Right to counsel
While a state may have many statutes, court decisions, or court rules governing appointment of counsel for a particular subject area, a "Key Development" is a statute/decision/rule that prevails over the others (example: a state high court decision finding a categorical right to counsel in guardianships cases takes precedence over a statute saying appointment in guardianship cases is discretionary).
Legislation, Incarceration for Fees/Fines (incomplete)
in Brotzman v. Brotzman, 283 N.W.2d 600 (Wis. App. 1979), the Court of Appeals held that the right to counsel in Wis. Stat. Ann. § 967.06 applies to civil contempt proceedings. The court cited to Section 967.06(1), which states: "As soon as practicable … in connection with any civil commitment proceeding …the person shall be informed of his or her right to counsel.". Subsection (2)(a) states, "Except as provided in par. (b), a person entitled to counsel under sub. (1) who indicates at any time that he or she wants to be represented by a lawyer, and who claims that he or she is not able to pay in full for a lawyer's services, shall immediately be permitted to contact the authority for indigency determinations specified under s. 977.07(1). The authority for indigency determination in each county shall have daily telephone access to the county jail in order to identify all persons who are being held in the jail. The jail personnel shall provide by phone information requested by the authority."
If "yes", the established right to counsel or discretionary appointment of counsel is limited in some way, including any of: the only authority is a lower/intermediate court decision or a city council, not a high court or state legislature; there has been a subsequent case that has cast doubt; a statute is ambiguous; or the right or discretionary appointment is not for all types of individuals or proceedings within that category.
Appointment of Counsel: categorical Qualified: yes