United Guardianship Services v. Lurio
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-07046
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In United Guardianship Services v. Lurio, Judge Abrams denied without prejudice a request for counsel because no inability to afford counsel was shown.
United Guardianship Services and Matilda Vincenty were affected by the denial of the request for counsel and the requirement to obtain proper legal representation before continuing the action. The defendants were not subject to a merits ruling in this order.
What happened
United Guardianship Services, acting as successor guardian for Matilda Vincenty’s personal needs and property, told the court it had been unable to find a lawyer willing to represent Vincenty. The court had previously explained that the guardian and Vincenty could not proceed without proper legal representation.
United Guardianship Services asked the court to appoint counsel. Judge Abrams explained that civil litigants generally have no right to free counsel and that courts may request, but not appoint, volunteer lawyers. Courts generally seek volunteer counsel for people who cannot afford a lawyer, but the request did not say that United Guardianship Services or Vincenty could not afford one.
In United Guardianship Services v. Lurio, Judge Ronnie Abrams denied the request for counsel without prejudice. The court ordered United Guardianship Services to report by December 23, 2019, whether it intended to continue the case and to update the court about efforts to obtain representation, warning that the case might be dismissed if counsel was not obtained.
The detailed version
- United Guardianship Services v. Lurio · No. 1:19-cv-07046
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 21, 2019
Background
United Guardianship Services had served since 2015 as the successor guardian for Matilda Vincenty’s “personal needs and property.” The opinion states that neither United Guardianship Services nor Vincenty appeared to be represented by counsel, even though proper legal representation was required. The court had previously ordered United Guardianship Services to provide a written update about its efforts to find a lawyer for Vincenty.
United Guardianship Services submitted a letter stating that it had been trying since August 8, 2019, to find counsel willing to represent Vincenty but had been unable to do so. The letter stated that the organization had no lawyer on staff and that the attorneys it contacted would not take the case. It asked the court to appoint counsel.
Legal standard
The court explained that, unlike in criminal cases, civil courts generally are not required to provide lawyers for people who cannot afford them. Courts have broad discretion when considering such requests and must use volunteer lawyers’ limited time sparingly. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request an attorney to represent a person unable to afford counsel. The court also explained that it has no authority to appoint a lawyer who must accept the case; it may only ask an attorney to volunteer.
The court did not decide whether United Guardianship Services or Vincenty was the relevant person for purposes of the statute. It held that the request did not suggest that either United Guardianship Services or Vincenty was unable to afford counsel.
Ruling
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied United Guardianship Services’ request for counsel without prejudice. The court ordered United Guardianship Services, no later than December 23, 2019, to state whether it intended to proceed with the action and, if so, to update the court about its efforts to obtain legal representation for Vincenty. The court warned that it might dismiss the case if counsel was not obtained. The opinion did not reach the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.