Said I, 'But You Have No Choice': Why a Lawyer Must Ethically Honor a Client's Decision about Mental Health Treatment Even if It Is Not What S/he Would Have Chosen

The article argues that lawyers representing individuals with mental disabilities have an ethical responsibility to prioritize their clients' expressed preferences and autonomy, rejecting the presumption that substituted decisionmaking is acceptable. It critiques the legal system's reliance on paternalistic approaches and highlights the importance of supported decisionmaking, as mandated by international human rights law, particularly under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The analysis emphasizes the need for legal frameworks and attorney practices to align with therapeutic jurisprudence, which prioritizes psychological well-being and dignity while upholding due process principles.