Roviello v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

D. Arizona

Roviello v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DecidedJuly 15, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-02388

StatusUnknown

This text of Roviello v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Roviello v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roviello v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Marie Roviello, No. CV-25-02388-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 On July 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed the complaint (Doc. 1) and an application to proceed 16 in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). The complaint indicates that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se but 17 is “assisted by” Jack Schiffman, who is identified in the signature bar (although he did not 18 sign) as a “Retired Attorney.” (Doc. 1.) The State Bar of Arizona identifies Mr. Schiffman 19 as having a “suspended” status. 20 Mr. Schiffman is cautioned that providing continued legal assistance in this matter 21 could result in sanctions for unauthorized practice of law. Winterrowd v. Am. Gen. Annuity 22 Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 815, 823-24 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2009) (legal work that does not constitute 23 an “appearance” may be permissible by an attorney who has not been admitted to practice 24 before a certain court or by “paralegals, database managers, legal support, summer 25 associates, and even attorneys who have yet to pass the bar” but is impermissible by an 26 attorney who is suspended); Matter of Schum, 2025 WL 238916, *7 (D. Haw. 2025) 27 (“Importantly, here, the question is not whether such a task would qualify as the practice 28 of law for any layperson. It is, instead, whether it constituted the practice of law for a 1 || suspended attorney to do so, given that such an attorney is subject to greater strictures than 2|| a layperson with regards to conduct that may constitute the practice of law.’’) (cleaned up); In re Creasy, 12 P.3d 214, 217-18 (Ariz. 2000) (“[A] person need not appear in a judicial 4|| proceeding to engage in the practice of law. . . . Creasy clearly employed legal skill . . . and 5 || cannot now claim he was not engaged in practicing law. . . . [S]ome actions which may be 6 || taken with impunity by persons who have never been admitted to the practice of law, will 7\| be found to be in contempt if undertaken by a suspended or disbarred attorney.”). 8 Plaintiff is reminded that the Federal Court Self-Service Clinic provides free civil 9|| legal help to self-represented litigants. (See Notice to Self-Represented Litigant, Doc. 4.) || Alternatively, Plaintiff may retain counsel authorized to represent her in this action. 11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Schiffman may not continue to provide legal assistance 13 || Plaintiff in this action. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall provide a copy of this order to 15 || Mr. Schiffman. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the application for leave to proceed in 17 || forma pauperis (Doc. 2), without prepayment of costs or fees or the necessity of giving 18 || security therefor. 19 Dated this 14th day of July, 2025. 20 21 Lm ee” 22 f t _o———— Dominic W, Lanza 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Marie Roviello, No. CV-25-02388-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 On July 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed the complaint (Doc. 1) and an application to proceed 16 in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). The complaint indicates that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se but 17 is “assisted by” Jack Schiffman, who is identified in the signature bar (although he did not 18 sign) as a “Retired Attorney.” (Doc. 1.) The State Bar of Arizona identifies Mr. Schiffman 19 as having a “suspended” status. 20 Mr. Schiffman is cautioned that providing continued legal assistance in this matter 21 could result in sanctions for unauthorized practice of law. Winterrowd v. Am. Gen. Annuity 22 Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 815, 823-24 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2009) (legal work that does not constitute 23 an “appearance” may be permissible by an attorney who has not been admitted to practice 24 before a certain court or by “paralegals, database managers, legal support, summer 25 associates, and even attorneys who have yet to pass the bar” but is impermissible by an 26 attorney who is suspended); Matter of Schum, 2025 WL 238916, *7 (D. Haw. 2025) 27 (“Importantly, here, the question is not whether such a task would qualify as the practice 28 of law for any layperson. It is, instead, whether it constituted the practice of law for a 1 || suspended attorney to do so, given that such an attorney is subject to greater strictures than 2|| a layperson with regards to conduct that may constitute the practice of law.’’) (cleaned up); In re Creasy, 12 P.3d 214, 217-18 (Ariz. 2000) (“[A] person need not appear in a judicial 4|| proceeding to engage in the practice of law. . . . Creasy clearly employed legal skill . . . and 5 || cannot now claim he was not engaged in practicing law. . . . [S]ome actions which may be 6 || taken with impunity by persons who have never been admitted to the practice of law, will 7\| be found to be in contempt if undertaken by a suspended or disbarred attorney.”). 8 Plaintiff is reminded that the Federal Court Self-Service Clinic provides free civil 9|| legal help to self-represented litigants. (See Notice to Self-Represented Litigant, Doc. 4.) || Alternatively, Plaintiff may retain counsel authorized to represent her in this action. 11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Schiffman may not continue to provide legal assistance 13 || Plaintiff in this action. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall provide a copy of this order to 15 || Mr. Schiffman. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the application for leave to proceed in 17 || forma pauperis (Doc. 2), without prepayment of costs or fees or the necessity of giving 18 || security therefor. 19 Dated this 14th day of July, 2025. 20 21 Lm ee” 22 f t _o———— Dominic W, Lanza 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Roviello v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roviello-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-azd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack