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, Civil Commitment
Ind. Code § 12-26-2-2(b)(4) broadly states that in certain mental health proceedings enumerated in the statute (90-day involuntary commitment, "regular commitment", discharge, and review of commitment) individuals have a right to be "represented by counsel". One court construed the predecessor statute to § 12- 26-2-2(b)(4) (which apparently contained similar language about the right to be "represented by counsel") to imply a right to appointed counsel. F.J. v. State, 411 N.E.2d 372, 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) ("“F.J. was at no time told she could have an attorney appointed for her, despite the language of [the statute] giving her the right to be represented by counsel.”)
Additionally, § 12-26-8-3 covers discretionary appointment for commitments of children.
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