It's an important question but I also thought it was a reasonable legal position to take. If there's a conflict between two parties, you generally would have a

It's an important question but I also thought it was a reasonable legal position to take. If there's a conflict between two parties, you generally would have a third party address mechanisms to satisfy concerns. For example, if someone were involved in a lawsuit and countersuit involving their employer, or with a spouse they are divorcing, you wouldn't expect them to accede to the employer's or spouse's demands. You'd probably submit your own evidence (which Newman is doing), or seek a third party. Someone being 96 does not mean they are senile. This is even more likely to be true of someone with the likely cognitive background of someone like Newman. For example, in individuals over 90, the estimated dementia rate in one study was only around 33% (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2813%2961570-6/fulltext); https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... this is in a general setting also, and includes a lot of individuals of many different backgrounds. I really don't mean to be defending Newman per se (I don't really know anything about the case other than what's in the article), and I think there are good questions about representing someone where the question is competence. But reading the article it seemed like just what I'd expect if there were legal heavyweights in dispute about an issue, regardless of what's "really" going on. In fact, if anything, Newman is sort of behaving like an aggressive lawyer, which is what you'd expect if she were competent.