Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 FEBRUARY 2015

Motion For Appointment Of Counsel Denied

In Damiani v. Gill, C.A. No. N14C-05-186-ALR (Rocanelli, J.) (Order dated January 26, 2015), the Delaware Superior Court addressed Plaintiff Pablo Damiani’s request to have that Court appoint counsel to represent him.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

In Damiani v. Gill, C.A. No. N14C-05-186-ALR (Rocanelli, J.) (Order dated January 26, 2015), the Delaware Superior Court addressed Plaintiff Pablo Damiani's request to have that Court appoint counsel to represent him.  The Court began by noting the general principle that "[s]elf represented litigants in civil proceedings have no legal or equitable right to appointed counsel."  Id. at 1.  However, the Court did not immediately reject.

In analyzing the request, the Court applied a six pronged test previously set out by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 498 (3d Cir. 2002) to determine whether appointment was necessary or appropriate.  Applying this test, the Court concluded appointment was neither because:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from