So what? And the reason an attorney should have been appointed at that time is that Michael's action was demonstrably injurious to the well-being of Terri.
744.391 Actions by and against guardian or ward.--If an action is brought by the guardian against the ward, or vice versa, or if the interest of the guardian is adverse to that of his or her ward, a guardian ad litem shall be appointed to represent the ward in that particular litigation. In any litigation between the guardian and the ward, a guardian ad litem shall be appointed to represent the ward. If there is a conflict of interest between the guardian and the ward, the guardian ad litem shall petition the court for removal of the guardian. Judgments in favor of the ward shall become the property of the ward without the necessity for any assignment by the guardian or receipt by the ward upon termination of guardianship. The guardian may receive payment and satisfy any judgment in behalf of the ward without joinder by the ward.
"So what?" So saying that someone was "essentially fired" is misleading BS, and intentionally misleading BS at that, that's what. It misrepresents the situation by suggesting that the guardian was involuntarily removed as some sort of retaliation for his recommendations, when that is absolutely false, and you know it.
And the reason an attorney should have been appointed at that time is that Michael's action was demonstrably injurious to the well-being of Terri.
That's not what I asked - I asked you what an attorney would have accomplished that wasn't accomplished anyway, what an attorney would have done that wasn't done anyway. Riddle me that one, Batman.