Our Pittsburgh lawyers regularly help attorneys outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania gain admission to handle a case in PA, via motion for admission pro hac vice, which is latin for handling “one thing” or “one case.” Click here to learn about the simple process. We’re always happy to serve as local counsel; contact us any time for more information.
But how can one lose pro hac vice (“local admission”) status?
Well, one way, potentially, is by dropping your pants when frustrated with the metal detectors upon entering a courthouse checkpoint. In early 2020, Robert Ward, Esquire, an Atlanta attorney had been admitted via local admission to handle a Florida case in federal court. Allegedly, Mr. Ward took of his pants when frustrated at a security checkpoint in Tampa, Florida in a federal courthouse. Whether this happened, we have no idea. But one thing is certain. The Honorable Federal Court Charlene Edwards Honeywell issued an order as follows:
On February 21, 2020, the Court issued an Order directing attorney Robert M. Ward to show cause as to why his pro hac vice privilege should not be revoked based on his behavior on January 30, 2020, on the first floor of the Sam M. Gibbons United States Courthouse.
That said, before it went any further, attorney Ward withdrew his representation from the case at issue in Florida, which rendered the matter moot.
But this raises an interesting question: what’s the standard to revoke local admission status in PA?
The Pennsylvania Rule: 231 Pa. Code § 1012.1
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1012.1(f) provides:
(f) The court may revoke an admission pro hac vice sua sponte [on the court’s own accord] or upon the motion of a party, if it determines, after a hearing or other meaningful opportunity to respond, the continued admission pro hac vice is inappropriate or inadvisable.
This means, a court can — on its own accord (as Judge Honeywell had done, above) issue a rule to show cause why a lawyer should not have his local admission status revoked.
That part’s fine.
Troubling, however, is the subjective standard for revocation. The lawyer’s conduct need only be “inappropriate or inadvisable.” There’s no objective definition for these terms. Nor is there any community standard identified. Words or gestures OK in downtown Pittsburgh might be “inappropriate” in quiet, rural county court in PA. A court could find almost any conduct “inappropriate or inadvisable.” As such, doesn’t this violate the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution, which requires notice in advance of the standard to lose rights?
A Right Versus Privilege
The Due Process Clause only applies to rights, not privileges, such as the “privilege” of driving on PA’s roads. Thus, a motor vehicle license suspension does not involve the same Due Process “rights” involved when the government takes away your money or stuff. Similarly, admission to practice law in PA via Rule 1012.1 involves the privilege to handle one case in PA. Thus, Rule 1012.1(f) would likely survive a Due Process challenge despite the Rule’s vague standard. That said, in close cases, most would do as attorney Ward had done when facing a challenge: simply withdraw from the case to avoid the lengthy (and expensive) battle over the issue.
Let’s Get Started!
Our Pittsburgh attorneys are eager to help with your admission local for any civil litigation matter in state or federal court. Contact us today to learn more.
412.342.0992
