hearing for his clients. There is simply no benefit to the class as a whole from this work and accordingly, the request for fees by Fischer is denied. See In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litig., No. 00 Civ. 648(LAK), 2001 WL 210697, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.26, 2001) (denying fee requests for counsel who are neither Class Counsel or objectors). 6 . At least one pro se objector, who is also an attorney, seeks attorney’s fees. However, pro se objectors are not entitled to attorney’s fees, even if they are an attorney. See In re Texaco Shareholder Derivative Litig., 123 F.Supp.2d 169, 173 (S.D.N.Y.2000), aff'd 28 Fed.Appx. 83 (2d Cir. 2002); Pietrangelo v. U.S. Army, 568 F.3d 341 (2d Cir.2009) (denying fees to pro se attorney); Zucker v. Westinghouse Elec., 374 F.3d 221, 228-29 (3d Cir.2004)
holding that a shareholderobjector who represents himself as a pro se lawyer is not entitled to attorneys fees under the common fund doctrine holding attorneys fees not available to pro se attorney litigant in a federal freedom of information act action holding that attorney fees awarded under the common fund doctrine do not constitute part of a plaintiffs claim against the defendant and cannot be considered for amountincontroversy purposes holding that a pro se litigant who is an attorney is not entitled to fees under  1988 holding that attorneys fee award in a common fund case must be  reasonable under the circumstances