C.O. v. New York City Department of Education
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-04507
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In C.O. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Schofield ordered the settlement funds held until fee arbitration resolves the dispute.
C.O., the Law Offices of Irina Roller, and the New York City Department of Education are affected. The Department must hold the $26,500 settlement funds while the fee-arbitration proceeding is pending, rather than paying the funds directly to either C.O. or the law firm.
What happened
In C.O. v. New York City Department of Education, the plaintiff’s former law firm, the Law Offices of Irina Roller, disputed who should receive $26,500 in settlement funds from the Department of Education. The firm said it was owed fees and expenses under its agreement with the plaintiff, while the plaintiff asked that the money be paid directly to him.
The firm argued that the plaintiff had signed a release, had agreed that the firm would seek attorney fees, and had discharged the firm only after its work was completed. The plaintiff disputed the amount owed and sought direct payment of the settlement funds.
Judge Schofield ordered the defendant to hold the funds until the fee-arbitration proceeding started by the plaintiff is completed. She also stated that no conference would be held at that time and directed the Clerk of Court to close the listed motions.
The detailed version
- C.O. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:22-cv-04507
- Lorna Schofield
- Nov. 18, 2022
Background
The action arose under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. According to the opinion, the plaintiff’s law firm represented the plaintiff in connection with claims concerning the plaintiff’s minor child’s education for the 2018–2019 school year. The firm said it prevailed in an underlying administrative proceeding and obtained the child’s full tuition at the requested school.
The firm then brought this action to recover attorney fees and expenses. It initially submitted invoices totaling $38,542. The firm and the City later agreed to settle the fee claim for $26,500, and the plaintiff signed a release in favor of the City.
Fee dispute
After signing the release, the plaintiff objected to paying the settlement amount to the Law Offices of Irina Roller and asked that the funds be paid directly to him. The plaintiff had paid the firm an initial $6,000 retainer and other amounts. The firm maintained that it was still owed more than the settlement amount under the retainer agreement and that it had agreed to accept $26,500 in settlement of its claim. The opinion states that the plaintiff discharged the firm and elected to proceed without a lawyer.
The plaintiff submitted a letter asking the court to order direct payment. The firm argued that direct payment would be improper because a genuine fee dispute existed and because the firm had an interest in the settlement funds. The firm also disputed the plaintiff’s calculation of the amounts he had paid and argued that the firm’s fee was reasonable in light of the successful result and the work performed.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the defendant to hold the funds pending the outcome of the fee-arbitration proceeding commenced by the plaintiff. The court did not order the settlement amount to be paid directly to the plaintiff. The court also stated that no conference on the issue would be held at that time and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions identified in the order.
This was an ancillary order concerning control of settlement funds and the attorney-fee dispute. The opinion does not resolve the parties’ ultimate disagreement about the amount, if any, owed to the firm.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.