Summary
In Komlosi v. Fudenberg, 2000 WL 351414, at *16 n. 12 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), the plaintiff, a psychologist, was falsely accused of sexually abusing patients.
Summary of this case from Martinez v. Port Authority of New York New JerseyOpinion
No. 88 Civ. 1792 (HBP).
December 7, 2000.
OPINION AND ORDER
By motion dated November 10, 2000, plaintiff has renewed his application for pro bono counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.
In a civil case, such as this, the Court does actually "appoint" counsel. Rather, in appropriate cases, the Court requests that a member of a panel of volunteer attorneys agree to represent plaintiff. Even in cases where the Court finds it is appropriate to request volunteer counsel, there can be no guarantee that counsel will actually volunteer to represent plaintiff.
In an Order dated August 11, 2000, I denied a prior request from plaintiff for pro bono counsel because plaintiff had not shown an inability to obtain counsel on his own. Plaintiff's current application remedies that defect.
Accordingly, this case will be added to the list of cases circulated to the Court's pro bono panel. The trial date for the retrial of the damages phase of this case remains set at December 12, 2000.
I realize that the short interval remaining before trial makes it unlikely that any member of pro bono counsel will volunteer to take this case. This timing problem, however, is entirely of plaintiff's own making. All the documentary evidence submitted by plaintiff concerning his efforts to retain counsel is dated in August, 2000, and plaintiff offers no explanation of why he waited until mid November, 2000 to renew his application for pro bono counsel. It is inappropriate to adjourn further the trial date of this twelve-year-old case simply because plaintiff has been dilatory in seeking pro bono counsel.