Discretionary appointment of 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, Housing - Discrimination
Mont. Code § 49-2-510(e)(1) specifies that the court may appoint counsel for either party in a housing discrimination case.
In Martin v. Great Falls Rescue Mission, 2018 Mont. Dist. LEXIS 16 (Mont. Dist. Ct. 2018), a lower court observed:
The Supreme Court has not yet interpreted Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-510(5)(e). ... A federal court applying the federal housing discrimination statute considers the plaintiff's financial resources, efforts to secure counsel, and "the merits of plaintiff's claim." Lihosit v. San Diego Hous. Comm'n, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94208, *7-11 (S.D.Cal. 2006). Several circuits also consider "plaintiff's capacity to prepare and present the case without counsel." Id.; Anderson v. Herbert, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12401 (D.Utah 2014).
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: discretionary Qualified: no