Prior to the Gault decision, juvenile courts viewed their deliberations as nonadversarial, since they were oriented toward the best interests of the child. Although the Gault case revealed the abuses attending juvenile court dispositions to the detriment of juveniles, juvenile courts continue to resist the adversarial role of defense counsel. Courts persist in viewing defense counsel as a 'guardian' who acts in cooperation with the court to find the best disposition for the juvenile. Defense counsel should resist this role and perform the same function as defense counsel in adult court, i.e., to represent the client in accord with the client's perception of what is in his/her best interests. Private attorneys paid by the juvenile's parents should also resist parental efforts to dictate how the case should be handled. Some problems associated with the defense of juveniles are the unbridled discretion of juvenile judges, the secrecy surrounding juvenile court proceedings, and the general lack of checks and balances such as jury trials and active appellate review. 41 notes.