CHAPTER 6 - 6-8 PRO HAC VICE LAWYERS

• Jurisdiction: United States

6-8 Pro Hac Vice Lawyers

An attorney wishing to appear in a Connecticut case to represent a client in a matter in "any court" in Connecticut may use the provisions of the pro hac vice rule found in Practice Book § 2-16.¹²² Pro hac vice admission may be used for the purposes of an arbitration.¹²³ The rule may also be used to allow an attorney to represent an applicant before the claims commissioner.¹²⁴ Pro hac vice admission was allowed for attorneys related to the impeachment inquiry of former Governor Rowland.¹²⁵

The rule contains a clear process involving a sponsoring Connecticut attorney who files an application which includes an affidavit from the visiting lawyer "certifying" whether the attorney has any pending grievances in any jurisdiction, has ever been suspended, reprimanded, placed on inactive status, disbarred or otherwise disciplined. The issue of how much and what kind of "discipline" in another jurisdiction is a fluid one. In some jurisdictions, courts issue "sanctions" which often are simply payment of a de minimus sum for some procedural mistake, such as arriving late to court. How inclusive the disclosure of "discipline like" matters the applicant should be is unknown.

In one matter, a Connecticut trial court issued a stay of a sanctions order issued by a probate court pending the resolution of the matter on appeal. Part of the judge's rationale was that such a "sanction" would have to be disclosed on a pro hac vice application in another state.¹²⁶ Arguably, the converse would also be true, i.e. that a visiting lawyer should disclose sanctions as well as reported discipline. However, in another matter, the Statewide Grievance committee accepted an agreement for a dismissal where the visiting lawyer had relied on advice of local counsel in not disclosing in his pro hac vice application a monetary sanctions order relating to a discovery dispute entered by a California court.¹²⁷

The sponsoring attorney must sign all pleadings and attend all court proceedings unless excused by the court. The extent to which courts enforce this rule and require attendance is unknown, but the authors are aware that it is often the procedure that the sponsor does not attend every court session and may not be actively reviewing pleadings filed. In one matter, the trial court granted a new trial based on improper questioning by pro hac vice defense counsel and ordered the sponsoring attorney to attend the retrial, presumably so the same mistakes would not be repeated.¹²⁸ In another, a court refused to enter an automatic granting of a request to revise, noting that the party's attorney had appeared pro hac vice and might not have known of the "harsh" consequences of the rule.¹²⁹

In another case, a court allowed an untimely amendment to a complaint, and noted that local counsel's ability to properly plead and pursue the matter may have been hampered by the fact that pro hac vice counsel appeared to be drafting the plead-ings.¹³⁰ Presumably, if a sponsoring attorney had been more actively involved, such an excuse would not have been needed. In another matter, the Appellate Court did not find that the lack of the sponsoring attorney's appearance at a sentencing was a problem where the accused was sentenced in accordance with a plea deal he had agreed to.¹³¹

The standard for granting the application is "good cause." The rule provides that good cause "shall" be limited to facts and circumstances affecting the personal financial welfare of the client. The rule is not designed to facilitate lawyers pursing interstate practices but is designed to advance clients' best interests by allowing them to...