Britney Spears can now hire her own counsel — for the first time in 13 years

Judy Woodruff:

Britney Spears' public battle to regain control of her finances and personal life has brought a new focus on conservatorships, legal agreements that, in her case, put her father in charge of her financial affairs and daily decision-making.

Yamiche Alcindor explores the latest on this case and the broader issues it's raising about conservatorships and guardianships across the country.

Yamiche Alcindor:

Judy, for the last 13 years, Britney Spears has been living under a conservatorship. She's continued to perform, to put out albums and to earn millions of dollars, but she has not controlled her finances, personal decisions or almost anything about her life.

Three weeks ago, she complained publicly for the first time about how this has impacted her life. She told the judges she has been forced to entertain. She said she's being forced to also use a form of birth control, even though she wants to have more children.

During her hearing this afternoon, that same Los Angeles judge said Spears can now hire her own attorney to represent her, something that was denied to her until now.

To look at all of this, I'm joined by Ronan Farrow. He's an investigative reporter and contributing writer to "The New Yorker, " and Jonathan Martinis, senior director for law and policy at a center for disability rights at Syracuse University.

Thank you both for being here.

Ronan, I want to start with you.

There was this development now. Britney Spears can hire her own attorney. What more do we know about that development? And as you have done extensive reporting, on this case, what stands out to you about this case?

Ronan Farrow:

Yamiche, well, obviously what we're learning today is this lawyer of Spears' own choosing, Mathew Rosengart, a former federal prosecutor and a prominent L.A.-based attorney, is going to be able to represent her.

And why that's significant is because, as we have laid out in this recent investigative report in "The New Yorker, " Britney Spears has been trying to secure her own counsel of her own choosing for years. We document how again and again, essentially from the inception to have the conservatorship, she was setting clandestine meetings with contacts who might give her phones that she could then use to call lawyers, up to and including sophisticated plans where she would meet a contact in a hotel steam room to get a Ziploc bag with a cell phone in it.

So, couple of things from that. One, hiring her own counsel is a significant step and a long time coming. Two, those kinds of plans, that level of sophistication reminds us this is a very high-functioning individual. That's apparent because of a number of things. You mentioned the amount of money she's made, the amount of performing she's done.

But that's pivotal in a fight she's locked into legally where her father and others who defend the conservatorship still argue she has a level of incapacity that justifies this extraordinary level of control that is now coming under scrutiny.

Yamiche Alcindor:

And, Ronan, I want to stick with you for a minute.

She's 39 years old. This has been going on for 13 years. Talk a bit about just how little control she had over these years. Her father has been a big influence here in this arrangement.

Ronan Farrow:

We lay out the motivations of this conservatorship in our recent story, which I think are complicated to unpack.

I think there is an element of sincere concern about Britney Spears' well-being. The conservatorship was put into place at a time when she appeared to be under distress, appeared to be behaving erratically, where she was, by her own admission, letting people into her life that might not be a positive influence.

That said, what you also see when you go inside of those rooms where this plot to place her in this extremely restrictive legal structure was hatch is that there was an element of this that was motivated by a family that was locked in a power struggle and that had been financially dependent on her for a long time.

And that is in some ways distinctive to Britney Spears' level of fame and of wealth, but in other respects is symptomatic of the wider ways in which this particular kind of legal structure, particularly this variety of conservatorship, which is quite extreme, can be vulnerable to abuse.

Yamiche Alcindor:

Jonathan, I want to come to you.

Ronan just talked about this being an extreme case. She testified, though, last month that she also didn't know that she could get out of this, didn't know that she could petition to get out of this conservatorship.

Now that she can hire her own attorney, what impact might that have on her ability to get out of this? And talk a little bit about how indicative this case is of how conservatorships operate overall.

Jonathan Martinis:

I mean, first of all, it's great news for Britney Spears that she can finally hire her own attorney and we can celebrate that.

But we need to think about what it is we're celebrating today. What we're celebrating is that, after 13 years, she is finally able to hire her own attorney. Think about it this way.

If, 13 years ago, Britney Spears had committed murder with an axe, if she was an axe murderer 13 years ago, she would have had the right to choose her own attorney then. So what we're doing today is we are celebrating that, after 13 years, Britney Spears finally has the same rights as an axe murderer.

And what we need to think about is this. There are hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities today who do not have the same rights as axe murderers. So if we want to look at this from a larger sense, I think what we should be doing today is saying two things. One, why?

Why do people with disabilities not have the same rights to do what anyone else could do? And, two, can't we do better? The impact that having her own attorney can have on her own case is extreme. She can finally speak with somebody that she is confident that she's chosen, that she knows, someone she can trust and get to know her, so that she can, as Ronan said, demonstrate to the court that which none of us should have to demonstrate, that we are capable of exercising our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If this is someone who can arrange a meeting in a steam room to get a cell phone, this is probably someone who can work with other people to help her make decisions.

Yamiche Alcindor:

Such important points there, especially the point about the right that you have an axe murderer vs. someone under a conservatorship.

I want to, though, ask you, with that said, these conservatorships and these guardianships, they can be beneficial to some if handled correctly. Talk a little bit about that.

Jonathan Martinis:

Absolutely. I never say bad things about guardianship in general. My sister is the guardian of my godson, and thank God for it.

So, when guardianships work the way they should, they empower people, they help people. In fact, the law in California and elsewhere says that guardians should work with people to build their abilities, to help them learn how to make decisions if they truly can't, so that they can emerge from guardianship, if possible.

And if guardianship worked that way, you would have no bigger fan than me, because what better way to help someone than if they truly cannot make decisions, empower them to do so, and, when they have got it, when they have reached a level they can make decisions, if they're able to do that, when they're able to do what Britney Spears appears to have demonstrated she can do, to go back to the court and say, good news, Judge, I did my job, fire me.

I have seen it happen. I have seen happiness in courtrooms. I have seen judges celebrating people regaining their rights. And it's something that needs to happen more. We can do better.

Yamiche Alcindor:

Ronan, I want to come back to you.

You brought to light of new details of how it came to be that Britney Spears made that decision to speak out in court. Talk about that. And don't leave out the part that she called 911 on the eve of this hearing. Tell us about it.

Ronan Farrow:

Well, we document a long history of Britney Spears being distressed about this arrangement dating back to when she was first placed in the second of two involuntary hospitalizations that ultimately provided the grist for her family to place her into this arrangement.

Even while she was still in the hospital and was being placed into this legal structure, she was, it appears, complaining in various ways about it, trying to find her own counsel, expressing distress about it. And we document some pretty alarming alleged remarks about the motivations behind this by her father and others, and some pretty alarming ways in which she was apparently treated, where someone who, by many accounts, was in an abusive, controlling relationship with her in a lot of ways was allowed to take control of her life.

This obviously culminated in not just her remarks in court, but, as you pointed out, the day before those remarks several weeks ago, her going into a local police station near where she lives, and actually calling the 911 dispatch center from a phone there in the lobby when someone couldn't see her immediately. And an officer did later get dispatched to her home.

No formal police complaint was filed out of that, but she clearly was complaining about conservatorship abuse. And that's relevant in light of today's news, Yamiche, because she again in court today used that phrase and talked about how she would like to see her father charged with conservatorship abuse.

Yamiche Alcindor:

Jonathan, she's also continued — I think the thing that underscores all of this is and what makes us so extraordinary is that she's continued to work. She's continued to earn millions of dollars.

She's an unusual case. How does that connect? Her ability to continue to function and make money, how does that connect to the way that people that are disabled at times come under these arrangements and the impact that they have on their autonomy?

Jonathan Martinis:

I mean, with all due respect, it's not an unusual case.

There was an article in today's Washington Post by a writer named Theresa Vargas that covers a client, a person I worked with, who had her own apartment, had her own job, had her own life, and then went into guardianship and lost it all.

She wanted to go back to her job and was told, no, you work in a sheltered workshop, where you make less than minimum wage. Now get used to your new life. She wanted to see your friends and was told, get used to your new life. Make new friends.

So there are people with disabilities right now who are perfectly able to work, who are perfectly able to function and be meaningful, productive members of society, if given the supports and services that we all need to do so. And that's the key part here.

There is not a person watching this show today who doesn't need help to do something. The differences, if you don't have disabilities, if you're a temporarily able-bodied person, because we're all one second away from having disabilities, if you are a temporarily able-bodied person, and you ask for help, or you get support, you're doing a smart thing.

If you say, I don't understand, please explain it to me, you're being wise and making an informed choice. Unfortunately, if you're a person with disabilities, historically speaking and today, if you show any — quote, unquote — "limitation, " any — quote, unquote — "need, " there is a very high probability that someone is going to say that means you can't do things.

Yamiche Alcindor:

Yes.

Jonathan Martinis:

And, as we have seen in Britney Spears' case, and as we see across the country, that too often results in you losing the right to do everything.

Yamiche Alcindor:

Well, this is an extraordinary case. We're going to, of course, keep following it.

Thank you so much, Ronan Farrow and Jonathan Martinis, for joining us. We really appreciate it.

Ronan Farrow:

Thanks, Yamiche.