Zonis v. Grubman

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided January 4, 2021·No. 1:20-cv-07181·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PETER ZONIS, : Plaintiff, : 20-CV-7181 (JMF) -V- : ORDER LIZZIE GRUBMAN et al., : Defendants. :

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: The Court received the attached letter from Michael Christy regarding his involvement in this case as an assistant and paralegal to the pro se Plaintiff. The statutory provision governing appearances in federal court, 28 U.S.C. § 1654, allows only two types of representation: (1) “that by an attorney admitted to the practice of law by a governmental regulatory body”; and (2) “that by a person representing himself.” Eagle Assocs. v. Bank of Montreal, 926 F.2d 1305, 1308 Qd Cir. 1991). Thus, “an individual who is not licensed as an attorney may not appear on another person’s behalf in the other’s cause.” U.S. ex rel. Mergent Servs. v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89, 92 (2d Cir. 2008) Ginternal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d Cir. 1998) (“[B]ecause pro se means to appear for one’s self, a person may not appear on another person’s behalf in the other’s cause.”). Accordingly, despite the Court’s sympathy for the Plaintiff (if he is limited in the ways Mr. Christy suggests), Mr. Christy may not appear on behalf of the Plaintiff or otherwise represent him in connection with this case.' The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 4, 2021 New York, New York SSE RMAN ited States District Judge Separate and apart from the foregoing, the Court cautions Mr. Christy that his provision of legal advice and assistance in drafting legal documents may well constitute the unauthorized practice of law, which is unlawful in New York. See N.Y. Judiciary Law § 478 (“It shall be unlawful for any natural person to practice or appear as an attorney-at-law or as an attorney and counselor-at-law for a person other than himself or herself in a court of record in this state, or to furnish attorneys or counsel or an attorney and counsel to render legal services . . . without having first been duly and regularly licensed and admitted to practice law in the courts of record of this state, and without having taken the constitutional oath.”’).

EY B 3 rrp Bp Mia nk, LLY JOJO oye

_ Leff fo safoan Court ye Lian iyges Laralégal Michiel brs. Tove [anh Zim a Lirkécal [é f □□

L tebe ll tht necissig Werle. □□ ne Uy fie 2p, bos pthnr wal ne fo □□□ bo8& fron stl 20 filth. ME 2005, 15.2 fbi] ~rrnd Wye paddt «2 rach him £0 □□ _Swntgig Ge this Yb a6 Lf EC VAS E27 P29 C40 □□ bevfrt - Len tif far belas CL, □□□ Pee □□□

giled £3 fox AMA: Digse _uaderstooad Lhe bole Zn Ss Aottapehh_of O1oing A Sing fe 1 far2t A$ Nats DDK Ln py ap An ty Lotsa

nig ge Me ppiatoc PoE hes id hel epentgh yar Ly bers □ hi not Ly terate, jf £ pein Uppess:n pnd dpyiety, He Ss abel A a afpnidated by Mhtinch □□□□□ Dnvt As 13 flog le ALE seongraeg) _Lhial Lita se LY : eapenls dd Hie Alten; ebylita dp 4fpack fuel amd gplipe □ fale [Toni Z be Mp 4 Spf 2 Sipe fidiod i MALLE □ be fide ALS, ZLWBES Jai L Dh ene VE L4 ELIMI □ ehaa 2 Fini) ofoors = dont: turvintl bet A L288 in 90 ConP hats. Eli fui ett Mh ag LE Am □□□ Jp oe hisrbatecl md Living i anbhine His heser py □□□□ Whit Aiftatfanfs, LOS A fhiitith 1212-Ab Gnd 40 ayjneiores □ a foal Wy VAGWE _ 70.2) pe faa assy □□□□ □□ Birra □□ 12°) py jo /2--2) AX /!00 □□□ □□□ 20 23301 fam latte Yhap og AP 350 OM) AHF

xe Yok yw fur ya frag Af. Za 6 Lars yap Wel) 362 Nh Dad □□□ anal Mews, ahs Zonis AF. BES Al CESS py Lo/€ ufo □ 06. 902 Lon risflind fant af V8 Aga ET GHEs ta ph pat. _ Ltr LM, □□ □□ Ma phe fe Lb (As LG AL. | A —_

pep

efi, Scho

(EZ Peder Rom, herehy avthorr.

Miehael ISFy to handle Bite □□□□ (dcr Fa ALAC, le O □□□ AC hed 7 aAloovev _ ——aapasgiggs Pit

| g 2 = RO a ppm S22) Qo 6g

oe 8 SA ES

Fo NIHR SRE

| met mo Ee ON ome Pees Se

= = Qo ee ee

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

Zonis v. Grubman, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Zonis v. Grubman (Zonis v. Grubman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Eagle Associates v. Bank of Montreal
926 F.2d 1305 (Second Circuit, 1991)
United States Ex Rel. Mergent Services v. Flaherty
540 F.3d 89 (Second Circuit, 2008)
Iannaccone v. Law
142 F.3d 553 (Second Circuit, 1998)