The opinion
DORSEY, Justice,
dissenting.
The question presented here is whether the trial court may impose duties on a guardian ad litem to extend long after the judgment has become final, set appropriate fees for these future services, and tax those fees as costs of court against the defendants. I would hold the authority of the guardian ad litem lapsed with the jurisdiction of the court over the cause and the trial court abused its discretion assessing fees for the guardian for services to be performed after the appointment had terminated. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Ad litem means “for the suit.” A guardian ad litem is a guardian appointed to prosecute or defend a suit on behalf of a party incapacitated by infancy or otherwise. Black’s Law DICTIONARY 43 (6th ed. 1990). The general rule is that a guardian ad litem’s interest is limited to matters connected with a suit in which he is appointed, and his appointment ends when the judgment becomes final. Durham v. Barrow, 600 S.W.2d 756, 761 (Tex.1980).
The authority of the trial judge to appoint the ad litem in the present case stems from Tex.R.Civ.P. 173, which provides that when a minor, lunatic, or other non-compos mentis is “a party to a suit” and is represented by a guardian or next friend who appeal's to have an interest adverse to him, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for him. The appointment may continue through appeal, but when the judgment becomes final, the representation ends. Barrow v. Durham, 574 S.W.2d 857, 860 (Tex.Civ.App. — Corpus Christi, 1978), aff'd, 600 S.W.2d 756 (Tex.1980). The guardian ad litem no longer has authority to act for minor, because when the judgment is final the minor is no longer a party to the action. I would hold the trial court did not have authority to continue the appointment of the ad litem beyond the entry of the final judgment to perform legal services for the minor.
The future legal services that are to be performed by the ad litem are the rationale for the fee allowed him and assessed as costs against the defendant. The services anticipated by the judgment relate to overseeing the trust, and advising the client as to his rights in it. However, any future legal services should be a matter of contract between the parties, and should be paid for by the client or from his estate.
The concept of a guardian ad litem is to provide a temporary guardianship for a specific purpose when there is a conflict of interest between the natural guardian and the ward. It is to protect the minor or incompetent from his natural guardian when their *786 interests clash, or have a potential of being adverse. However, when the lawsuit 'has ended with the minor’s recovery being placed in trust or other protection, there is no need for the minor to have his own advocate vis a vis his parents, paid for by the defendant in the lawsuit that is over.
I would reform the judgment of the court below, deleting the imposition of all duties on the guardian ad litem after the judgment becomes final, and remand to the trial court the determination of reasonable attorney’s fees to the date the judgment became final.