The Rule of Conservatorship of B.K. is that an LPS Act conservatee may waive their jury trial right through counsel without a personal on-the-record advisement when the conservatee acknowledges awareness of the right and confirms the waiver choice, under circumstances where counsel has consulted with the conservatee, there is no suggestion counsel lacks authority or disregards the client's wishes, and the conservatee participates in the proceedings without objection.
Appeal from ruling of the Superior Court, Los Angeles County.
Objector Appellant was B.K. — the conservatee under an LPS Act conservatorship who initially requested jury trial but later chose to waive that right.
Petitioner Respondent was M.G. — B.K.'s aunt who served as conservator seeking reappointment.
The suit sounded in LPS Act conservatorship reappointment proceedings.
The key substantive facts leading to the suit were B.K. has schizophrenia and has been under LPS Act conservatorship since 2019, with various conservators petitioning annually for reappointment. At the September 2024 hearing, B.K. repeatedly requested jury trial. At the January 2025 hearing, B.K.'s counsel informed the court she had consulted with B.K., who chose court trial instead. B.K. confirmed this choice to the court and proceeded with court trial.
The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court accepted B.K.'s waiver of jury trial through counsel and conducted a court trial, finding B.K. remained gravely disabled and renewing the conservatorship.
The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether the trial court erred by failing to provide adequate advisement of jury trial rights and by accepting a waiver that was not sufficiently knowing and intelligent.
The Appellate Court held that B.K.'s waiver of jury trial rights was valid where she acknowledged awareness of her jury trial right, her counsel consulted with her about the choice, she personally confirmed the waiver to the court, and she participated in the trial without objection, with no evidence counsel lacked authority or disregarded her wishes.
The case is inapplicable when the conservatee lacks awareness of their jury trial right, counsel has not consulted with the conservatee about the choice, there is evidence counsel lacks authority or disregards the client's wishes, or the conservatee objects to proceeding with court trial.
The case leaves open whether different procedural safeguards might be required in cases involving conservatees with demonstrated incapacity to understand trial options, and the specific content of advisements that might be required in other factual circumstances.
Counsel
For Appellant: [Not determinable from opinion text], Christian C. Buckley
For Respondent: [Not determinable from opinion text], Sarah M. Javaheri