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.
Finally, when a guardian is appointed on an emergency basis, "the court may appoint a lawyer to represent the respondent throughout the emergency guardianship." Haw. Rev. Stat. § 560:5-312(a).
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