PRO HAC VICE: GETTING AN ATTORNEY FROM OUT OF STATE

Once you get sick and tired of what your own attorney is doing, and once you have gone through several other attorneys in the course of your high conflict divorce, you might start thinking about going out of state for help.  This is not uncommon in a high conflict divorce.  

Is it possible to obtain legal representation from out of state for an action within the State of Connecticut?  Yes, you can.  Under those circumstances, you would obtain an attorney pro hac vice.  I have no idea of what that means in latin!  Maybe one of the readers of this blog knows and can tell me!  

This means you bring in an attorney from out of state by obeying Section 2-16 of the Rules of Superior Court.  

This section of the rules allows "any attorney who is in good standing at the bar of another state, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico, upon written application presented by a member  of the Connecticut bar, to be permitted in the court's discretion to participate to such extent as the court may prescribe in the presentation of a cause or appeal in any Connecticut state court."  

In order to be admitted pro hac vice, an attorney from another state must provide an affidavit stating the following:

1) certifying whether he has a grievance pending against him in any other jurisdiction, has ever been reprimanded, suspended, placed on inactive status, disbarred, or has ever resigned from the practice of law, and if so setting forth the circumstances concerning such action; 

2) designating the chief clerk of the superior court for the judicial district in which he will be appearing as his agent upon whom process and service of notice may be served, and agreeing to register with the statewide grievance committee while appearing in the matter in Connecticut and for two years after the completion of the matter in which he appeared; and 

3. identifying the number of cases in which he has appeared pro hac vice in Connecticut superior court.  The attorney from out of state must agree to have a member of the Connecticut bar be present at all proceedings and this member must sign all pleadings, briefs, and other papers filed with the court and assume full responsibility for them and for the conduct of the cause and of the attorney to whom such privilege is accorded.

Where feasible, the application to represent a client pro hac vice shall be made to the judge before whom such a case is likely to be tried.  If that judge is not available, the application should be made to the administrative judge in the judicial district where the matter is to be tried.  

The rule requires that there has to be a good reason for granting such a privilege and states that such a reason will be limited to personal or financial reasons that affect the client, not the attorney.  

An example of this could be a longstanding attorney-client relationship that predates the cause of action or subject matter of the litigation such that the attorney has acquired a specialized skill or knowledge with respect to the client's affairs important to the trial of the cause, or that the litigant couldn't obtain services of a Connecticut counsel.

Upon the granting of an application to appear pro hac vice, the clerk of the court in which the application is granted must immediately notify the statewide grievance committee of such an action.  

Rule 62-8A contains similar rules for appearing pro hac vice in the Connecticut Appellate or Supreme Court.

Arbitrations:  Apparently, in 2005, Judge Berger banned the use of out of state attorneys from Connecticut Arbitrations, thus joining a short list of states which won't allow them for such proceedings.  

The bottom line is that there are so many requirements for having an attorney appear for you out of state that it is ultimately prohibitive for anyone to do it.  

Also, how many attorneys here in Connecticut do you know that would be willing to sign his or her name endorsing some other attorney's briefs and pleadings and take full responsibility for another attorney's actions, particularly when they are going to represent a client with a difficult case who has already tried and failed with several other attorneys?  I don't see that happening.  

My best guess is this kind of situation happens with corporate attorneys with a large company which can take responsibility for the actions of the attorney coming from out of state.  But it is not likely to happen in high conflict divorce cases.  

Also, are you ready to pay for two attorneys when you go to a hearing in your case?

But don't rule this approach out entirely.  If you are willing to be flexible, the law doesn't prevent you from obtaining valuable support and advice from attorneys out of state by phone or email.  Many of the procedures for pursuing a case in family court are similar no matter what state you are in, so out of state attorneys can provide you with direction, while you follow through with the practical steps.