What standard should a fiduciary use when making decisions for a client who is unable to express thoughts?

In situations where a fiduciary is required to make decisions on behalf of a client who is unable to express their thoughts, the standard of "Best Interests" is pivotal. This standard mandates that the fiduciary must act in a manner that prioritizes the client's needs, preferences, and well-being above all other considerations.

By employing the "Best Interests" standard, the fiduciary is tasked with making informed decisions that reflect what would align with the client's values and desires, even if the client cannot articulate these themselves. This often involves considering the client’s past preferences, known values, and general understanding of their circumstances.

This approach differs from other standards, such as the "Standard of care," which outlines a general expectation of competence and diligence but does not focus specifically on the client's personal interests. "Informed consent" typically applies when clients are able to understand the implications of their decisions and can agree or disagree with them, which is not applicable in cases where the client cannot express their thoughts. The "Reasonable person standard" refers to how a typical person would act under similar circumstances, which does not consider the individual needs of the client uniquely, making it less suitable for fiduciaries tasked with acting on behalf of someone who cannot communicate their preferences.