Cooke v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-05316
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Cooke v. Consolidated Edison, Judge Lehrburger granted Cooke’s request for the court to seek volunteer counsel in three cases.
Charmaine Cooke, who is proceeding without a lawyer, is the person affected. The order concerns her two consolidated copyright cases against Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc., and other defendants, as well as her separate disability-discrimination case. The opinion does not identify the other defendants by name.
What happened
Cooke v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. concerns Charmaine Cooke’s request for a free lawyer in two consolidated copyright cases and a separate disability-discrimination case. The copyright cases involve allegations that defendants copied ideas from case studies Cooke developed during her master’s degree program. The separate case involves allegations that a defendant failed to accommodate Cooke’s disabilities and ended her employment because of them.
The court had already allowed Cooke to proceed without paying filing fees, so it found that she was unable to afford a lawyer. Motions to dismiss were pending in all three cases, and Cooke’s responses were due September 2, 2025. The court said it was not deciding the ultimate merits but found that her claims were likely substantial and that a lawyer could help present them fairly and efficiently.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger ordered the Clerk of Court to try to find a volunteer lawyer for Cooke for the limited purposes described in the order. The court did not guarantee that a lawyer would volunteer, and the cases were to continue on their existing schedule. The court also denied Cooke’s ability to proceed without paying fees on any appeal and directed the Clerk to terminate the listed motions.
The detailed version
- Cooke v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-05316
- Paul Engelmayer
- Aug. 6, 2025
Background
The order addresses Charmaine Cooke’s request for pro bono counsel—meaning a volunteer lawyer—in two consolidated cases, 24-CV-5315 and 24-CV-5316, and in a separate case, 24-CV-536. The consolidated cases involve Cooke’s claim under the Copyright Act that the defendants infringed ideas contained in case studies she developed during her master’s degree program. The separate case involves claims that the defendant failed to accommodate Cooke’s disabilities, including post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety, and terminated her employment because of those disabilities.
Cooke filed a request to proceed without paying court fees, which the court granted. The court therefore found that she qualified as unable to afford counsel. Motions to dismiss were pending 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 ask a lawyer to represent a person who cannot afford counsel. In a civil case, the court cannot require an attorney to serve or pay the attorney from court funds; it can only request that an attorney volunteer. The court applied factors including whether the claims appeared likely to be substantial, Cooke’s ability to investigate and present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, the likely importance of cross-examination, and whether counsel would promote a fair result.
Ruling
Without deciding the ultimate merits, the court found that Cooke’s claims were “likely to be of substance” and that the other factors favored seeking counsel. It directed the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate pro bono counsel for Cooke for the limited purposes described in the order. The court warned that volunteer counsel might not be found, that no funds were available to retain counsel in civil cases, and that the cases would proceed on their current schedule, with deadlines remaining in place except as otherwise modified.
The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Cooke permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. It also directed the Clerk to terminate the motions listed at 24-CV-5315, Docket 66; 24-CV-5316, Docket 71; and 24-CV-536, Docket 101.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.