Lawyers who aren't members of a court's bar can still usually represent clients in that court, so long as they ask for admission "pro hac vice" (for this occasion only) and engage a local counsel who is a member of the bar. Unsurprisingly, this means local counsel will be responsible for the pro hac counsel, as an opinion from Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke (D. Ore.) yesterday in Couvrette v. Wisnovsky illustrates:
The Court ORDERS [local counsel] Mr. Murphy to pay [$14,205.66, which is] 15% of Defendants' Amended Bill of Costs and Reasonable Attorney Fees. Mr. Murphy is also ORDERED to attach this Opinion and Order with any future motions for leave to appear pro hac vice in which he seeks to associate as local counsel in the District of Oregon….
Ms. Couvrette … [had] asked Mr. Murphy to serve as local counsel for Mr. Brigandi's pro hac vice admission. Mr. Murphy signed Mr. Birgandi's pro hac vice application and personally attested that he read and understood the requirements of serving as local counsel under LR 83-3….
Mr. Brigandi's son was dating Ms. Couvrette's daughter, and Mr. Brigandi had agreed to represent Plaintiffs for free. According to Mr. Murphy, Mr. Brigandi was primarily responsible for the litigation strategy and for all dispositive motions practice. Mr. Murphy explained, "[m]y role mostly involved strategizing with Mr. Brigandi and Ms. Couvrette on how to fashion a settlement in connection to the commercial property…. I believed that my expertise in landlord tenant law would be helpful." …
At issue before the Court is whether Mr. Murphy willfully violated [Local Rule] 83-3 by failing to meaningfully participate in the case. Mr. Murphy argues that the Court should not impose a sanction because he did not participate in the summary judgment briefing and he was unaware that the Local Rules required him to review his associated pro hac vice counsel's filings prior to submission.
