Abraham v. Leigh
- Katherine Failla
- 1:17-cv-05429
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Abraham v. Leigh, Judge Failla directed the clerk to seek volunteer counsel for Abraham’s upcoming bench trial.
Robyn Abraham, whose request led the court to direct the clerk to seek volunteer counsel for the remaining counterclaim; the case was not halted while counsel was being sought.
What happened
In Abraham v. Leigh, Robyn Abraham asked the court to help find a volunteer lawyer after her attorney withdrew. A counterclaim against her for allegedly breaching fiduciary duties was scheduled for a bench trial on June 7, 2022.
The court found that Abraham qualified as unable to afford counsel, that her defense appeared legitimate, and that the counterclaim involved complex issues. It directed the clerk to try to locate a volunteer lawyer, but explained that no lawyer was guaranteed and that the case would continue even if no volunteer agreed to help.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla also stated that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Abraham permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Abraham v. Leigh · No. 1:17-cv-05429
- Katherine Failla
- Apr. 27, 2022
Background
Robyn Abraham renewed her request for a volunteer lawyer after her counsel withdrew. The request concerned representation at an upcoming bench trial on Abby Leigh’s counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty. The counterclaim alleges that Abraham, while serving as Leigh’s attorney in negotiations concerning the revival of the musical Man of La Mancha, breached her fiduciary duty by entering a business agreement with Leigh concerning the same project.
The court stated that the counterclaim had survived two rounds of motions seeking to dispose of claims before trial and was scheduled for trial on June 7, 2022. The court had previously determined that Abraham was unable to afford counsel. The opinion refers to an earlier order granting her request to proceed without paying filing fees and states that the request was granted on July 9, 2022, although the opinion also refers to a July 9, 2019 order in describing the prior proceedings.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may appoint a lawyer for a person who cannot afford one. The court applied the factors identified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, including whether the person’s position appears likely to have substance, the ability to investigate and present the case, the importance of cross-examination, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether a lawyer would be more likely to produce a fair result.
Ruling
The court concluded that Abraham’s request was valid. It relied on the complexity of the counterclaim, the facial legitimacy of Abraham’s defense, and the recent withdrawal of her counsel. The court therefore directed the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate a volunteer lawyer to represent Abraham for the purpose of trying the remaining counterclaim.
The court emphasized that there were no government funds to hire lawyers in civil cases, that representation depended on volunteers, and that no volunteer was guaranteed to accept the case. It stated that the litigation would continue at its normal pace and that Abraham should be prepared to proceed without a lawyer.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for the purpose of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.