Right to counsel

Washington , Litigation , Civil Contempt in Family Court

The WA Supreme court said there is a federal and state constitutional right to counsel in civil contempt cases as a matter of due process. Tetro v. Tetro, 544 P.2d 17, 19 (Wash. 1975). According to the court in In re Custody of Halls, 109 P.3d 15, 21 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005), the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Tetro v. Tetro, 544 P.2d 17 (Wash. 1975), stands for the proposition that “In proceedings civil in form but criminal in nature, due process rights to liberty, the Sixth Amendment, and Washington Constitution article 1, section 22, require that a party threatened with jail be represented by counsel.”

It is unclear whether this opinion is still good law after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Turner v. Rogers (i.e. whether there is an independent state constitutional ground).

To see the documents from the In re Custody of Halls decision, visit our bibliography or use the website search function to find the bibliographic entry.

Appointment of Counsel: Yes
Qualified: Yes
? 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.