Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP v. DiPietro
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-08752
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP v. DiPietro, Judge Liman ruled the firm could not appear pro se but could continue through licensed counsel.
Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP must remove the “Plaintiff Pro Se” designation from future pleadings and must appear through counsel subject to the court’s professional and ethical requirements. Mr. Krakowsky may appear as counsel because the court found that he is licensed and a member in good standing of the court’s bar.
What happened
Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP v. DiPietro concerns the law firm’s request to proceed without counsel through its partner, Mr. Krakowsky, in a fee dispute involving Kara DiPietro and H.M.C. Inc.
The court explained that federal law generally does not allow corporations, partnerships, or similar entities to represent themselves through non-counsel representatives. It also said that calling Mr. Krakowsky a self-represented party could avoid the ethical responsibilities that apply to an attorney representing a client.
Judge Lewis J. Liman directed Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP to remove “Plaintiff Pro Se” from future filings. The court found that the complaint was properly filed because Mr. Krakowsky is licensed to practice before the court, and required him and any other attorney for the firm to follow the court’s professional and ethical standards.
The detailed version
- Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP v. DiPietro · No. 1:20-cv-08752
- Lewis Liman
- Jan. 4, 2021
Background
Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP (DHC) sought to proceed in this fee-dispute case as a self-represented party through Mr. Krakowsky, the partner involved in the dispute. Mr. Krakowsky had filed and signed papers for DHC and represented that he was a member of the bar of the court and licensed to practice there.
Legal standard
The court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1654, which allows parties to conduct their own cases personally or through counsel. Citing Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, the court explained that corporations, partnerships, and similar entities generally may appear in federal court only through a licensed attorney. The court also discussed the lawyer-witness issue. It noted that New York’s professional-conduct rules contain an exception when the lawyer’s testimony concerns only the nature or value of legal services, and that the parties had agreed to a one-day bench trial if the case reached trial.
The court emphasized that the issue was broader than the lawyer-witness rule. A person described as representing a party without appearing as its counsel might not be subject to the same ethical duties as an attorney, including the duty to avoid unfounded or vexatious claims. The court stated that allowing DHC to proceed under a “Plaintiff Pro Se” designation could create uncertainty about whether the representative was licensed to practice before the court and about which professional obligations applied.
Ruling
The court concluded that it did not need to take any action beyond directing DHC to remove the words “Plaintiff Pro Se” from its future pleadings. It held that the complaint had been properly filed because Mr. Krakowsky was a member in good standing of the court’s bar, and the docket listed him as the attorney to be notified. The defendants had not objected to his appearing as counsel for DHC. The court stated that Mr. Krakowsky, and any attorney appearing for DHC, would be held to the professional and ethical standards required of members of the court’s bar. If counsel withdrew, DHC would have to obtain other qualified counsel permitted to appear before the court.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.