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, Civil Forfeiture (incomplete)
The Alaska Supreme Court held that a court can appoint counsel in a civil forfeiture proceeding where there are no criminal charges pending or where the forfeiture proceeding has not been stayed, in order to protect the claimant's privilege against self-incrimination. It did not indicate the source of authority for such appointments.
Cite: Resek v. State, 706 P.2d 288, 289 (Alaska 1985)
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: no