Garcia Aquino v. Polanco
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-03406
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Garcia Aquino v. Polanco: Judge Liman granted Polanco’s request for pro bono counsel limited to settlement discussions in a wage-and-hour case.
The order directly affected Defendant Nilson Polanco by authorizing an attempt to find volunteer counsel for settlement discussions; it also affected the settlement process involving Polanco and Plaintiff Jose Garcia Aquino.
What happened
In Garcia Aquino v. Polanco, Defendant Nilson Polanco, who was representing himself, asked for volunteer legal counsel to help with a settlement conference in Jose Garcia Aquino’s lawsuit under federal and New York wage laws.
The court found that both sides had meaningful positions, that settlement discussions could help at an early stage, and that counsel would assist Polanco with investigating, presenting, and understanding the case. The court also noted that Polanco speaks Spanish and has limited facility with English.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted Polanco’s request for volunteer counsel for the limited purpose of settlement. He directed the Clerk of Court to try to find a volunteer attorney, but explained that counsel was not guaranteed and that Polanco might need to continue without a lawyer.
The detailed version
- Garcia Aquino v. Polanco · No. 1:23-cv-03406
- Lewis Liman
- June 28, 2023
Background
Jose Garcia Aquino sued Nilson Polanco, doing business as Nilson Construction, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. At a June 28, 2023 court conference, Polanco requested volunteer legal counsel for the limited purpose of pursuing a settlement conference with a magistrate judge. Polanco was representing himself.
Legal standard
The court explained that civil litigants do not have an automatic right to a court-provided lawyer. Courts may ask volunteer lawyers to represent civil litigants, but must do so sparingly because volunteer legal services are limited. The court applied the factors from Hodge v. Police Officers, including whether the party’s position appeared substantial, whether the case required factual investigation, the party’s ability to present the case, the importance of credibility and cross-examination, the complexity of the legal issues, and any special reason counsel would help achieve a fair result.
Court’s analysis
The parties expressed different views about Polanco’s potential liability. Aquino explained the basis for the claims, while Polanco said he believed he was not liable but would benefit from legal assistance. Both parties expressed a willingness to participate in settlement discussions in good faith. The court found that Aquino had satisfied the Hodge standards and that both parties presented positions of substance. It also found that Polanco had limited ability to investigate and present the case because he represented himself, spoke Spanish, and had limited facility with English. The court further concluded that counsel could help explain complex issues and explore whether settlement was possible before the parties spent additional resources on litigation.
Order and practical effect
The court granted Polanco’s request for pro bono counsel for the limited purpose of assisting with settlement. It directed the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate a volunteer attorney. The court emphasized that no funds were available to pay civil counsel, that finding a volunteer could take a substantial amount of time, and that a volunteer might decline the representation. It also stated that Polanco was not required to retain a lawyer who volunteered, that the court generally would not vet or endorse the lawyer, and that Polanco should be prepared to proceed without counsel.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.