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, Guardianship/Conservatorship of Adults - Protected Person
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 560:5-305(b) provides that "The court shall appoint a lawyer to represent the respondent in the proceeding if: (1) Requested by the respondent; (2) Recommended by the kokua kanawai; or (3) The court determines that the respondent needs representation", while Haw. Rev. Stat. § 560:5-406(b) provides identical language for guardianship of property.
For guardianship review proceedings, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 560:5-318(c) provides that "Except as otherwise ordered by the court for good cause, the court, before terminating a guardianship, shall follow the same procedures to safeguard the rights of the ward that apply to a petition for guardianship." This would suggest that the right to counsel would exist for guardianship termination proceedings.
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