factors were considered in our analysis: the prosecutor abused his discretion in failing to make the application; relators relied on the BOE’s and the prosecutor’s office’s representations that the county would pay their legal fees; the prosecutor’s office allegedly led the commissioners to believe that they could not make the application unilaterally and that relators were not entitled to appointed counsel; and the BOE publicly supported relators, essentially stating that they acted in good faith and a well-intended manner when performing their official job duties. {¶ 36} Additionally, we find that relators have established that they have no adequate remedy at law, thus entitling them to relief in mandamus. See Seminatore, 66 Ohio St.2d at 463-464, 20 O.O.3d 388, 423 N.E.2d 105 (<HOLDING>). Ill {¶ 37} Having determined that relators
holding that defendants response i cant  i cant afford it when informed that an attorney would be provided for him if he could not afford one did not without further explanation amount to a clear unambiguous or unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel holding that mandamus is an appropriate remedy because the trial courts issuance of temporary orders is not subject to interlocutory appeal holding that mandamus was appropriate remedy because temporary order granting visitation is not appealable holding that when the prosecuting attorney    refuses to afford counsel to a county board in defense of an action    mandamus would be an appropriate remedy holding when the state statute did not abrogate the common law rule the only available damage remedy in a mandamus action was one for making a false return and damages for the delay in doing the thing the mandamus sought to command could not be sought in the mandamus action