>>Early on in Michael Schiavo's quest to remove his wife's source of
>>nourishment, an independent guardian was appointed upon request by
>>Schiavo's own attorney, George Felos. That guardian, attorney Richard
>>Pearse, issued a report to the judge stating that Michael Schiavo was not
>>a credible witness to his wife's end-of-life wishes because he waited
>>several years before coming forward with the claim that she wanted to
>>die. Pearse also noted that Michael Schiavo would benefit financially
>>from her death. Pearse was quickly removed at the request of Felos.
>>Experts on the issue of guardianship point out that it is always
>>desirable that a person in Terri Schindler-Schiavo's position have an
>>independent representative who has no particular interest in the case
>>other than her. Since the dismissal of Pearse in 1999, Terri
>>Schindler-Schiavo has never been appointed another independent guardian.
>>The law Gov. Jeb Bush has just signed calls for one now.
The court documents at abstract appeal (p 4) suggest something different.
1. Pearse's objectivity was questioned, with the request he be dismised.
2. Pearse agreed that he had "opinions and feelings on the subject" and that he "had not advised the court prior to his appointment."
3. The court replied that it was "unable to agree with that assertion" becuase "most attorneys who practice in that area of law" have strong feelings one way or another.
4. "For the court to preclude an Attorney from serving as Guardian Ad Litem simply because of feelings would deprive the court of a valuable resource."
IOW, the court knew of Pearse's biases and when Pearse acknowledged them, the court said he had to remain on the case. So, Pearse wasn't removed because he said bad things about M. Schiavo, not as far as I can tell. The court insisted he stay on, in spite of his strong opinions on the subject.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf