Securities and Exchange Commission v. Moore
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-07803
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Moore, Judge Schofield granted Moore’s request that the court seek a volunteer lawyer for this civil case.
James Bernard Moore, who was representing himself in the civil action and requested a volunteer lawyer; the ruling also concerns any attorney who might volunteer to represent him.
What happened
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Moore, James Bernard Moore, who was representing himself, asked the court to seek a volunteer lawyer to represent him in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s civil action.
Moore said he could not afford a lawyer and was concerned that settlement discussions with the Commission could harm his appeal of his criminal conviction and sentence. The opinion states that the case involved complex and related issues.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the request for the court to seek volunteer counsel. The court explained that it could request—but not appoint or pay for—a lawyer, that a volunteer might not take the case, and that Moore should be prepared to continue representing himself.
The detailed version
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Moore · No. 1:18-cv-07803
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 6, 2022
Background
During an April 5, 2022, conference, pro se Defendant James Bernard Moore made an oral request for the court to seek pro bono counsel—an unpaid volunteer lawyer—to represent him. Moore stated that he could not afford a lawyer and was concerned that pursuing a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission could prejudice his appeal of his criminal conviction and sentence.
The opinion states that a jury convicted Moore in June 2019 of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud. On February 1, 2022, he was sentenced to 140 months in prison and three years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay restitution, a fine, and forfeiture. Moore filed a notice of appeal on February 15, 2022.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request an attorney to represent a person who cannot afford counsel. In a civil case, the court is not required to provide a lawyer, cannot appoint one, and has no funds to pay one. The court therefore must use volunteer counsel sparingly.
The court applied factors from Hodge v. Police Officers. These include whether the person is indigent, whether the claim appears likely to have substance, the person’s ability to investigate and present the case, whether conflicting evidence will require cross-examination, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether counsel would be more likely to produce a just result.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Moore’s claim was “likely to be of substance.” It also found that the relevant factors favored requesting counsel. In particular, the court relied on Moore’s concern that settlement discussions could affect his criminal appeal, as well as the complexity of the case and related issues. The court concluded that counsel could help produce a quicker and fairer result by clarifying the issues and shaping the examination of witnesses.
Disposition
The court granted the application for the court to request counsel. It explained that any lawyer would be a volunteer, that there was no guarantee a lawyer would take the case, and that Moore should be prepared to proceed without counsel. If a lawyer volunteered, that lawyer would contact Moore directly, and Moore could decide whether to retain the lawyer.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.