Court Opinion

ID: 9608734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:16:46.948272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:24.790317
License: Public Domain

J. HARVEY HUDSON, Justice,
concurring.
Two weeks before trial, Bruce discharged his attorney. On the day of trial, Bruce asked for a continuance. The judge refused to grant the continuance. Bruce then announced he would proceed pro se, but that he had hired advisory counsel to sit with him during the trial. When questioned by the court, counsel announced that he was not prepared to take an active role in the case because he had been retained only a short time before trial. Bruce again reiterated that he would represent himself in all phases of the trial and that he would rely on counsel only for occasional advice and private consultation. Kathleen’s attorney was skeptical of the procedure and the trial judge warned Bruce that she would not permit him to retard or delay the proceedings by pausing for frequent conferences with his counsel. With this admonition, the trial judge permitted the arrangement.1
*154As promised, counsel did not “represent” appellant in the proceedings, but acted only in an advisory capacity. However, at the commencement of the second day of trial, Kathleen’s attorney suggested to the court that the arrangement was a form of hybrid representation, prohibited in civil cases. Relying upon Posner v. Dallas County Child, Welfare, 784 S.W.2d 585 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1990, writ denied), the trial court reversed its earlier ruling, ' briefly considered declaring a mistrial, and finally prohibited advisory counsel from remaining in the courtroom. Advisory counsel objected to his exclusion and argued that although Bruce was representing himself pro se, due process under both the state and federal constitutions mandated that he should be permitted to have as effective and competent representation as possible under the circumstances. Thus, the issue is the fundamental question of whether Bruce had a constitutional right to retain counsel to assist him in his divorce proceedings.
Under English common law, the practice of utilizing attorneys in civil litigation has long been the accepted custom. By a statute of Henry VII in 1495, Englishmen were not only endowed with the right to retain attorneys to represent them in civil cases, indigent parties were guaranteed the services of a free lawyer.2 The opposite custom, however, prevailed in criminal cases. Until 1836, those charged with felony crimes under English common law were denied the right to retain and be represented by counsel.3 See Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 60, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932). This common law tradition was sharply reversed and rejected by the American constitution which specifically provides that the accused in a criminal case is permitted to retain counsel to represent him before the court. See U.S. Const, amend VI.
By its own clear language, however, the Sixth Amendment does not apply in civil cases. See Father & Sons Lumber and Bldg. Supplies, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 931 F.2d 1093, 1097 (6th Cir.1991); United States v. Rogers, 534 F.2d 1134, 1135 (5th Cir.1976). The same is true of Article I, section 10 of the Texas Constitution. See Harris v. Civil Service Com’n, 803 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Tex.App.-Houston [14 th Dist.] 1990, no writ). However, at the time these provisions were adopted, the right to retain counsel in civil cases was assumed.4 Thus, these constitutional provisions were not intended to infringe upon the accepted right of a party to retain counsel in a civil case, but rather, to explicitly overrule the common law tradition of denying counsel to criminal defendants. It is plain, however, that if the federal constitution guarantees the right to be heard by counsel in a civil case, it will not be found in the Sixth Amendment.
The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment states that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” See U.S. Const, amend V (emphasis added). The same language is made applicable to the *155states in the Fourteenth Amendment. See U.S. Const, amend. XIV. Thus, due process protections extend to civil, as well as criminal, proceedings.
The most fundamental concept of due process is the right to a hearing. See Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409, 417, 17 S.Ct. 841, 42 L.Ed. 215 (1897); Derbigny v. Bank One, 809 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tex.App.-Houston [14 th Dist.] 1991, no writ). Yet the “right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel.” Powell, 287 U.S. at 69, 53 S.Ct. 55. Thus, “[i]f in any case, civil or criminal, a state or federal court were arbitrarily to refuse to hear a party by counsel, employed by and appearing for him, it reasonably may not be doubted that such a refusal would be a denial of a hearing, and, therefore, of due process in the constitutional sense.” Id. (emphasis added).
This is not to say that a civil litigant has a constitutional right to appointed counsel. While a trial judge may occasionally appoint counsel to represent an indigent party,5 a civil litigant has no constitutional right to a free lawyer.6 See Sandoval v. Rattikin, 395 S.W.2d 889, 893-94 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1965, writ ref d n.r.e.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 901, 87 S.Ct. 199, 17 L.Ed.2d 132 (1966). Nevertheless, his right to be heard through his own counsel is absolute.7
Here, Bruce did not choose to be “heard” through counsel. His lawyer was not employed to “represent” him or appear on his behalf, but only to advise him during the course of trial. However, I do not believe this distinction takes this scenario beyond the protections of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Bruce had a constitutional right to hire an attorney to assist him in this cause. While most laymen choose to use their attorneys to “represent” them in court, Bruce chose to use his attorney only to “advise” him in court. This may have been a foolish use of legal resources, but I believe Bruce’s decision to utilize counsel in this manner was constitutionally protected.
This is not to say that Bruce had a right to hybrid representation. Dual representation by a layman and his lawyer can produce a confusing cacophony of contradictory requests and petitions that delay the orderly proceedings of a court. Here, however, there was but one spokesman for the appellant — Bruce. The record does not suggest that counsel’s presence was disruptive or that Bruce’s consultation with counsel delayed the proceedings.
By attempting to represent himself, Bruce was disadvantaged from the outset. Laymen simply cannot be expected to know how to protect their rights when dealing with practiced and carefully counseled adversaries. See Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia, 2, 11 U.S. 1, 7, 84 S.Ct. 1113, 12 L.Ed.2d 89 (1964). Although he represented himself pro se, Bruce retained an attorney to provide him advice and counsel in making strategic decisions. This was, I believe, his constitu*156tional right, and the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to utilize his retained advisory counsel.
Accordingly, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s disposition of Bruce’s final point of eiTor. However, I join the majority opinion in all other respects and concur in the decision to reverse the trial court’s judgment and to remand the cause to the trial court,

. The trial judge remarked:
Well, I'm willing to try it. I don’t think I can bar you from doing it. I don’t think I can bar him from having an attorney. Ab*154solutely a litigant can represent himself and absolutely a litigant can hire an attorney and absolutely a litigant can hire two attorneys. And I have never thought about it before, I confess. Not more than five minutes ago, ten minutes ago was the first time I thought about the possibility. But I don’t know that I can automatically bar him.

. See Hon. Earl Johnson, Jr., The Right to Counsel in Civil Cases: An International Perspective, 19 Loy. L.A. L.Rev. 341, 342 (1985).

. Even in capital cases, defendants were not permitted to be represented by counsel. See 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries 349 (1769). At one time, the accused was not even permitted to call witnesses in his defense. Blackstone records: "Lastly, it was an antient [sic] and commonly received practice, (derived from the civil law, and which also to this day obtains in the kingdom of France) that, as counsel was not allowed to any prisoner accused of a capital crime, so neither should he be suffered to exculpate himself by the testimony of any witnesses." 4 Blackstone, at 352.

.The Right to Counsel in Civil Litigation, 66 Colum. L.Rev. 1322, 1327(1966).

. “In some exceptional cases, public and private interests at stake are such that the administration of justice may best be served by appointing a lawyer to represent an indigent civil litigant.” Coleman v. Lynaugh, 934 S.W.2d 837, 839 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ). See also Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 24.016 (Vernon 1988).

. Lawyers are appointed to represent indigent parties in civil actions in England, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, New Zealand, many of the Australian states, and most of the Canadian provinces. See Johnson, at 342-48. "When it comes to the legal entitlement to free counsel for indigent civil litigants, the United States is in a distinct minority among the industrial democracies of the world.” Id. at 345.

.The right to retain counsel of one’s choice must yield only where the failure to maintain ethical standards of professional responsibility would threaten the very integrity of the judicial process. See Warrilow v. Norrell, 791 S.W.2d 515, 523 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1989, writ denied).