Editing Gideon v. Wainwright (section)

=== Cause of the civil right to counsel movement ===

''Gideon v. Wainwright'' marked a key transition in [[legal aid in the United States]].<ref name=":0" /> Before ''Gideon'', civil litigants were able to access counsel only based on the following three stringent criteria: whether the case had implications for a private corporation; whether their not receiving counsel would render the trial unfair or in some way compromised in procedure; and whether the case affected the government's interests.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Brito|first=Tonya|date=Winter 2016|title=What We Know and Need to Know about Civil Gideon|journal=South Carolina Law Review|volume=67|pages=223–243|via=EBSCOhost}}</ref> 

After ''Gideon'', and amid growing concern about the paucity of resources for poverty lawyering and the resource burden of case-by-case counsel determinations, state judges and legislators saw the benefit of ensuring the right to counsel for civil litigants just as Gideon provided for criminal defendants.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Abel|first=Laura|date=July–August 2006|title=A Right to Counsel in Civil Cases: Lessons from Gideon v. Wainwright|journal=Clearinghouse Review|volume=40|pages=271–280|via=HeinOnline}}</ref> Additionally, an influential 1997 article by a federal district court judge helped revitalize the conversation about the need and justification for a right to counsel in civil cases.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sweet|first=Robert W.|date=1997|title=Civil Gideon and Justice in the Trial Court |journal=The Record of the Ass'n of the Bar of the City of N.Y.|volume=52|pages=915}}</ref>

In contrast to the self-representation movement, the historical civil right to counsel movement was founded on the premise that systemic representation by counsel "ensures more accurate outcomes in civil cases".<ref>{{cite web |title=The Benefits of Counsel in Civil Cases |url=http://civilrighttocounsel.org/about/the_benefits_of_counsel |access-date=October 10, 2022 }}</ref> Proponents of the movement also argue that a right to counsel "saves federal and state government money by helping to avoid the [[negative externalities]] caused by litigants wrongly losing their civil cases (such as increased use of shelters, emergency medical care, foster care, police, and public benefits), and increases the public's faith and investment in the judicial process".<ref name=":1"/>

While the movement has gained substantial traction over time (for instance, 18 jurisdictions enacted a [[Tenant right to counsel|right to counsel for tenants]] facing eviction between 2017 and 2022),<ref>{{cite web |title=The Right to Counsel for Tenants Facing Eviction: Enacted Legislation|url=http://civilrighttocounsel.org/uploaded_files/283/RTC_Enacted_Legislation_in_Eviction_Proceedings_FINAL.pdf |access-date=October 10, 2022 }}</ref> some of its opponents have argued that it places an unreasonable financial burden on states that have an inadequate understanding of the costs and resources needed for civil counsel.<ref name=":1" /> Others argue that the right may lead to constitutionally inadequate representation, as has happened in criminal cases. One judge said that, post-''Gideon'', "many defendants were represented only by 'walking violations of the Sixth Amendment' [...] No constitutional right is celebrated so much in the abstract and observed so little in reality as the right to counsel".<ref name=":0" /> Since publicly financed counsel is not supported financially by the client, there is no guarantee that the appointed counsel will be adequately trained and experienced in the legal domain they are representing.

==== Civil right to counsel: influence on policy and aid provision ====
The movement along with the strong correlation between representation and equitable outcomes for low-income litigants in poverty lawyership scholarship has significantly influenced the policies surrounding legal representation. For example, in 2006, the American Bar Association adopted Resolution 112A, urging jurisdictions to provide legal counsel "as a matter of right at public expense to low-income persons in those categories of adversarial proceedings where basic human needs are at stake".<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Rexer|first=Norah|date=2014|title=A Professional Responsibility: The Role of Lawyers in Closing the Justice Gap|journal=Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy|volume=22|pages=585–610|via=EBSCOhost}}</ref> Outside of influencing policy, the civil right to counsel movement has fueled approaches to legal aid that aim to alleviate the financial burden civil litigants face. Aid through lawyer substitutes has become more prevalent, involving non-lawyer professionals who can assist clients in legal matters without the supervision of a certified attorney.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=D'Angelo-Corker|first=Kristy|date=2019|title=When Less Is More: The Limitless Potential of Limited Scope Representation to Increase Access to Justice for Low- to Moderate-Income Individuals|journal=Marquette Law Review|volume=103|pages=111–162|via=EBSCOhost}}</ref> Similarly, pro bono legal aid, which involves providing legal services without fees in order to promote public good, has gained prominence.