In Re: Fred H Siemon
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-07508
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re: Fred H. Siemon: Judge Daniels denied Siemon’s request for appointed pro bono counsel after finding his appeal did not meet the likely-merit requirement.
Debtor-appellant Fred H. Siemon, whose request for appointed pro bono counsel was denied.
What happened
In re: Fred H. Siemon concerned debtor-appellant Siemon’s request for a lawyer to represent him without charge in an appeal from a Bankruptcy Court order.
The court explained that it considers the case’s likely merit, the applicant’s efforts to find a lawyer, and the applicant’s ability to present the case without assistance. The likely merit of the case receives the most attention.
Judge George B. Daniels ruled that Siemon’s initial filing did not satisfy the likely-merit requirement and denied his application for pro bono counsel. The court also identified organizations and court resources that might assist people representing themselves.
The detailed version
- In Re: Fred H Siemon · No. 1:20-cv-07508
- George Daniels
- Oct. 29, 2020
Background
Debtor-appellant Fred H. Siemon filed a motion seeking appointment of pro bono counsel in connection with his appeal from an order of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The opinion addresses only the request for counsel, not the underlying bankruptcy appeal.
Legal standard
For an indigent civil litigant seeking appointed counsel, the court considers the likely merit of the case, the applicant’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and the applicant’s ability to gather facts and present the case without assistance. The court stated that likely merit is the factor receiving the most attention and that an indigent civil litigant must first show that the case is likely to have merit.
Ruling
After reviewing Siemon’s initial filing, identified as the appeal from the Bankruptcy Court order at ECF No. 9, the court found that he had not satisfied the likely-merit requirement. Judge George B. Daniels therefore denied Siemon’s application for appointment of pro bono counsel. The court reminded Siemon that he could seek assistance from the New York Legal Assistance Group and the Southern District of New York’s Pro Se Intake Unit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.