[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

First, they act as advocates in individual cases working to peacefully resolve civil disputes
between citizens. Second, by their ready availability to act in that capacity, they preserve the
credibility of the courts as a legitimate arm of the civil justice system. . . .
(1) “Fair and Just” Process in Individual Cases . . .
While it is established that a plaintiff has no constitutional right to counsel in a civil
case, counsel nevertheless may be necessary in a particular civil proceeding to ensure fairness
and justice in the proceeding and to bring about a fair and just outcome.
The American legal system is adversarial in nature. The adversarial system has been
embraced because it is believed that truth is best divined in the crucible of crossexamination
and adversarial argument. Attorneys, because they are trained in the advocacy
skills of cross-examination and argument, are a necessary component in a properly
functioning adversarial system. Thus, the notion that the adversarial system is an effective
method for ferreting out the truth presumes that both sides have relatively equal access to
adequate legal assistance from those trained in the art of advocacy. . . .
If the lack of legal representation is the free choice of the unrepresented party or if it
results from factors unrelated to the indigency of the plaintiff, our system is not offended.
Where, however, one party is unable to obtain legal representation because of indigency,
the resulting disparity of advocacy skills clearly offends the principle of “equality before the
law” underlying our system. Further, a substantial disparity in access to legal representation
caused by the indigency of one of the parties threatens the adversarial system’s ability to
produce a just and fair result.
Access to legal representation in this country is gained primarily through the private
market. . . . However, the market sometimes fails to provide counsel regardless of the merits
of the claims at issue. Where the person whose claims have been rejected by the private
market is indigent, he or she may seek representation through a legal aid organization.
However, the ability of such organizations to meet the needs of the indigent has taken a
serious hit over the past fifteen years in the form of reduced funding to the Legal Services
Corporation (“LSC”), the federal entity responsible for funding state and local legal aid
offices. . . . Compounding the problem of legal access for the poor is the growing apathy of
the private bar to the plight of many indigent litigants. The inevitable net result of these
factors is that the poor, indeed most of the so-called “middle class,” have less realistic access
to advocacy services from lawyers. . . .
I conclude that, when indigency is the principal reason for disparate access to the civil
justice system in an individual case, a federal court does possess the inherent authority to
bring about a fair and just adjudicative process by conscripting an unwilling lawyer to
represent the indigent party. . . .
(2) Preserving the Integrity of the Civil Justice System
The very purposes for the establishment of the judicial branch of government included
71