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.
Appointment of Counsel: discretionary Qualified: no