A divorce litigant appealed the outcome of his trial, arguing that he had “ineffective assistance of counsel.” The Appeals Court rejected his claim and upheld the trial judgment.
According to the justices, the litigant had no right to effective counsel in his divorce proceedings.
As a general rule, a party to a civil case does not have a right to effective assistance of counsel. Exceptions to this rule are limited and generally involve proceedings where the government might deprive the party of his “liberty or a fundamental liberty interest,” such as civil commitment proceedings, or proceedings where the Commonwealth seeks to take custody of a parent’s child. Divorce proceedings generally do not involve such deprivations of liberty. The plaintiff cites no case holding that he has a right to counsel in a custody dispute with the child’s other parent, and indeed, the case law holds that no fundamental interest is at stake in such disputes. (Citations omitted.)
The full text of the opinion is attached below.