By Kent Berk on July 14th, 2025 in conservatorship, Elder Law, Estate Litigation, Fiduciary Litigation, guardianship, Vulnerable Adults
Chalmers Decision Finally Clarifies Statutory Construction and Protects Access to Justice for Vulnerable Individuals
If you’re an attorney or fiduciary who’s ever worried that a technical misstep could jeopardize your right to get paid for services rendered, the Arizona Supreme Court’s long awaited recent decision in In the Matter of the Conservatorship of William John Chalmers, No. CV-23-0263-PR (July 11, 2025), should bring you a deep sigh of relief.
This case is a must-read for anyone who appears in probate, conservatorship, or protective proceedings and expects to be compensated for their time from the estate of the subject person. The Court made it clear: missing an initial disclosure of the amount and basis for your compensation under A.R.S. § 14-5109 doesn’t mean automatic forfeiture of fees. The ruling preserves fairness, due process, and the integrity of legal work by reinforcing that professionals should not lose compensation unless the law expressly mandates it.
In short, the Court held that professionals who fail to file a fee disclosure statement under A.R.S. § 14-5109(A) are not automatically barred from recovering compensation. This is unlike if the professional fails to submit their invoices to the fiduciary within four months as required by § 14-5110. This is good law—not just for fiduciaries and legal professionals, but for protected individuals and the courts as well.
The Issue: Missing Notice of Basis of Compensation Fee Disclosure = Total Forfeiture?
At the heart of Chalmers was a simple but critical question: Does the failure to file a written notice of basis of compensation when a fiduciary or professional first appears in a conservatorship or guardianship as required by A.R.S. § 14-5109(A) automatically bar all later claims for fees?
The trial court said yes, relying on a neighboring statute, A.R.S. § 14-5110, to impose a penalty that was never actually written into § 14-5109. The court of appeals largely agreed. But the Supreme Court corrected the course, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legislative text rather than judicially implying consequences the Legislature deliberately left out.
The Holding: Statutory Context Matters
Justice Bolick, writing for a unanimous Court, made clear that while § 14-5109 imposes a mandatory notice requirement, it does not prescribe a penalty for noncompliance. In contrast, § 14-5110 does impose a specific consequence—waiver—but only for failure to timely submit a claim for fees. The Court declined to merge the two sections, instead treating § 14-5109 as a “directory statute” and leaving enforcement up to the trial court’s discretion. That discretion should be guided by whether the subject person suffered any prejudice from the failure to provide notice of the basis of compensation as required by Section 14-5109.
This is crucial. As the Court explained, statutes should be interpreted as a cohesive whole. Different words mean different things, and the omission of a penalty in one statute—when an adjacent one includes it—is not an accident. The Court refused to rewrite the law under the guise of interpretation, restoring the boundary between judicial interpretation and legislative function.
My Take: A Welcome Decision That Serves Everyone
The Chalmers ruling is a thoughtful and balanced opinion that serves both the letter and spirit of the law. As someone who litigates fiduciary disputes regularly, I believe the Court got it right for several reasons:
- Protects Procedural Fairness: Professionals shouldn’t face automatic fee forfeiture for a technical lapse unless the Legislature clearly says so. Fee awards should be based on reasonableness, not rigidity.
- Upholds Legislative Intent: The Court rightly refused to infer punitive consequences where none were written. That restraint preserves predictability and respects the separation of powers.
- Maintains Access to Services: By avoiding an overly harsh reading, the Court protects vulnerable individuals from losing access to competent professionals unwilling to work without compensation.
- Empowers Trial Judges: The ruling allows trial courts to consider harm and prejudice before imposing sanctions, promoting equity on a case-by-case basis.
Bottom Line
The Arizona Supreme Court’s Chalmers opinion is a win for common sense and good judgment. It strikes the right balance between enforcing procedural safeguards and ensuring that justice remains accessible, especially in the sensitive realm of guardianship, conservatorship and protective proceedings. Professionals are held to a standard, but not punished beyond what the law demands. That is how it should be.
Need help with a conservatorship or fiduciary dispute in Arizona? Contact the experienced team at BerkLawGroup.com today.
