Court Opinion

ID: 9479804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:29:23.61939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:17.408716
License: Public Domain

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree entirely that appointments in civil cases do not carry over to the appellate tribunal when an appeal is taken. I also agree that, once an appointment has been made in a civil case, the court need not require an Anders brief before granting counsel permission to withdraw. I write separately only to emphasize that today’s decision signals no retreat from the traditional law of this circuit with respect to the discretion of the district court and of this court in appointing counsel.1
I am pleased to note the court’s acknowledgment that market forces will not always ensure that a meritorious case will find counsel. There will always be cases where the stakes are so low, the plaintiff so reprehensible, or the cause so unpopular that, without a request from the court, the case will proceed without the participation of counsel. Moreover, in requesting counsel to assist the indigent civil litigant, we must be guided not only by a concern for the inability of civil litigants to fend for themselves but also by institutional concerns. As the court noted in Caruth v. Pinkney, 683 F.2d 1044, 1049 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1214, 103 S.Ct. 1212, 75 L.Ed.2d 451 (1983):
by appointing counsel in appropriate cases, a district court not only insures that the meritorious claims of a pro se plaintiff are not defeated, but also eases the burdens placed both on the district court and on this court when a skilled attorney presents a case.
In an era of massive case loads, the bench and bar share a common interest and responsibility for ensuring that all cases are decided expeditiously. In a common law system such as ours, we also share a common interest in seeing that all cases are decided correctly. Each case, whether reported or unreported, influences, to some degree, the vectors of our jurisprudence’s growth. Consequently, requests for the assistance of counsel ought not be limited to rare cases. Rather, they should be made whenever the need for justice in the individual case or the institutional demands of the efficiency of the judicial system or the intellectual integrity of case law require it.
In a period when the legal profession’s income is reaching, at least in some quarters, extraordinary heights, it is not an extraordinary demand to expect the bar to support the system that makes those high incomes possible. Nor do I believe that we shall be disappointed by the response. The rhetoric of the critics notwithstanding, there still exists within the profession a very high level of concern in the bar for the efficiency — and the intellectual integrity— of the judicial system. As the court wrote in Caruth:
The bar within this Circuit has long viewed appointments of counsel as part of its professional duty to provide public service. We have faith that lawyers always will be found who are willing to represent the indigent without remuneration.
Caruth v. Pinkney, 683 F.2d at 1049. While the judiciary ought not make unreasonable demands upon the bar, we should not underestimate its willingness to help when help is needed.

. This court has already set forth in some detail the factors that ought to be weighed in determining whether counsel ought to be appointed:
(1) the merits of the indigent litigant’s claim (whether there is a colorable claim);
(2) the nature of the factual issues raised in the claim, and whether the indigent is in a position to investigate crucial facts;
(3) the need for legal counsel for cross-examination, particularly when there is a question of credibility;
(4) the indigent litigant’s capability to present his own case; and
(5) the complexity of the legal issue.
Howland v. Kilquist, 833 F.2d 639, 646 (7th Cir.1987); see also Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887-89 (7th Cir.1981).