Abstract
This Note argues that uncompensated court appointments represent an unsatisfactory means to provide counsel for indigents. Part I discusses the policy arguments for and against forced, uncompensated court appointments. Part I concludes that the arguments against these appointments outweigh the arguments in favor of them. Part II argues that they violate the Constitution's prohibitions against uncompensated takings and involuntary servitude. Part III offers a proposal that would provide effective representation for indigent civil litigants, while avoiding infringement of attorneys' constitutional rights.
Recommended Citation
Greg Stevens,
Forcing Attorneys to Represent Indigent Civil Litigants: The Problems and Some Proposals,
18
U. Mich. J. L. Reform
767
(1985).
Available at:
https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol18/iss3/7
Included in
Courts Commons, Legal Profession Commons, Litigation Commons