Nichols v. Fahrenkamp, 2019 IL 123990

In 2004 Alexis Nichols (then a minor) received a $600,000 settlement; the probate court appointed her mother as guardian of the estate and David Fahrenkamp as guardian ad litem by a one‑line order.
In 2012 Nichols sued her mother alleging misappropriation of $79,507 of the settlement; the trial court limited recovery and found a guardian ad litem had approved some expenditures.
Nichols then sued Fahrenkamp for legal malpractice, alleging he negligently approved expenditures, failed to monitor or report irregularities, and never consulted or informed her of his appointment.
Fahrenkamp disputed the facts and asserted quasi‑judicial immunity for actions within the scope of his appointment; the circuit court granted his summary judgment.
The appellate court reversed, reasoning (relying on older precedents) that guardians ad litem have a duty to advocate for wards and therefore should not receive immunity.
The Illinois Supreme Court granted review and held that guardians ad litem who function as court reporters/witnesses making recommendations on a child’s best interests are entitled to quasi‑judicial immunity; it affirmed the circuit court and reversed the appellate court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a guardian ad litem is entitled to quasi‑judicial immunity for acts within the scope of appointment	Nichols: GAL served as an advocate/representative and owes a duty to protect ward’s assets, so should be liable for negligence	Fahrenkamp: GAL acted as an agent/arm of the court (reporter/witness) and needs quasi‑judicial immunity to perform without harassment	Held: GALs who submit recommendations/reports to the court on a child’s best interests are protected by quasi‑judicial immunity
How to determine a GAL’s role when statutes and orders are ambiguous	Nichols: Probate Act provisions and Stunz show GALs historically served as advocates	Fahrenkamp: Modern practice and the Marriage Act treat GALs as court reporters/witnesses (not advocates)	Held: Court looks to the actual function performed (not title); here function matched reporter/witness role
Whether the one‑line appointment order negates immunity	Nichols: Sparse order implies broader/advocate role under Probate Act	Fahrenkamp: Contemporary caselaw and practice support treating such appointments as reporting/witness roles	Held: The record supports treating Fahrenkamp’s role as reporting to the court; unclear orders should be clarified by courts going forward

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (U.S. 1967) (describing common‑law judge immunity foundation)
Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1983) (extending absolute immunity to participants integral to the judicial process)
Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (U.S. 1985) (articulating the functional test for quasi‑judicial immunity)
In re Mark W., 228 Ill. 2d 365 (Ill. 2008) (describing modern GAL as "eyes and ears of the court," a reporter not an advocate)
Stunz v. Stunz, 131 Ill. 210 (Ill. 1890) (older formulation describing GAL duties to defend ward’s interests)
Cooney v. Rossiter, 583 F.3d 967 (7th Cir. 2009) (recognizing immunity for child representatives and accepting GAL immunity when functioning as court reporter)
In re Guardianship of Mabry, 281 Ill. App. 3d 76 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (characterizing GAL as court’s representative/agent)