In the Gault case, the Supreme Court established the juvenile's right to counsel when faced with a potential loss of liberty, but failed to provide ethical guidance to the attorney with a juvenile client. In cases involving juvenile clients, this comment argues that the child rather than the parents is the attorney's true client, since it is the juvenile who will suffer the consequences of a delinquency determination. If a conflict of interest arises between the juvenile and the parents, the attorney must suggest that the parents retain separate counsel; or the attorney must withdraw from the case. From the outset, the lawyer should specify to the parents that the child's interest alone will guide the course of representation. The counsel owes the court no special duties other than those involved in adult criminal proceedings. Although the argument for creating a partnership between the juvenile's attorney and the court has some persuasive power, it is based on false assumptions which ignore the facts that juveniles face possible institutionalization and labeling, that the attorney must seek to reveal the truth, and that courts do not always do what is best for accused juveniles. In handling a case for a juvenile client, the attorney should first determine the juvenile's competence to assist in his own defense. If the juvenile is competent, the attorney should attempt to settle the matter without trial, or, if the client is found delinquent, to persuade the court to impose the least restrictive disposition possible. In addition, if legal grounds exist and if the juvenile is not satisfied with the outcome, the attorney is obligated to seek appellate review. Footnotes with references are included.