Automated Management Systems, Inc. v. Rappaport Hertz Cherson Rosenthal, P.C.

Background

The court received an ex parte communication—a communication from one party without the other parties participating—from pro se Defendant Branko Rakamaric. The communication concerned his perspective on what the court understood to be ongoing settlement negotiations and asked the court for advice. The court stated that the communication would be filed under seal and viewable only by the parties and court personnel.

The order states that the case was scheduled for a bench trial on February 12, 13, 19, 20, and 26, 2025. The claims remaining for trial included Plaintiff’s claims against all defendants for copyright infringement, trade-secret misappropriation, and unfair competition; breach-of-contract claims against the non-Rakamaric defendants; and a tortious-interference-with-contract claim against Rakamaric. The court also noted that it had ordered Plaintiff to show cause why its trade-secret claims had not become moot after the alleged trade secrets were voluntarily disclosed, with Plaintiff’s response due January 24, 2025.

Request for Counsel

The court said that, as the trial judge, it was not involved in settlement negotiations and could not give a party legal advice. It construed Rakamaric’s request for legal advice as a request for appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning a volunteer lawyer providing representation without charging the client. Relying on substantially the same reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Willis’s February 23, 2024 order, the court found that representation would “lead to a quicker and more just result.”

Ruling and Scope of Representation

Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the clerk to attempt to locate pro bono counsel for Rakamaric for the limited purpose of settlement discussions before the upcoming bench trial. The order states that counsel would not be responsible for matters beyond the scope described in the order. Unless the scope were expanded, representation would end when the settlement discussions were completed; if necessary and Rakamaric requested it, counsel could also represent him at trial.

The court explained that volunteer counsel could seek reimbursement from the court’s Pro Bono Fund for certain out-of-pocket expenses. It also warned that there were no funds to hire counsel in civil cases, that volunteer lawyers were scarce, that finding counsel could take a long time, and that no volunteer was guaranteed to accept the case. If counsel volunteered, that lawyer would contact Rakamaric directly. The order directed the clerk to make the effort but did not itself guarantee that counsel would be found or appointed.