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 Moreover, the Rule requires the “[i]f the proceeding has concluded or if the attorney has withdrawn his or her appearance, the attorney must so notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court by the deadline for renewal of registration.”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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT