Rules Governing the State Bar – Comment Period Closed November 10, 2018

USB14-0806. Proposed amendments more accurately describe pro hac vice application requirements. Changes also increase the application fee to the fee equal to the annual licensing fee by paid active members of the Utah State Bar and require pro hac vice admittees to pay an annual renewal fee for each year the pro hac admitee continues to act as counsel in the cause.

Utah Courts

View more posts from this author
5 thoughts on “Rules Governing the State Bar – Comment Period Closed November 10, 2018
  1. George A Hunt

    In my view, subsections (l) and (m) should be deleted. Requiring a pro haec vice lawyer to renew the filing each year and pay a full registration fee is gouging. Moreover, with the pace of litigation, some cases can and do go on for years, The section requiring reporting of any change in status of the Pro haec vice lawyer adequately protects the integrity of the representation. The existence of these subsections makes the USB look very grabby which is unseemly.

  2. Leslie Slaugh

    Subparagraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) conflict with (a) and are bad policy. Subparagraph (a) states the rule applies to a person “appearing as counsel before” any court, board, or administrative agency. Subparagraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4), however, extend that to someone who is arguably performing legal services in the state although not appearing before any court, board, or administrative agency. The rule would prohibit in-house counsel for an out-of-state client from attending mediation or attending a deposition, even if local counsel were present and representing the client. There is no principled reason to allow in-house counsel to attend voluntary ADR but prohibit attendance at court-ordered ADR.

    The entire subsection (b) could be eliminated. Subparagraph (a)’s “appearing as counsel before” language adequately defines the application of the rule.

  3. Leslie Slaugh

    Subparagraph (e)(4) requires that an applicant be “an active member in good standing in another state,” but doesn’t explain “member of what.” The obvious intent is that the person be a member of a bar in another state, but would membership in a local bar suffice? What if the state does not have a mandatory, integrated, or unified bar association, as is the case in nearly half the states?

    Alternate language: The lawyer is licensed as an active lawyer in good standing in another state . . . .

  4. Leslie Slaugh

    Charging the same fee as a resident lawyer seems extremely excessive. Resident lawyers get services in exchange for bar dues. Pro hac vice attorneys will not receive any of those services. Based on my experience, the bar does not have, and does not need to have, any ongoing monitoring functions for pro hac vice counsel. The simple initial approval process does not justify the high fee, and the renewal fee is even more unjustified. The policy appears to be a protectionist policy to prevent out-of-state lawyers from taking business from resident lawyers. In cases where I have served as local counsel, however, the client was better served by having the out-of-state lawyer who was more familiar with the case and the client. The bar should promote the quality of legal help, rather than implementing an outrageous fee to protect local lawyers from competition.

  5. Patricia Kuendig

    I disagree with this Rule change. Clients should be free to hire whomever they feel comfortable with and this change would be a deterrent to that fundamental principle. Provided the out-of-state attorney is in good standing with another Bar organization, and pays an application fee to assist with the costs of processing the application, the ends of justice are served. As not only a lawyer, but a client in a wrongful death lawsuit of my own loved one, I can’t stress enough the importance of the attorney-client relationship.