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, Custody Disputes - Children
D.C. Code § 16-914(g) gives the judge the power to appoint either a GAL or an attorney (or both) for a child in a private custody proceeding. Even if a GAL is appointed, “Pursuant to an administrative order issued by the Superior Court, GALs in custody cases must be attorneys. D.C. Fam. Ct. R.App. III, at I.B.1.” Saxon v. Zirkle, 97 A.3d 568, 574 (D.C. App. 2014).
The Saxon court also held that “attorney GALs are not generally foreclosed from obtaining attorney's fees as a sanction under Domestic Rule 11 … this court and others have held that attorney's fees may be awarded even though representation was provided on a pro bono basis.”
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.
discretionary
no