ILNews

IBA: Pro Hac Vice Reporting Deadline Rapidly Approaching

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By, Kevin McGoff & Meg Christensen, Bingham McHale, LLP
 

McGoff Kevin McGoff
christensen-margaret-mug Christensen

As 2011 dawns, with the year end accounting done and the pie generously sliced, it is time to ramp up for another year. Many attorneys pause to take a breath, having just completed the 2010 CLE requirements with a New Year’s Eve video marathon. So long as the Supreme Court dues are paid, it is time to go back to practicing law and leave the pesky administrative tasks till the end of summer. However, there is one more obligation lurking during the month of January for those Indiana lawyers serving as co-counsel with out of state attorneys. They must ensure the out of state attorneys renew their pro hac vice admissions. Failure to do so has potentially disastrous consequences for the Hoosier practitioner.

Indiana Rule of Admission and Discipline 3, Section 2(a)(c) requires renewal of temporary admissions as follows:

If an attorney continues to appear on the basis of a temporary admission in any case pending as of the first day of a new calendar year, the attorney shall pay a renewal fee equal to the annual registration fee set out in Admission and Discipline Rule 2(b). This renewal fee shall be due within thirty (30) days of the start of that calendar year and shall be tendered to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, accompanied by a copy of the Notice of Temporary Admission for each continuing proceeding in which a court has granted permission to appear.

Out of state attorneys who fail to properly renew their temporary admissions “shall” be automatically excluded from practice in Indiana pursuant to the Rule until the default is corrected. Moreover, the Rule requires the “[i]f the proceeding has concluded or if the attorney has withdrawn his or her appearance, the attorney must so notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court by the deadline for renewal of registration.”

In addition to being jointly responsible for all briefs, papers, and pleadings filed in cases litigated along with their out of state counterparts, Ind. R. Admis. Disc. (3), Sec. 2(d); In re Wilkins, 782 N.E.2d 985, 987 (Ind. 2003), wherein Indiana counsel was sanctioned for content of brief drafted by out of state attorney, Indiana attorneys serving as local co-counsel also bear responsibility to ensure out of state counsel fulfill Indiana’s rules governing temporary admissions. Do not leave compliance to the out of state lawyer.

The Indiana Supreme Court recently issued a private reprimand to an Indiana attorney for assisting in the unauthorized practice of law when he filed an appearance with a Kentucky attorney who was not properly admitted in this state. The non-admitted Kentucky attorney appeared in court and took depositions. In re Anonymous, 932 N.E.2d 1247, 1249-1250 (Ind. 2010). The Court explained in its September 3, 2010 opinion that “[t]he failure of out-of-state attorneys and their Indiana co-counsel to comply with the rule governing temporary admission is neither trivial nor rare.” Id. at 1250. Last year, over 600 notices of automatic exclusion from practice were issued. According to Paula Cardoza, Staff Attorney for the Division of the Supreme Court Administration, 187 attorneys sought relief from automatic exclusion in 2010. The Court stated in Anonymous that “[t]he need for this would be nearly eliminated if all Indiana co-counsel complied with their ethical duty to ensure that attorneys granted temporary admission in Indiana comply with Admission and Discipline Rule 3(2).” Id.

The attorney sanctioned received a private reprimand, but was also required to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding. With respect to the sanction imposed, the Court warned that a private reprimand was appropriate “under the circumstances of this case. However, Indiana attorneys serving as local counsel for out-of-state attorneys are hereby advised of the importance of their duty to ensure complete and timely compliance with all the requirements of Admission and Discipline Rule 3(2). Indiana attorneys who neglect that duty in future cases may be subject to more stringent discipline, and out-of-state attorneys who fail to comply with this rule may be sanctioned for the unauthorized practice of law in this state.” Id. at 1250. Lawyers working with attorneys not licensed in this jurisdiction need to be aware of, and meticulously follow the pro hac vice rules.

According to, Darla Little, the Roll of Attorneys Administrator, on December 1, 2010, the Indiana Roll of Attorneys sent 1,468 reminders to out of state attorneys to renew their admissions. Indiana co-counsel does not receive copies of these reminders. In light of the consequences for failing to ensure compliance with Admission and Discipline Rule 3, Section 2, Indiana attorneys should review the Rule’s requirements and ensure compliance by any out of state co-counsel. This is also a good time to verify and ensure that any out of state co-counsel who withdrew from a case in 2010, or whose Indiana litigation concluded in 2010 have reported those facts to the Clerk of the Indiana Supreme Court in order to avoid an automatic exclusion from future practice in this state.

Indiana Attorneys can now pay their annual licensing fees and/or change their contact information with the Roll of Attorneys online at: http://hats2.courts.state.in.us/att_web_06/att_inp.jsp, but out of state attorneys must send their notices and submit their registration fees the old fashioned way. Out of state attorneys should send a letter referencing their temporary admission numbers, listing all cases and cause numbers in which they have appearances on file, attaching the applicable Notice of Temporary Admission, and enclosing a check for $130.00 to:

Attn. Darla Little

Clerk of the Supreme CourtRecords Division

Roll of Attorneys

402 West WashingtonRoom W062

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

With respect to cases which have concluded or from which an out of state attorney has withdrawn, the letter should simply advise the Clerk of the attorney’s temporary admission number, the case name and cause number under which he or she was admitted, and some documentary evidence of the conclusion of the case or the attorney’s withdrawal.

The rules governing the administration of pro hac vice admissions have been revised over the years. Although compliance is relatively easy, this deadline does not get logged on every To Do List. Take a moment and review your list of cases to be sure you – and the out of state counsel relying upon your knowledge and experience in Indiana law and procedure – pay the fees and file the requisite paperwork.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT