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, All Basic Human Needs
The Oklahoma Supreme Court in Kiddie v. Kiddie, 563 P.2d 139 (Okla. 1977), stated: "A trial court may certainly appoint counsel to represent an indigent in a civil matter if it sees fit, but it is entirely discretionary." 563 P.2d 139, 143 (Okla. 1977) (finding no right to appointed counsel for husband in divorce proceeding in which he represented himself pro se and was ultimately required to make alimony payments to former wife). However, it is not clear whether the court was referring to the court's power to appoint counsel based on its inherent authority or pursuant to a case-by-case due process approach.
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
