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 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).
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
