Ms. Centorino certifies that she is a member in good standing of the Florida state bar but not a member of the bar of this Court. D.E. 41 at 4. However, the Court notes that Ms. Centorino also resides and practices within this District. Rule 4 of the Special Rules Governing the Admission and Practice of Attorneys before this Court specifically provide that “[a]ttorneys residing and practicing within this District are expected to be members of the bar of this Court.” Ms. Centorino has not demonstrated why the Court should depart from this rule in her case, and therefore, the Court DENIES her pro hac vice motion.
Hmm, but what if your practice is limited to state court and you only appear in federal court infrequently?
Ever get so pissed off over how big a jerk your opponent is being that you feel like moving to pull her pro hac?
I've researched this a few times but never actually pulled the trigger.
Well my buddy and intertubular lawyer extraordinaire Marc Randazza did, in the MD FL, when he allegedly found evidence of a purported misrepresentation on the pro hac form of his MI opposing counsel and also evidence that the "local" attorney sponsoring the pro hac was allegedly just a snowbird with a vacation home on the Gulf Coast.
Courtesy of Scribd, Randazza's motion to revoke the pro hac is here.
I liked this part:
Opposing a fellow attorney’s admission to practice pro hac vice is not an undertaking that is entered into lightly by any of the attorneys who have signed this Motion. In fact, none have ever done so, and all conferred at great length with respect to the propriety and necessity of doing so. The unfortunate and distasteful conclusion was that the undersigned were not only within their rights to bring this Motion, but that the Rules of Professional Responsibility compelled them to do so.
The Court wound up not revoking the pro hac, but did in fact conclude that the "local" attorney -- a FL Bar member btw -- was not a "resident" for purposes of the MD FL local rule:
The Court finds that there is no basis to revoke Mr. Sprinkle’s pro hac vice admission. However, the Court admonishes Mr. Sprinkle for his lack of candor in failing to disclose the Grievance Commission Request for Investigation filed against him. Moreover, Mr. Sprinkle chose as local counsel, an attorney who is not “resident in Florida,” Ernest I. Gifford, but has his primary residence in Michigan. Mr. Gifford is not a Florida resident within the meaning of the Local Rule and therefore cannot serve as local counsel for Mr. Sprinkle’s appearances in this Court. The fact that “Mr. Gifford considers himself to have dual residency in Florida and Michigan” does not make him a resident of Florida, when the main office of his law firm remains in Michigan, he votes in Michigan, and does not have a homestead in Florida. See Doc. 29. Mr. Gifford is not qualified to serve as local counsel in this case.
Oh well, at the least the case is getting off on the right foot!
