Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Pro Hac Admission Throw Down!

 Order on Pro Hac                                                              

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!

7 comments:

  1. Sounds like your buddy Randazzzzzza is a bit weak in the knees when it comes to litigating against the other attorney -- What gives?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Randazza's place hasn't been the same since he moved to Miracle Mile. Dude can multitask practicing law and making a mean meatball.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Who's the bigger asshat?

    ReplyDelete
  4. pro hac schmo hac. I'm calling a shumie and heading for a bucket of ones on Ice that have been sitting in my sailboat with my name on it since Sunday.

    btw- is it calling "THE" shumie or calling "A" shumie?

    If I do it, I want to do it right.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I throw the red challenge flag . Improper shumie.

    ReplyDelete
  6. shumie review referreeSeptember 21, 2010 at 3:27 PM

    There's been a challenge to the ruling on the blog that the shumie was called.


    After further review....the call on the blog stands. The Shumie has been called. While it is preferable to call "THE" Shumie to "A" Shumie, the rules clearly state either is acceptable and there are contemplated to be circumstances when calling "A" shumie is more preferable to calling "THE" shumie.

    Still at work loses one water break and must stay until six.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Shumie League CommisionerSeptember 21, 2010 at 4:34 PM

    Upon League Grievance Committee Review, calling "A" or "THE" Shumie to drink beer that hasn't been properly iced since Sunday mandates a 6 week Shumie suspension. All appeals must be recieved in league office within 2 business days.

    ReplyDelete