Drews v. Adams
- Nelson Roman
- 7:24-cv-06698
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Drews v. Adams, Judge Román denied Wendy Drews’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice because the case was too early to assess.
Wendy Drews, the pro se plaintiff seeking volunteer counsel; the request may be renewed later.
What happened
Drews v. Adams concerns pro se Plaintiff Wendy Drews’s request for information about obtaining a volunteer lawyer to represent her in this civil case.
The court said it could ask lawyers on its pro bono panel to represent an eligible litigant, but first had to assess whether Drews’s position appeared likely to succeed and whether the case’s complexity or other circumstances made counsel necessary. Because the case was still at an early stage, with no motion practice yet begun, the court could not make those assessments.
Judge Nelson S. Román denied Drews’s motion without prejudice, with leave to renew later in the proceedings. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and mail Drews a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Drews v. Adams · No. 7:24-cv-06698
- Nelson Roman
- Apr. 2, 2025
Background
Pro se Plaintiff Wendy Drews asked the court about the process for requesting pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who would represent her without charging her a fee. The court treated the application as a request for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
Legal standard
The court explained that, unlike in a criminal case, it cannot require an attorney to represent an indigent person in a civil case. It may, in its discretion, ask the Pro Se Office to seek a volunteer attorney through the court’s pro bono panel.
Under Second Circuit precedent, the court must first consider whether the litigant’s position appears likely to have substance or some chance of success. If that threshold is met, the court considers additional factors, including whether the litigant can obtain a lawyer independently, whether the litigant can handle the case without assistance, the factual investigation required, the complexity of the legal issues, and the need for skilled cross-examination.
Reasoning
The court found that it could not determine at this early stage whether Drews’s position had a strong chance of success or whether the legal issues were particularly complex. The docket showed that the case had been filed less than one year earlier and that the parties had not yet begun motion practice. The court also could not yet conclude that Drews was unable to handle the case without assistance, although that assessment could change as the case progressed.
Disposition
The court denied Drews’s motion without prejudice, with leave to renew at a later stage. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 20, mail Drews a copy of the order at her address listed on the docket, and show proof of service.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.