Did appointed counsel provide ineffective assistance during Appellant’s involuntary commitment proceedings? Should the standards for assessing the effectiveness of the assistance provided by a respondent’s legal counsel in an involuntary commitment proceeding, adopted in In re Mental Health of K.G.F., be revisited and revised?

This question is of particular importance because the standard for effective counsel articulated in K.G.F. is a more stringent standard than the Court applies to appointed counsel in criminal proceedings; these strict requirements, coupled with the tight statutory time constraints in involuntary commitment proceedings, make it difficult for appointed counsel to satisfy the requirements for both effectiveness and efficiency.