kinds of organizations, but there is always an attorney-client relationship between an organization and its lawyer. We thus declined “to slice and dice Kay ⅛ conclusion regarding ‘organizations’ and apply footnote 7 to some organizations but not others.” Id. The relevant doctrinal line is between a natural person going it alone, who is ineligible, and a person or organization who is represented by counsel and thus eligible for attorney’s fees. As the Supreme Court explained in Kay, an organization “is always represented by counsel,” but an individual is not. 499 U.S. at 436 n. 7, 111 S.Ct. 1435. The attorney-client relationship between an organization and its counsel requires the lawyer to step into a role, distinct from his personal capacity, in which he is legally and e Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). “One-person corporations are authorized by
holding that where one plaintiff has standing we need not consider whether the other individual and corporate plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit holding that in pennsylvania there is a rule that proof of the ownership of a business vehicle involved in an accident raises a presumption that the operation of the automobile was for the owners business purposes holding business automobile policy issued to a corporation did not provide uninsured motorist coverage for owners son holding that individual owners lacked standing to assert the loss of a business opportunity that belonged to their firm and not to them individually noting that had the corporation declared bankruptcy it is certain that the owners would not be so quick to request that we disregard the corporate form holding that subsequent property owners were bound by prior owners agreement to restrict building density and preserve certain portions of land as a condition of the original zoning approval