That's still a negative right, if you interpret it as "the government cannot put you in jail unless it makes sure you have legal representation."

So the government isn't actually required to give you a lawyer; it just can't put you in jail if it doesn't.

That's arguing over words. Fact is that the government is required to spend money or your rights have been broken.

It's not arguing over words; it's arguing over the concepts which the words represent.

Two distinct ideas appear to have been confounded together under the mantle of "rights" here, and we can't find fault in those seeking to clean up the confusion.

We can, however, find fault with those who seek to intentionally prevaricate in order to artificially apply the connotations earned by one idea to the other, and this includes those governments that try to define goods which must be acquired within society as being within the category of "rights".

Well what do you mean, that's a perfectly legitimate retort to the notion that the right to an attorney is a positive right. You might as well call the right to a trial as a positive right if you're going to call the right to a free attorney a positive right.