MD high court reaffirms right to counsel in civil contempt cases
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).
09/25/2013, Litigation, Civil Contempt in Family Court
In DeWolfe v. Richmond, the Court of Appeals of Maryland, which is Maryland's highest court, addressed the right to counsel in bail proceedings. As part of its opinion, it stated, "we have reaffirmed that the right attaches in any proceeding that may result in the defendant's incarceration", and cited to Rutherford v. Rutherford. 296 Md. 347, 464 A.2d 228 (1983), which had found a due process right to counsel in civil contempt proceedings under both the federal and state constitutions. Although the United States Supreme Court held in Turner v. Rogers that counsel is not automatically required in civil contempt cases (at least where the state is not the plaintiff), the DeWolfe Court's reliance on Rutherford suggests that Rutherford is now good law under the state constitution.
Cite: DeWolfe v. Richmond, 76 A.3d 1019 (Md. 2013).
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: no