Cooke v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-00536
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Cooke v. Consolidated Edison, Judge Lehrburger directed the Clerk to seek volunteer counsel for Cooke but did not guarantee representation.
Charmaine Cooke, a self-represented plaintiff in three related cases, may receive assistance from a volunteer lawyer if the Clerk locates one. The defendants’ motions to dismiss and the existing case deadlines were not resolved by this order.
What happened
In Cooke v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., the court considered Charmaine Cooke’s request for a free volunteer lawyer in this disability-discrimination case and two related copyright cases. Cooke had been allowed to proceed without paying court fees, and the court therefore found that she qualified as unable to afford counsel.
The court said Cooke’s claims appeared likely to have substance, but it did not decide whether she would ultimately win. It also found that other factors supported seeking counsel, including that a lawyer could help investigate the facts, clarify the issues, and present the cases more effectively. Cooke’s responses to the defendants’ pending motions to dismiss were still due on September 2, 2025.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted the request for the limited purpose of directing the Clerk to try to locate volunteer counsel. The court warned that no lawyer might volunteer, that the process could take a long time, and that the cases would continue on their existing schedule. It also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Cooke v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-00536
- Paul Engelmayer
- Aug. 6, 2025
Background
Charmaine Cooke requested volunteer legal representation in three related cases. The 24-CV-536 case alleges that Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. failed to accommodate Cooke’s disabilities and terminated her employment because of those disabilities. The two consolidated cases allege copyright infringement involving ideas in case studies Cooke developed during her master’s degree program.
The court had granted Cooke permission to proceed without paying filing fees, finding that she qualified as indigent for purposes of the statute governing requests for counsel. Defendants had filed motions to dismiss in all three cases, and Cooke had not yet responded. Her responses were due September 2, 2025.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request—but cannot require—an attorney to volunteer to represent a person who cannot afford counsel in a civil case. The court applied factors identified by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, including whether the claims appear likely to have substance, the person’s ability to investigate and present the case, the likelihood that conflicting evidence will require questioning witnesses, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether counsel would help produce a fair result.
Ruling
The court found that Cooke’s claims were “likely to be of substance,” while expressly declining to decide their ultimate merits. It also found that the other factors favored seeking counsel because representation could help move the cases forward, clarify the issues, and shape the presentation of evidence.
The court therefore granted Cooke’s request in the limited sense of directing the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate pro bono counsel—a lawyer volunteering to represent her—for the three cases. The court did not appoint a lawyer, guarantee that one would volunteer, or provide funds to retain counsel. It stated that any volunteer would contact Cooke directly, that the search could take a substantial amount of time, and that all existing deadlines remained in place unless otherwise modified.
The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Cooke permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. It also directed the Clerk to terminate the listed motions in the three cases.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.