MacDermott v. Shelabarger

Background

Plaintiff Troy MacDermott filed a self-described motion asking the court to appoint counsel for Defendant Benjaman Shelabarger, also identified in the caption as Benjamin Shelabarger. MacDermott argued that Shelabarger was incapable of litigating the matter himself.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that a party in a civil case has the right to choose counsel or proceed without counsel. It also explained that civil litigants generally have no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Appointment of counsel in a civil proceeding is instead left to the trial court’s discretion.

The court considered factors including the factual complexity of the issues, the person’s ability to investigate and present the case, whether the case involved conflicting testimony, and the complexity of the legal arguments. It found that these factors favored denying the request at this stage. Shelabarger had appropriately answered MacDermott’s complaint and filed several motions. Although not all of those motions succeeded, the court found that he presented his arguments with reasonable clarity and appropriate factual and legal support. The court also noted that conflicting testimony was not an issue at that point.

Ruling

The court DENIED MacDermott’s Motion to Appoint Counsel for Defendant. It stated that any new request for counsel, if necessary, should be filed after dispositive motions—motions that could resolve the case—are decided. The court said such a request would be considered only if a party sought counsel to represent that party, rather than the opposing party.