Opinion
01 Civ. 6481 (LAP) (HBP)
December 23, 2002
OPINION AND ORDER
By a motion dated August 8, 2001, plaintiff moves for pro bono counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied without prejudice to a renewed application.
In a civil case, such as this, the Court cannot actually "appoint" counsel for a litigant. Rather, in appropriate cases, the Court submits the case to a panel of volunteer attorneys. The members of the panel consider the case and each decides whether he or she will volunteer to represent the plaintiff. If no panel member agrees to represent the plaintiff, there is nothing more the Court can do. See generally Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989). Thus, even in cases where the Court finds it is appropriate to request volunteer counsel, there can be no guarantee that counsel will actually volunteer to represent plaintiff.
The factors to be considered in ruling on a motion for pro bono counsel are well settled and include "the merits of plaintiff's case, plaintiff's ability to pay for private counsel, plaintiff's efforts to obtain a lawyer, the availability of counsel, and the plaintiff's ability to gather the facts and deal with the issues if unassisted by counsel."Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1986). of these, "[t]he factor which command[s] the most attention [is] the merits." Id. Accord Odom v. Sielaff, 90 Civ. 7659 (DAB), 1996 WL 208203 (S.D.N.Y. April 26, 1996). As noted fifteen years ago by the Court of Appeals:
Courts do not perform a useful service if they appoint a volunteer lawyer to a case which a private lawyer would not take if it were brought to his or her attention. Nor do courts perform a socially justified function when they request the services of a volunteer lawyer for a meritless case that no lawyer would take were the plaintiff not indigent.Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., supra, 877 F.2d at 174. See also Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 392 (2d Cir. 1997) ("`In deciding whether to appoint counsel . . . the district judge should first determine whether the indigent's position seems likely to be of substance.'").
Apart from lack of funds to retain counsel, plaintiff's application addresses none of the relevant factors. plaintiff's application contains no information about her efforts to retain counsel, no information concerning about why she cannot present her case herself and no information concerning the merits of her case.
Accordingly, plaintiff's application for pro bono counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewed application. Any renewed application should be accompanied by an affidavit addressing the relevant factors identified herein.