Aboul v. Amsterdam Hospitality
- James Cott
- 1:19-cv-09987
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Aboul v. Amsterdam Hospitality, Judge Cott denied Lahsen Aboul’s requests for appointed counsel without prejudice.
Lahsen Aboul’s requests for appointed counsel in his two related discrimination cases were denied without prejudice; the underlying cases were not resolved by this order.
What happened
Lahsen Aboul, who was representing himself, asked the court to appoint a lawyer in two discrimination cases against Ameritania 54* Associates, LLC and Amsterdam Hospitality. He said he was unemployed because of the coronavirus pandemic and could not afford a lawyer, and that he had difficulty finding one to take his cases.
The court explained that it could not pay appointed lawyers in civil cases and could order appointment only if Aboul first showed some likelihood that his claims had merit. The court said the cases were still at an early stage, with no motions or discovery, and that the current record did not show that his claims were substantial or likely to succeed.
Judge James L. Cott denied Aboul’s requests for appointed counsel without prejudice, allowing him to renew them later. The court directed him to seek help from the court’s Pro Se Office or a legal-assistance clinic, continue looking for private counsel, and stop emailing submissions to chambers. The clerk was directed to close docket entries 23 and 26 and mark them as denied without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Aboul v. Amsterdam Hospitality · No. 1:19-cv-09987
- James Cott
- Aug. 12, 2020
Background
Lahsen Aboul, proceeding without a lawyer, moved for appointment of counsel in each of two related discrimination cases. The opinion identifies the defendants as Ameritania 54* Associates, LLC and Amsterdam Hospitality. Aboul said he could not afford an attorney because he was unemployed due to the coronavirus pandemic and that he had difficulty finding an attorney willing to handle his cases.
Legal standard
The court stated that it had no budget to pay appointed counsel in civil cases and no authority to require a lawyer to work without pay. Before considering additional factors—such as a party’s ability to investigate facts and present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and any special reason supporting appointment—the court requires a threshold showing of some likelihood of merit.
Court’s ruling
The court denied Aboul’s applications for appointment of counsel without prejudice because, based on the current record, it could not conclude that his claims were substantial or that he was likely to succeed on the merits. The court noted that the cases were still in their infancy: there had been no motion practice or discovery. It directed Aboul to work with the court’s Pro Se Office if he needed additional help and to continue seeking private counsel. The order also identified a New York Legal Assistance Group clinic as an independent resource for people in civil cases who do not have lawyers, while noting that the clinic was not part of the court and could not file papers for him. Aboul was directed to stop emailing submissions to chambers and to file them through the court’s electronic filing system, with assistance from the listed resources if needed. The clerk was directed to close docket entries 23 and 26 and mark them as denied without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.