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).
Litigation, Benefits - Claimant
In Asaeda v. Haraguchi, 37 Haw. 583 (Haw. Terr. 1947), a case involving a workman suing for workman's compensation, the court observed:
The cause shown for the appointment of Mr. Hodgson was that the workman had suffered injuries to his brain which had rendered him unable to take the necessary steps to employ counsel to appear in this court on his behalf and the appointment was made in the exercise of the inherent powers of this court and not pursuant to statutory authority.
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: yes