Check out the NCCRC’s legislative activity in the 2026 session!

The NCCRC is currently tracking 150+ bills around the country and paying close attention to 50+ bills that would significantly establish, change, or eliminate the right to counsel in specific civil cases. We track and work with local advocates on this legislation because a shift in the law can be the difference between a mandatory appointment of counsel and the court making the appointment decision at its discretion, or whether the stated interests of a child involved in a child welfare case or a person subject to an adult guardianship case are represented to the court.

As of the writing of this newsletter, we submitted testimony on the following bills: 

Child Welfare. As outlined in the American Bar Association’s Model Act Governing Representation of Children in Dependency, when children are involved in child welfare or dependency cases it is imperative that they are appointed an attorney that represents their stated interests. This session, West Virginia’s SB 539 would weaken a child’s right to client-directed counsel in neglect proceedings. We submitted testimony in opposition. In Arizona, SB 1234 would repeal a child’s right to client-directed counsel and replace it with mandatory appointment of an attorney ad litem and discretionary appointment of counsel. We submitted testimony in opposition.

Adult Guardianship. People subject to guardianship petitions need an attorney to represent their interests because these cases can strip individuals of their fundamental rights (where they live, medicine they take, who they can associate with, etc.). In Virginia, SB 345 would strengthen the discretionary appointment of counsel in guardianship cases by allowing appointment when requested by an immediate family member or an agent who is party to the proceedings.  We support strengthening discretionary appointments, but took this opportunity to submit testimony to push the VA legislature to go even further and create a right to counsel instead of a discretionary appointment system. In Alaska, SB 190 would unfortunately narrow the right to counsel for protected persons in guardianship proceedings and we submitted testimony in opposition.

Forfeiture. The law in most states allows the government to seize property alleged to have been involved in a crime (cars, houses, etc.), even if the person has not been or is never convicted of a crime, and in some states the criminal right to counsel does not extend to the portion of the criminal case addressing forfeiture of property.  NH HB 1801 would specify that if a defendant has a public defender in their criminal case, they represent the defendant for the forfeiture proceeding.