Bravo v. Aker, 435 P.3d 908

In 1993 Helen Bravo was pregnant when her boat collided with a boat operated by Shelby Aker; Ashley Bravo was born later that year and has developmental/cognitive deficits.
In 2013 Helen filed suit as "next friend" for Ashley (then nearly 20) alleging in utero injuries from the collision; Helen asserted no personal claims.
Defendants (the Akers) moved for summary judgment, submitting expert reports concluding the accident did not cause Ashley’s condition and criticizing reliance on Helen’s later accounts.
Plaintiffs’ counsel Jeffrey Barber sought to withdraw because of communication breakdowns, a conflict over litigation strategy, and concerns about Ashley’s competency and Helen’s authority to act for her adult daughter.
The superior court granted Barber’s withdrawal, denied motions to reconsider, entered summary judgment for defendants, and awarded attorney’s fees and costs against Helen and Ashley.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court properly allowed counsel to withdraw without resolving Ashley’s competency	Barber’s withdrawal should not leave an incompetent plaintiff unrepresented; Helen argued counsel should remain	Akers argued summary judgment appropriate on merits; they did not contest competency below	Court of Appeals: Abuse of discretion to permit withdrawal without resolving competency or appointing GAL; reverse withdrawal and summary judgment
Whether a next friend (parent) may represent an adult incompetent plaintiff without counsel	Helen acted properly as next friend and can proceed for Ashley	Rule 17(c) and precedent require counsel for next friend representing minors/incompetents	Court: A next friend generally may not represent an incompetent adult without counsel; Rule 17(c) requires appointment of GAL or other protective measures
Whether summary judgment and fee award could be entered while an incompetent plaintiff lacked counsel/GAL	Plaintiffs contended court could not adjudicate merits or award fees against an unrepresented incompetent plaintiff	Akers maintained merits supported judgment and fee entitlement	Court: It was error to grant summary judgment or award fees without first resolving competence and ensuring representation; vacated fees and reversed judgment

Shields v. Cape Fox Corp., 42 P.3d 1083 (Alaska 2002) (Alaska Rule 17(c) bars non‑attorney next friends from representing minors/incompetents without counsel)
Cooper v. Thompson, 353 P.3d 782 (Alaska 2015) (standard for interpreting civil rules)
Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874 (9th Cir.) (non‑lawyers cannot appear on behalf of others; applied Rule 17 principles)
Meeker v. Kercher, 782 F.2d 153 (10th Cir.) (minor cannot sue through parent acting pro se)
Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Found. of Buffalo, Inc., 906 F.2d 59 (2d Cir.) (pro se appearance not a true choice for minors/incompetents)