Guardianship is intended to protect incapacitated individuals through the appointment of a surrogate decision maker. Little is known about how judges, attorneys, and professional guardians assess the need for guardianship, to what extent they apply statutory guidelines when making these determinations, and how their decisions compare. Three groups of participants (probate judges, elder law attorneys, and professional guardians) read vignettes portraying older adults that varied in the extent to which the evidence supported the appointment of a guardian. They were asked about the appropriateness of various resolutions. Participants were reluctant to endorse full guardianship even when warranted by the evidence and preferred informal, family-based interventions that do not involve legal action. Professional groups did not always agree on the appropriate resolutions, suggesting that one's professional orientation may play a role in perceptions of older adults.