Admission for Attorneys Representing Respondents in D.C. Discipline Proceedings, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Law

Download Admission for Attorneys Representing Respondents in D.C. Discipline Proceedings and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Law in PDF only on Docsity! OPINION 23-18: Practice of Law in Disciplinary Matters by Attorneys Admitted Outside the District of Columbia The Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law and the Board on Professional Responsibility have received several inquiries about the application of Court of Appeals Rule 49 to attorneys who are not licensed in the District but who wish to appear on behalf of respondents in D.C. attorney-discipline matters. To assist practitioners seeking to comply with Rule 49, the Committee has determined to issue this opinion pursuant to its authority under Rule 49(d)(3)(G). In short, the Committee concludes that an attorney licensed outside D.C. may represent respondents in disciplinary proceedings without violating Rule 49’s prohibition on unauthorized practice of law so long as the attorney meets the requirements for pro hac vice admission described in Rule 49(c)(7). The Latin term pro hac vice means “for this occasion or particular purpose,” and “usually refers to a lawyer who has not been admitted to practice in a particular jurisdiction but who is admitted there temporarily for the purposes of conducting a particular case.”1 As a general principle, an attorney appearing pro hac vice is not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law because the attorney’s appearance is affirmatively authorized by the court that permitted the attorney to appear. Because handling a case necessarily requires an attorney to provide legal services outside the courtroom, admission pro hac vice likewise extends to legal services related to the court proceeding. In the District of Columbia, pro hac vice practice is governed by Court of Appeals Rule 49 as a specific exception to the general prohibition on the practice of law by those who are not members of the D.C. Bar.2 Accordingly, we look to the text of the exception to determine whether it covers appearing on behalf of a respondent in an attorney-discipline proceeding. Rule 49(c)(7) defines the exception as: “Providing legal services in or reasonably related to a pending or potential proceeding in a court of the District of Columbia, if the person has been or reasonably expects to be admitted pro hac vice.” Thus, the exception has two requirements: (1) the legal services must be reasonably related to a pending or potential proceeding in a D.C. court; and (2) the attorney must be admitted or reasonably expect to be admitted pro hac vice in the proceeding. The first requirement defines the scope of legal services that are covered under 1 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1227 (10th ed. 2014). 2 D.C. Ct. App. R. 49(a), 49(c)(7); see also D.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 101(a)(3) & D.C. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 115 (requiring attorneys licensed in other jurisdictions to comply with Rule 49 to appear pro hac vice); Brookens v. Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law, 538 A.2d 1120, 1124 (D.C. 1988). Opinion 23-18 Page 2 the exception; the second describes the conditions under which the attorney providing those services would not be engaged in unauthorized practice of law. The scope of services that are covered by the exception includes legal services that are rendered both “in” a court proceeding and also those that are “reasonably related” to the proceeding. The court “proceeding”—to which the legal services must be related—is defined broadly. Specifically, the court proceeding need not be “pending” when legal services are rendered for the services to be covered; services that are reasonably related to a “potential proceeding” in a D.C. court also qualify.3 Turning to the question at hand, we conclude that legal services provided to a respondent in an attorney-discipline proceeding are within the scope of the pro hac vice exception because they are reasonably related to potential proceedings in the D.C. Court of Appeals. To understand why, we take a short tour of D.C.’s attorney-discipline system. Attorneys for respondents in disciplinary proceedings typically appear in the first instance before a hearing committee appointed by the Board on Professional Responsibility.4 Hearing committees are composed of two attorney volunteers and one non-attorney member of the public; thus, they are not courts and cannot grant attorneys permission to appear pro hac vice.5 Even so, hearing committees conduct hearings in a trial-like setting on formal charges of misconduct, proposed negotiated disciplines, and contested petitions for reinstatement.6 Although the typical path for those matters begins with a hearing committee, it ends at the Court of Appeals. For example, after conducting a hearing on formal charges of misconduct, hearing committees submit findings and recommendations to the Board on Professional Responsibility. The Board is not a court either and thus cannot admit attorneys to practice pro hac vice. But when the parties take exception to a hearing committee’s report, the Board schedules briefing and hears oral arguments. Whether exceptions are taken or not, the Board makes its own findings and submits them at last to the Court of Appeals, which is a court of the District of Columbia.7 Negotiated disciplines and contested petitions for reinstatement take a slightly different path in that hearing committees submit their findings and recommendations to the Court directly, but they wind up at the same place.8 Once a disciplinary matter reaches the Court of Appeals, an out-of-state attorney representing the respondent can apply to the Court for pro hac vice admission. Until then, a Court of Appeals proceeding may only be “potential,” but that is enough for the pro hac vice exception. And though it is possible for disciplinary proceedings to be concluded without being referred to the Court,9 those matters still had the potential to become a proceeding in the Court of 3 This opinion is not intended to define what qualifies as a “potential” court hearing beyond attorney-discipline proceedings. 4 D.C. Bar R. XI § 4(e)(4). 5 Id. 6 Id. § 5(c)(1). 7 Id. §§ 4(e)(7); 5(c)(2); 9(b)–(d). 8 Id. § 5(c)(3). 9 See, e.g., id. § 4(e)(8) (regarding reprimands).