L Douglas Storey

After one of my parents passed away, leaving behind my other parent who had become incapacitated, my siblings and I became clients of Mr. Storey who chose one of us siblings to become our surviving incapacitated parent's legal guardian and conservator, after which he informed us remaining siblings wh...o were not appointed as the guardian-conservator that he was now the attorney for our guardian-conservator sibling and that if we remaining siblings wanted the current guardianship-conservatorship changed in any way, we would be obligated to hire our own attorney to represent us against our guardian-conservator sibling. Nevertheless, because Storey is being paid out of my late, incapacitated parent's estate, of which I am an heir, I currently remain a client of Storey to the present day because he has informed me that he will be in touch with me in regard to my inheritance. I know from personal experience that my guardian-conservator sibling had intentionally chosen not to obtain the opinions of relatives, such as myself, and other involved persons, before making medical decisions on behalf of our incapacitated parent because my guardian-conservator sibling had informed me through email that according to Storey, the guardian-conservator sibling was not required to obtain any such opinions, which is true, but not necessarily ethical, according to the Conservatorship and Guardianship Manual that the Minnesota Judicial Branch has posted on its website. With attorney Storey's legal assistance, my guardian-conservator sibling secretly set up a Health Care Directive for our incapacitated parent. While I have no evidence that Storey advised my guardian-conservator sibling to secretly set up this Health Care Directive or if my guardian-conservator sibling improvised this idea of secrecy and then Storey aided my guardian-conservator sibling in its secret implementation, I have reason to believe that he was well aware of this secrecy because we siblings who were not appointed as our incapacitated parent's guardian-conservator had informed him early on of how our guardian-conservator sibling had, in our judgment, poor communication skills, i.e., our guardian-conservator sibling was refusing to talk to us other siblings, had informed us that none of our emails sent to the guardian-conservator sibling would be read, and had informed us that none of our telephone calls to the guardian-conservator sibling would be answered. Furthermore, because he had been informed of how the guardian-conservator sibling had cut off communication with the incapacitated parent's other children, I do not think that Storey can claim complete ignorance that he did not know that he, not my guardian-conservator sibling, is the one who revealed the existence of the Health Care Directive to us siblings who were not appointed as our incapacitated parent's guardian-conservator via email after my guardian-conservator sibling informed him of the death of our incapacitated parent. This secrecy about the Health Care Directive during the last few weeks of our incapacitated parent's life caused us siblings who were not appointed as our incapacitated parent's guardian-conservator a great deal of confusion and pain. Overall, in my personal experience, I have found that Storey intentionally did not advise his client, my court-appointed, guardian-conservator sibling, to be ethical by following the recommendations of the Conservatorship and Guardianship Manual published by the Minnesota Conference of Chief Judges. Finally, I believe that individuals who are considering hiring or retaining Storey need to be made aware that from my perspective, it feels as though Storey has given his permission, approval, and support to my guardian-conservator sibling's unethical behavior as defined by the Conservatorship and Guardianship Manual published by the Minnesota Conference of Chief Judges.