ILNews

Revising rules on agency lawyers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorneys from outside Indiana should know this: The process for practicing before state administrative agencies, even temporarily, is changing and may impact your ability to practice law in this state.

The Indiana Supreme Court is reviewing the rules on how out-of-state attorneys receive temporary admission to practice law before state administrative agencies, changing a process that has already forced some agencies to scrap policies they’ve had in place for years.

Specifically, administrative law judges are not able to grant pro hac vice admissions as they have previously understood was allowed, in part by state statute alluding to this authority. But the process has now changed, and it may change again based on further review by the high court.

A handful of ALJs, both attorneys and non-attorneys, say the practice streamlined the process, and it is a practice that’s been in place for various agencies for as long as they remember. It is particularly common with Illinois and Kentucky attorneys who frequently represent clients in northern and southern Indiana, respectively.

Some agencies set specific policies for allowing temporary admission, requiring ALJs to consider the out-of-state lawyer’s professional background and make sure that he or she is licensed to practice there and doesn’t have disciplinary history in that state that might raise concerns.

“Many suggest that practicing before an agency is just ‘different’ from practicing before a court,” said Senior Administrative Law Judge Carol Comer with the Indiana Board of Tax Review. “But at its core, the practice of law is the practice of law and a lawyer must be properly licensed to do so. Therefore, while allowing ALJs to admit foreign attorneys for the limited purpose of appearing before an administrative agency does streamline the process, the ultimate regulation of the practice of law is firmly within the Supreme Court’s purview. After the directive, the board considers those rules invalid.”

The issue came up last year after finding a conflict between the Indiana Constitution and the state’s Admission and Discipline Rules, according to Appellate Clerk Kevin Smith. The former gives that attorney admission authority exclusively to the Supreme Court, while the rules didn’t clearly address how non-Hoosier lawyers practicing before executive agencies should be handled.

This has been an issue for many years and has come up in appellate cases before. In State Ex Rel. Indiana State Bar Association v. M. Drew Miller, No. 94S00-0001-MI-40, the court issued a divided opinion that dismissed an unauthorized practice of law case where a non-lawyer was allowed to represent a taxpayer before the tax review board as it existed in the late 1990s. The ISBA filed suit against him for UPL, but only two justices at the time voted to sanction that person based on the existing rules.

While rules and statutes have changed since then, some have inquired about guidance for those who might represent national or regional companies but be sent to Indiana to handle administrative matters for employers in this state.

Court records show that only about 3 percent of the 1,335 out-of-state attorneys admitted in Indiana – or 39 lawyers – are specifically practicing before administrative agencies, and 15 of those have been admitted recently by the Supreme Court since this issue surfaced late last year, Smith said. Specific details about how those remaining 24 were admitted, whether by trial court or ALJ, isn’t tracked by the appellate clerk’s office.

“We want to help out-of-state attorneys avoid unknowingly engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in Indiana, which was the impetus behind the letters,” Smith said, referring to his notices to various agencies in October and January.

In October, the clerk’s office notified the agencies that when a foreign attorney submits a petition for temporary admission, the ALJ should decline to rule on that petition due to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 3, Section 2, which states only one of the appellate courts has the authority. Instead, the letter directed ALJs to instruct the requesting attorney to file the petition with a county court where a judge is presiding over the matter. In mid-January, after the Supreme Court looked into the issue more specifically, Smith sent a secondary letter to those same agencies notifying them that out-of-state attorneys should file their petitions directly with the Indiana Supreme Court until this matter is reviewed.

Public comments are being accepted until May 1 by the state court’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure. Three options have been presented: allow the agency itself to approve the out-of-state attorney’s temporary admission, give that power to the trial court where the agency is meeting, or make the Supreme Court the only decision-maker on that admission.

The committee will study the issue and establish a specific rule. It is interested in hearing what the legal community thinks. The court welcomes additional suggestions that address this process, and those comments or additional option suggestions can be sent via email to localrulescomments@courts.state.in.us, or by mail to Lilia G. Judson, Executive Director; Indiana Supreme Court, Division of State Court Administration; 30 South Meridian St., Suite 500; Indianapolis, IN 46204.

Though not directly connected, this rule examination for out-of-state attorney admission fits into a larger discussion about how much authority ALJs have in Indiana. The Indiana State Bar Association has been studying this issue during the past year, and the Legislature has not only discussed but also implemented changes requiring certain ALJs to be lawyers in good standing in order to serve in those roles.

Indiana’s state agencies use ALJs on a case-by-case basis and no government entity tracks the use of these on a statewide basis. Each agency must be contacted, but not every agency keeps accurate tabs on how many ALJs are used. A spokesperson in the governor’s office said a study last year determined the state had more than 50 ALJs within various agencies at one point during 2008, but that examination wasn’t comprehensive and didn’t include all departments and committees.

Until this issue surfaced last year, ALJs for many state agencies had not been required to be lawyers but had been able to grant pro hac vice status to those coming before them on agency-specific legal matters. The Supreme Court review and eventual final rule will address one part of that, while the General Assembly studies the other aspect concerning whether ALJs need to be admitted as attorneys. Lawmakers for the first time last year required one department – the Department of Workforce Development – to stop using non-attorneys as ALJs. Indiana Code 22-3-18-4.2 took effect July 1, 2010, and could set the stage for other agencies, which often use non-lawyers in roles where they are fact finders, issue oaths and subpoenas, and rule on issues of proof and relevant evidence as well as procedural matters.

“All of those are uniquely within the training and expertise of lawyers,” said LaPorte employment lawyer Shaw Friedman, who testified before a legislative committee in support of the law change.

Whether that push will gain momentum remains unclear. The ISBA continues to study the issues involved, and the Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether ALJs should be able to grant temporary admission regardless of their lawyer status.•

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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT