I’m gonna get flak for using Texas in my question, but as it is the state I’m most familiar with.
At your arraignment if you do not already have an attorney you can apply for a public defender, this is very complicated and the criteria are lower than you’d think. If you do not qualify financially you don’t get a public defender, and the state can always send you a bill later on even if you got one.
Yea I know Texas doesn’t really always follow that thing called the constitution, but do you really have a constitutional right to an attorney?
Yes, but you have to pay for it if you do not meet financial criteria AND it is only for criminal trials.
You have no right to an attorney in a civil suit or in many immigration matters (assuming you are an adult). Of course you can hire an attorney to represent you in such matters if you can afford to pay or get one to work pro bono.
I believe that in many states, a corporate entity MUST be represented by a licensed lawyer in civil matters. The state will not pay for that and if a sole proprietor for example tries to represent herself, she might be subject to default or contempt proceedings.
In New Jersey it is not just for criminal trials but for anything with “consequences of magnitude.” So you are not getting a PD for a parking ticket but you can get one for a traffic violation that may have a license suspension attached to it.
The recommended text given prior to custodial interrogations per the Miranda decision says, “…and if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.” Other court decisions have shaped the contours of this right, but I quote these lines to emphasize that you don’t, and have never had, an unfettered right to free legal representation.
The seminal case on point is Gideon v. Wainwright, a 1963 Supreme Court holding. Clarence Gideon was charged with burglary in Florida. At trial, he said he couldn’t afford an attorney, but the judge refused to appoint one for him, inasmuch as Florida law only required state-paid counsel for poor defendants charged with capital (i.e., death-penalty) crimes. He tried to defend himself, but was convicted, and appealed based on his lack of a lawyer. The Supreme Court took up his case (after reading his hand-written request for certorari!) and decided that because a lawyer is a such a critical asset in criminal defense, a poor person is denied due process if he is forced to defend himself because he cannot afford to pay an attorney.
Since then, progeny of the Gideon decision have extended rights to earlier phases of the criminal process, such as arraignment, and to subsequent aspects such as appeals.
None of them have removed the rationale that this right exists when the accused is too impoverished to pay for his own lawyer.
In the case of civil trials, it makes sense. The reason that you’re guaranteed counsel in criminal trials is as a defense against the state- i.e. the state can’t try you without you having adequate defense. This is just part of the 6th Amendment, which is chock-full of items intended to minimize potentially corrupt government prosecutions and ensure fair trials for the defendant- the right to speedy trials, public trials, right to jury, arraignment clause, right to legal counsel, compulsory clause, confrontation clause, etc… It’s a lot harder to prosecute someone unfairly if they’re tried by juries, given legal counsel, tried in a speedy fashion, arraigned properly, able to call witnesses (and have them compelled to show by the court), able to confront witnesses, and have it all in the public record.
The right to legal counsel is just part of that package of 6th Amendment protections, and there’s nothing special about Texas’ implementation AFAIK; it follows the decision in Gideon v. Wainright which guarantees indigent defendants counsel at the state’s expense in state courts.
Civil trials are generally, but not always, third-party v. third party, so the government doesn’t have a stake in the trial in most cases, and has no reason to provide anyone an attorney. If your neighbor sues you over the color of your house, or the height of your hedges, what reason or obligation does the government have to provide either of you with an attorney? All the government’s doing is providing the framework to resolve the conflict, while in criminal cases, they’re typically bringing the power of the state to bear against an individual.
As far as I know, the illegal immigrants don’t get counsel, because it’s not a judicial matter, but rather an administrative one. We’re not trying them in court, so they don’t get the benefit of counsel.
Another instance in which you are not entitled to counsel under the US Constitution is in family court matters such as divorce and child custody matters.
This can extend to civil contempt for non-payment of child support that can carry a custodial sentence. See Turner v. Rogers
However, individual states may provide greater protection under a state constitution and a right to counsel for such civil contempt proceedings.
Bear in mind that there are two questions collapsed in the OP:
Do I have a right to the assistance of counsel in a certain proceeding? Almost invariably, the answer to that is “yes.” No-one can stop you from going a lawyer to represent you in almost all court proceedings, administrative hearings, and so on.
Do I have the right to have counsel provided at public expense? That is a different question, and has a much more restricted answer, as several of the answers to this thread show.
Sorry, what I meant to say is a corporate entity that takes the form of a corporation or other organized entity but is in practical terms just a single person in the manner of a sole proprietorship. I just recently read a ruling by a court in California, I believe, in which a litigant pleaded with the court to allow him to proceed per se, because his organizational entities and their asserts were really just him and he didn’t have any money to hire counsel. The court said that the law was the law and that he must comply with the court’s order to obtain outside counsel. I will try to see if I can find that ruling again.
There might be a bit of confusion here as ‘sole proprietor’ might not be the intended legal term.
During my brothers internship he did a lot of free legal work on behalf of tenants. A lot of landlords set themselves up as LLCs for the purpose of renting properties. They were owner and the only employees of the LLC, so one might refer to them as a ‘sole proprietor.’
Many landlords found themselves losing there cases and getting lectures from judges for attempting to practice law without a license. A LLC is it’s own entity thus anyone representing one must be licensed to do so.
But it sounds like states get to define what ‘indigent’ means.
Has anyone every argued in court that they’re too poor to actually pay a lawyer, but too rich for the state to assign one? I assume that a state standard of ‘you made $1 last year, you can pay for your own lawyer!’ wouldn’t fly, constitutionally.
Total WAG here, but I’m guessing states are afraid of what would happen to them re: lawsuits and penalties over 6th amendment violations, if they pushed it too far.
Also, any convictions could potentially be thrown out, under such a system.
More directly, the state covers the costs of legal proceedings (wages for judges and staff, building and maintaining the courthouse, etc.). It’s cheaper to pay a public defender for one trial than a judge, court reporter and the rest for two.