involuntary civil commitment have a right to effective assistance of counsel under due process principles, the Montana Constitution, and Montana’s civil-commitment statutes.
- The court declined to apply Strickland’s two-prong framework, concluding its deference and outcome-focused prejudice requirement are ill-suited to civil commitment.
- Applying a commitment-specific effectiveness standard, the court determined K.G.F.’s counsel provided ineffective representation because the proceeding was functionally non-adversarial and did not test the State’s case or seek less restrictive options.

## Legal Principles

- Involuntary civil commitment implicates a fundamental liberty interest; due process requires procedures that ensure reliable, fair decisionmaking.
- Statutory and constitutional rights to counsel in civil-commitment proceedings include a right to effective, not merely nominal, representation.
- Effectiveness in civil-commitment cases is assessed under a functional standard focused on whether counsel provided active, adversarial advocacy consistent with the respondent’s expressed objectives and the least-restrictive-treatment mandate.
- Core duties for counsel in commitment proceedings include prompt and meaningful client consultation, independent investigation of medical and factual bases for commitment, adversarial testing of the State’s evidence (including cross-examination and appropriate objections), and affirmative pursuit of less restrictive alternatives when supported by the record.
- Courts need not employ a strict Strickland-style, outcome-determinative prejudice inquiry in civil-commitment ineffective-assistance claims where counsel’s failures undermine the fairness and adversarial character of the proceeding.

## Conclusion

The court vacated K.G.F.’s commitment because appointed counsel’s minimal, non-adversarial performance denied her effective assistance in a proceeding involving severe restraints on liberty, and it established a commitment-specific standard requiring active advocacy, independent preparation, and pursuit of least restrictive treatment consistent with the client’s expressed interests.


In re Mental Health of K.G.F., 306 Mont. 1, 29 P.3d 485 (Mont. 2001)