PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 28, 2020
Fair Access to Legal Counsel Act of 2020
This bill requires a court to consider specified factors when determining whether to provide counsel for a civil litigant who cannot afford counsel. In addition, the bill authorizes a court to appoint, rather than merely request, counsel for such a litigant.
Under current law, a court may request counsel to represent a civil litigant who cannot afford counsel. The bill instead authorizes the court to appoint counsel upon request by the litigant. A court must inform civil litigants appearing without counsel of their right to make such a request.
In considering whether to grant a civil litigant's request for counsel, a court generally must consider factors such as the complexity of the case, any mental or physical limitations faced by the litigant, and whether any opposing party is represented by counsel. The court may also appoint counsel for limited purposes, including for the purpose of advising the court as to whether a full appointment is warranted.
The bill also eliminates the requirement for a court to dismiss a civil litigant's case if the litigant's allegation of poverty is untrue.
People & committees
Rep. Sarbanes, John P. [D-MD-3] · D–MD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6037 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6037 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6037 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6037 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.