Lee v. Saul
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:19-cv-06553
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lee v. Saul, Judge Netburn denied Danny Lee’s motion for pro bono counsel without prejudice because he had not shown likely merit.
Danny Lee’s request for a court-appointed lawyer was denied without prejudice; the underlying case involved allegations against the Social Security Administration.
What happened
Lee v. Saul concerns Danny Lee’s request for a free lawyer in his case against Andrew Saul, the Social Security Administration Commissioner. Lee, who was representing himself, alleged harassment, discrimination, and retaliation by his previous employer, the Social Security Administration.
The court recognized that Lee could not afford a private lawyer, had been allowed to proceed without paying court fees, and said that earlier efforts to find counsel had failed. But the court focused most on whether his claims appeared likely to have merit and found that his filings did not show enough merit to justify appointing counsel.
Judge Sarah Netburn denied Lee’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice, meaning he may renew the request. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the docket entry for that motion.
The detailed version
- Lee v. Saul · No. 1:19-cv-06553
- Sarah Netburn
- Nov. 20, 2019
Background
Danny Lee, who was representing himself, asked the court to appoint a pro bono lawyer—a lawyer who provides representation without charging the client. Lee brought the case against Andrew Saul, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. The opinion says Lee alleged harassment, discrimination, and retaliation by his previous employer, the Social Security Administration.
Lee had been permitted to proceed without paying court fees because he lacked the financial resources to retain counsel. He also stated that previous efforts to obtain a lawyer had been unsuccessful, partly because he no longer lived in New York. His request for counsel was filed as ECF No. 16.
Legal standard
The court explained that federal judges have broad discretion when deciding whether to appoint counsel for a person who cannot afford a lawyer. Appointment is not required in civil cases. The relevant factors include the apparent merits of the case, the person’s ability to pay for private counsel, efforts to find a lawyer, whether counsel is available, and the person’s ability to gather facts and address the issues without assistance.
The court said the merits of the case receive the greatest attention. It reasoned that courts should not ask volunteer lawyers to take cases that private lawyers would not accept or cases that appear meritless solely because the person cannot afford counsel.
Court’s ruling
The court reviewed Lee’s filings, including his request to proceed without paying fees, his short complaint, and his opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, which contained a two-page argument and several exhibits. Based on those materials, the court could not conclude that Lee’s claim was likely to have merit.
Judge Sarah Netburn therefore denied without prejudice Lee’s motion for appointment of counsel, allowing him to renew the request. The Clerk of Court was directed to close ECF No. 16.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.