Mohammed Thani A.T. Al Thani v. Alan J. Hanke
Mohammed Thani A.T. Al Thani v. Alan J. Hanke et al.; Martin John Stevens v. Alan J. Hanke et al.
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-04765
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Al Thani and Stevens v. Hanke, Judge Cronan requested volunteer counsel for Amy Roy-Haeger at trial but warned no lawyer or delay was guaranteed.
Defendant Amy Roy-Haeger, who may receive volunteer representation at trial but must be prepared to proceed without a lawyer if none is found.
What happened
In the consolidated cases Mohammed Thani A.T. Al Thani v. Alan J. Hanke et al. and Martin John Stevens v. Alan J. Hanke et al., Defendant Amy Roy-Haeger asked the court to try to find a volunteer lawyer for her at trial. She told the court she could not afford a lawyer.
The court accepted that she could not afford counsel and found that her position appeared likely to have substance. The court also concluded that the case involved complex legal issues and conflicting evidence, raising concerns about her ability to present it herself.
The court requested volunteer counsel for Roy-Haeger at the trial scheduled for January 12, 2026. Judge John P. Cronan warned that no lawyer was guaranteed, that finding one could take time, and that the trial date was not expected to change. Roy-Haeger was told to be prepared to proceed without a lawyer if no volunteer agreed to represent her.
The detailed version
- Mohammed Thani A.T. Al Thani v. Alan J. Hanke · No. 1:20-cv-04765
- John Cronan
- Sept. 19, 2025
Background
The two cases are consolidated. Defendant Amy Roy-Haeger asked the court to try to locate volunteer counsel to represent her at trial. The trial was scheduled to begin on January 12, 2026.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a federal court may request, but cannot require or pay for, a lawyer to volunteer for a person who cannot afford counsel in a civil case. The court explained that it must consider whether the person appears unable to afford counsel and whether the position appears likely to have substance. If those threshold requirements are met, the court also considers factors including the person’s ability to investigate facts and present the case, the need to cross-examine witnesses, the complexity of the legal issues, and any special reason a lawyer would help produce a fair result.
Decision
The court accepted Roy-Haeger’s statement that she could not afford counsel and found that her position appeared likely to have substance, relying in part on its prior summary-judgment opinion. The court also found complex legal issues and conflicting evidence that raised questions about her ability to present her case.
The court therefore requested pro bono counsel—meaning a volunteer lawyer—to represent Roy-Haeger at trial. It did not appoint a lawyer. The court emphasized that no volunteer was guaranteed to accept the case, that a lengthy wait was possible, and that Roy-Haeger could decide whether to retain any lawyer who offered to help. The court also stated that it did not anticipate adjourning the January 12, 2026 trial date and told her to be prepared to proceed without a lawyer if no volunteer came forward. This was an ancillary ruling about representation, not a decision on the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.