Holland v. Matos

Background

Greg Holland sued Thomas Matos, Nanci Matos, and BestLife Gifts LLC under state law, invoking the court’s authority to hear disputes between citizens of different states. Holland alleges that the defendants stole his investment and interest in Ministry Ideaz LLC and used Ministry Ideaz’s inventory and cash to establish BestLife as a competing business.

The matter addressed in this order was Thomas and Nanci Matos’s application asking the court to request pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer without charge. Their prior lawyer had been relieved as counsel after reporting an unpaid balance and the defendants’ inability to make further payments. Michael Cohen later made a limited appearance to handle fact discovery, but that appearance was terminated. The Matoses then filed the counsel application and a request to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. Holland offered no position on the application but questioned the accuracy of the financial information.

Legal standard

The court explained that civil litigants do not have a constitutional right to counsel, but federal law allows a court to request counsel for an applicant who cannot afford a lawyer. The court applies a two-step test. First, the applicant must show that the position appears likely to have substance, meaning it is not highly doubtful and has some chance of success. If that threshold is met, the court considers additional factors, including the applicant’s ability to investigate facts and present the case, whether disputed evidence will require cross-examination, the complexity of the legal issues, and any special reason that counsel would help produce a fair result. The applicant must also show that they cannot obtain counsel before appointment will be considered.

Court’s reasoning

The court identified three deficiencies in the Matoses’ application:

1. The application did not establish that they were unable to retain counsel. It stated that an appointment with the New York Legal Assistance Group led to Michael Cohen’s limited assistance with depositions, but it did not say whether the Matoses had made additional efforts to contact that organization or other providers of free legal services after Cohen’s appearance ended.

2. The Matoses made no showing or argument that their defenses or counterclaims were likely to have substance, which is the first threshold factor.

3. The application did not address the additional factors. The Matoses focused on Holland’s representation by two law firms, but did not show that the trial would be unusually complicated, involve factual disputes requiring cross-examination, or exceed their ability to present their own case.

Disposition

Judge Karas denied the Matoses’ application for the court to request assignment of pro bono counsel without prejudice. The order states that the Matoses may renew the request and provide additional information. This order addressed counsel, not the merits of Holland’s underlying allegations or the Matoses’ defenses and counterclaims.