Right to 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, Incarceration for Fees/Fines (incomplete)
Various cases have dealt with the right to counsel in civil contempt proceedings. Dep't of Hous. Preservation & Dev. v. Lamison, 462 N.Y.S.2d 109, 111 (Civ. Ct. 1983) (holding, based on Sixth Amendment and its state constitutional equivalent, that "it is undoubtedly and reasonably clear in the judgment of this court that an indigent respondent who faces the prospect of imprisonment in a civil contempt proceeding is entitled to the assistance of counsel and this court holds that under such circumstances, it is required and mandated, as a matter of law, to assign counsel to assist, advise and participate in these proceedings in behalf of the respondent"); People ex rel. Lobenthal v. Koehler, 516 N.Y.S.2d 928 (App. Div. 1987) ("With the exception of a narrowly limited category of contempts, where the contemptuous conduct is committed in open court, in the presence of the Judge, and immediate punishment is necessary to uphold the court's authority, due process pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments demands that a person charged with contempt . . . have the right to be represented by counsel." (citation omitted)) Ullah v. Entezari-Ullah, 836 N.Y.S.2d 18, 22 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) (holding in case involving contempt for failing to pay mortgage and child's tuition that "A respondent in a civil contempt proceeding facing the possibility of the imposition of a term of incarceration, however short, is entitled to the assignment of counsel upon a finding of indigence", and citing in part to Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (2006).
These cases are all questionable after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Turner v. Rogers, given that they are Fourteenth Amendment cases. But Lamison might still be intact if the New York State Constitution's Sixth Amendment equivalent is broader and Lamison is adjudged to have made an independent state constitutional decision.
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: categorical Qualified: yes