Some courts, on the state and federal level, have implemented rules for appointing counsel in habeas corpus petitions, which allow petitioners in state or federal custody to challenge the validity of their detention. But these rules are inconsistent and differ greatly, leading to petitioners having no knowledge of whether or not counsel will actually be appointed, or whether appointed counsel is prepared to provide adequate representation.

However, because local rules of the federal district courts can be changed relatively easily, judges have an opportunity to adopt favorable appointment mechanisms without much difficulty. This article looks at the Pennsylvania state rules and the local rules of several district courts, with the local rules of each court serving as individual “cases,” to determine just how effective the mechanisms of appointment are, and in doing so, makes recommendations as to what rules courts should adopt to ensure more effective appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings.

The Senate’s system of self-governance has become so complex that it requires a full-time parliamentarian to prepare guidance. Senators generally adhere to the unwritten rules, but because they are not binding, they can be bent and broken. Greg Burton argues that this procedural looseness opens Senate proceedings to exploitation, rendering the proliferation of unwritten rules undesirable.