Hanson v. Morton, 67 A.3d 437

Mortons petition for Guardianship of a minor; Hansons respond and seek guardianship.
Family Court indigence finding leads to appointment of in-house counsel (Attorney X) to represent Hansons.
Attorney X works for Corporation A in corporate practice; no malpractice insurance for Hanson representation.
Attorney X seeks withdrawal due to lack of professional liability coverage; Family Court orders briefing and appoints amicus.
Court certifies two legal questions; amici curiae submissions by DuPont and Gore support Attorney X.
This Court holds: (i) in-house counsel for indigent parents in dependency and neglect proceedings have qualified immunity under the Tort Claims Act; (ii) lack of malpractice insurance is not good cause to withdraw.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Tort Claims Act provide immunity for in-house counsel appointed by the Family Court?	Morton argues immunity extends to court-appointed in-house counsel.	Hanson argues no immunity for corporate in-house counsel in this role.	Yes, qualified immunity under the Tort Claims Act applies.
Is lack of malpractice insurance good cause to withdraw from court-appointed representation?	Lack of insurance creates a financial/ethical burden justifying withdrawal.	In-house counsel may withdraw if good cause exists due to financial burden, including lack of insurance.	No, lack of malpractice insurance is not good cause to withdraw.

Vick v. Haller, 522 A.2d 865 (Del. 1987) (public defenders covered by Tort Claims Act qualified immunity)
Browne v. Robb, 583 A.2d 949 (Del. 1990) (court-appointed counsel immunized to avoid chilling effect)
Doe v. Cates, 499 A.2d 1175 (Del. 1985) (establishes overview of immunity/public policy considerations)