Lugo v. The Center
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-07423
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lugo v. The Center, Judge Broderick denied Carlos Lugo’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice.
Carlos Lugo’s request for court-appointed volunteer counsel was denied without prejudice. The order also concerns limited volunteer representation for his mediation.
What happened
In Lugo v. The Center, Carlos Lugo asked the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer to represent him. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.
The court said it needed more developed information before deciding whether Lugo’s case appeared strong enough to justify appointing counsel. It also considered factors such as Lugo’s ability to pay, efforts to find a lawyer, and ability to handle the case himself.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the request without prejudice, meaning Lugo may renew it later if he can show a potentially meritorious claim, including after discovery ends. The court also noted that volunteer counsel would contact Lugo to represent him only in the already-referred mediation, and that representation would end when mediation concludes.
The detailed version
- Lugo v. The Center · No. 1:21-cv-07423
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 3, 2022
Background
Carlos Lugo, who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed an application on December 29, 2021, asking the court to appoint volunteer counsel. The opinion identifies the defendants as Lesbian & Gay Communities Service Center and others, but it does not describe the underlying claims in detail. The case had previously been referred to the court’s mediation program under a standing order for cases involving employment discrimination claims brought without a lawyer.
Legal standard
The court explained that appointment of counsel requires consideration of the apparent strength of the plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff’s ability to pay for a private lawyer, efforts to obtain counsel, the availability of volunteer lawyers, and the plaintiff’s ability to gather facts and address the issues without a lawyer. As a threshold matter, the plaintiff must show that the claim has substance or a likelihood of success. The court also emphasized that volunteer attorney time is limited and that counsel should not be appointed indiscriminately.
Ruling
The court stated that a more fully developed record was needed before it could determine whether Lugo’s chances of success justified appointing counsel. Judge Vernon S. Broderick therefore denied Lugo’s application for appointment of counsel without prejudice to renewal when a potentially meritorious claim could be demonstrated, including after discovery closes.
The order separately noted that, as part of the mediation referral, the Clerk of Court had been directed to try to locate volunteer counsel for Lugo’s mediation. That counsel would contact Lugo directly, represent him only for the mediation, and end the representation when the mediation process concluded. The Clerk’s Office was directed to mail the order to Lugo.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.