The Indigent's Right to Counsel in Civil Cases

The Indigent's Right To Counsel In Civil CasesA man whose life or liberty is jeopardized by a felony charge has a constitutional right to a lawyer.'When his property -is at stake, in a civil case, he may have a lawyer too-but only if he can afford to hire one.3 This gap between the rights of poor criminal defendants and poor civil litigants was left undisturbed by the Supreme Court in October 1966, when it denied certiorari in the case of Sandoval v. Rattikin.4 Matias and Teresa Sandoval, an indigent and illiterate Texas couple, had sought to reverse a civil judgment on the ground that the state's failure to appoiiit counsel for them violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.In a trespasst9-try-title action, the Sandovals had lost the two-room house in which they ha-lived since 1945 with their nine children.Two weeks before thek.trial,thei lawyer withdrew because they could not pay his fee, so they turned to the Nueces County legal aid attorney.He spoke only English and did'no attempt to confer with his clients, who spoke only Spanish.His perfunctory preparation did not inform him that the "deed" on which plaintiff based his claim to the Sandovals' land was actually a mortgage, which under Texas homestead law could not confer title.5 As the Sandovals' plight indicates, the actual concerns of the poor do not reflect the law's sharp distinction between civil and criminal litigants.Poverty only magnifies the importance of protecting one's property from seizure by legal process.The poor man may be evicted, his furniture may be repossessed, his welfare payments cut off, his children taken from him.Indeed, he may lose his liberty, through civil commitment to a mental institution.Conversely, he has vital interests which he 1.Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).For the right to counsel in misdemeanor cases, see note 28 infra.2. This Note does not deal with the area of the "quasi.criminal"action-cases civil in form but affecting the personal liberty of a party.F-xamples are habeas corpus, coram nobis, juvenile court, civil commitment, probation revocation, and deportation proceedings.In recent years many courts have taken the combination of Douglas v. California.372 U.S. 353 (1963), and Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708 (1961), to comae1 appointment of counsel for indigents in such cases.See cases cited in Note, Thec Right to Counsel in Civil Litigation, 66 CoLut.L. REv.1322 n.3 (1966); People v. Shipman, 62 Cal.2d 226, 397 P.2d 993, 42 Cal.Rept. 1 (1965) (coram nobis hearing), noted in 13 U.C.L.A.L. Ray.446 (1966); but see Flowers v. Oklahoma, 356 F.2d 916 (10 Cir.1966).3. Powell v. Alabama, 287 US. 45, 69 (1932).4. 395 S.W.2d 889 (Tex.Civ.App.