Few juvenile offenders had legal counsel until the 1967 Supreme Court decision in the Gault case which required lawyers for juveniles in adjudication hearings. In this and subsequent opinions, it is implicitly assumed that the lawyer is a defense advocate, although others have suggested a broader role for the juvenile attorney. With the increased attention on children's rights, it seems apparent that a legal speciality is needed that can provide services for minors regarding school suspensions, custody arguments, commitment to treatment programs, abuse by parents, and emancipation proceedings, as well as delinquency charges. Conventional juvenile lawyers are adequate in adjudication stages and court hearings, but the diverse skills of a children's lawyer could benefit a juvenile offender at several other points in the judicial process. For example, schools and friends must be contacted, diversion options assessed, and disposition alternatives studied. The disposition itself may require additional legal advice. Most juvenile lawyers are criminal defense lawyers from the public defender system who are assigned to the juvenild court. For this broader concept, lawyers will still have to come from some combined forms of civil and criminal public defender, although the private sector should also accept some responsibility. Because of the wide range of services offered by children's lawyers, many clients would probably be able to pay for private counsel. Gault mandated juvenile lawyers with a narrow perspective, but the expanded concept of a children's lawyer would benefit the client, the court, and the legal profession. The article contains 39 footnotes.