Opinion
98 Civ. 3558 (RMB) (HBP)
February 26, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is currently before me in connection with a fee dispute between plaintiffs and their former counsel Akabas Cohen.
On January 24, 2002, I held a conference in this matter during which various discovery disputes were discussed. After hearing counsel for all parties, I awarded Akabas Cohen its attorney's fees in connection with its application to compel discovery. Accordingly, I entered an Order on January 28, 2002 directing Akabas Cohen to submit an affidavit outlining its fees and expenses. Akabas Cohen submitted such an affidavit on or about January 30, 2002 claiming $4,793.50 in attorney's fees. All of the fees claimed resulted from services performed by attorneys employed by Akabas Cohen.
Approximately one week after the January 24, 2002 conference, I conducted a settlement conference in this matter. Happily, the parties reached a settlement in principle at that time. Thereafter, plaintiff took the position that the settlement in principle encompassed the fee award that was outstanding at the time of the settlement conference, and superseded my January 28, 2002 Order.
The overwhelming weight of authority holds that most federal fee-shifting statutes do not permit recovery of attorney's fees by a person appearing pro se, even when that person is an attorney. See, e.g.Hawkins v. 1115 Legal Service Care, 163 F.3d 684, 694-95 (2d Cir. 1998);In Re Texaco Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litig., 123 F. Supp.2d 169, 172 (S.D.N Y 2000) aff'd without opinion, 2002 WL 126225 (2d Cir. Jan. 29, 2002); Belmont v. Associates Nat'l Bank (Del.), 119 F. Supp.2d 149, 167 n. 16 (E.D.N.Y. 2000). Thus, it has been held that a pro se litigant may not recover its attorney's fees in connection with a Rule 37 motion.Walker v. Tri-Tech Planning Consultants, Inc., 149 F.R.D. 22, 23 (E.D.N.Y. 1993), cited with approval, 7 Moore's Federal Practice, § 37.23[6] at 37-53 (3rd ed. 2001).
Since Akabas Cohen did appear pro se in connection with the discovery disputes resolved on January 24, 2002, and since Akabas Cohen did not incur any attorney's fees in connection with its discovery application, I conclude that the foregoing authorities teach that Akabas Cohen may not recover fees for the time spent by its own attorneys preparing and arguing its application to compel.