Discretionary appointment of counsel

Key_development Question_mark

Litigation, All Basic Human Needs

The Arizona Supreme Court has said that the court “has authority to require a lawyer’s services, even on a pro bono basis, to assist in the administration of justice.” Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of Ariz., 120 P.3d 1092, 1102 (Ariz. 2005), although it has added “a county is not liable for fees and disbursements to counsel assigned to [an indigent party] in the absence of statute regulating such compensation.” McDaniels v. State, 158 P.2d 151, 156 (Ariz. 1945).

Appointment of Counsel: discretionary Qualified: no