That's not quite correct. The statute that provides the rules for proceeding in forma pauperis in federal court is 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That statute expressly provides for the possibility of the court appointing counsel for the indigent person. “The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The statute permits appointment of counsel; it does not require it. There is no right to counsel in civil cases. The statute itself sets no requirement that “life and liberty” be at stake for the court to be able appoint counsel. The appointment is generally at the discretion of the court. And indeed the courts have appointed counsel in a variety of cases in which life and liberty were not at stake. The standard applied is found in the decisions of the federal courts of appeal and each circuit’s case law on the matter is different, though the typical basic standard most often seen is that a district court generally only need appoint counsel in exceptional or unsusual circumstances. That appears to be the basic standard in the 8th Circuit, the Circuit in which Arkansas is located. “Moreover, only in the presence of unusual circumstances, should counsel be appointed for the plaintiff in such cases.” Rhodes v. Houston, 258 F. Supp. 546, 578 (D. Neb. 1966), aff'd, 418 F.2d 1309 (8th Cir. 1969).
The Eighth circuit provided a little more guidance on when to appoint counsel in a civil case a few years later that involved a claim by the plaintiff of fraudulent conversion of his car by his former attorney. The plaintiff was, at the time, in prison. The court held the district court should have appointed counsel, saying:
In the overall interests of the proper administration of justice we think this case presents circumstances requiring appointment of counsel. The complaint states a fraudulent conversion of plaintiff's property. The answer admits the sale of the automobile but alleges mitigating defenses. Plaintiff is admittedly an indigent. For obvious reasons he alone cannot investigate the case or hope to obtain evidence to prove his allegations. The court will be aided by appearance of counsel at all proceedings. These circumstances fully justify the appointment of counsel to represent plaintiff and the failure to do so here would amount to an abuse of discretion.
Peterson v. Nadler, 452 F.2d 754, 757–58 (8th Cir. 1971), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 109 S. Ct. 1814, 104 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1989). Neither life nor liberity was at issue in that case. However, the fact that the plaintiff was in prison was a factor in appointing counsel since that fact prevented him being able to himself investigate the case or obtain needed evidence.
So while it is certainly true that it is very uncommon to get an attorney appointed in civil case in federal court, it is possible and in a variety of cases, not just where life or liberty are stake.

