Right to counsel
Litigation, Civil Commitment - Subject of Petition
In Commonwealth ex rel. Finken v. Roop, 339 A.2d 764, 770 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1975), the court examined the civil commitment statute and noted, "[Section] 406 does not require that the subject of a civil commitment petition be represented by counsel. Nor does it require that the final commitment order follow an evidentiary hearing. If neither were read into the statute, § 406 would be blatantly unconstitutional." The court found, however, that it had the power to read such basic due process requirements into the statute. See also Dixon v. Attorney Gen. of Pennsylvania, 325 F. Supp. 966 (M.D. Pa. 1971) (finding federal right to appointed counsel for commitment proceedings).
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