NOTE: In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this Court’s general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for
by Local Rules 83.12 through 83.14.
My friend sent me this from the memorandum - but the motion only talks about 3.1 - I am confused but it looks like a screw up on Henrys part in the Motion.
In addition Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald and Samuel Brooks are licensed to Practice
Law in the State of Illinois and did violate
Rule 5.5. Unauthorized Practice of Law
A lawyer shall not:
(a) practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction; or
(b) assist a person who is not a member of the bar in the performance of activity that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
Both Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald and Samuel Brooks did assist Thomas P. Cole
In the performance of activity and helped him make filings that constitute
The unauthorized practice of law in the State of Illinois.
Pissed off taxpayer puts out press release
-
Prof
- El Pontificator de Porceline Precepts
- Posts: 1209
- Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 9:27 pm
- Location: East of the Pecos
I'm on my way out, but to answer briefly:
A challenge to subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time in federal court, including on appeal.
A challenge to jurisdiction over the person in the US District Court is waived unless raised in the form of a FRCivP 12 motion, asserting lack of in personam jurisdiction. One files this response prior to filing an answer. See Rule 12.
In Federal Court, one does not enter an appearance; an attorney files a lawsuit and signs it; if he is not authorized to practice in that court, the lawsuit is accompanied by a motion pro hac vice. If defending, the attorney files an answer and if necessary a motion pro hac vice. (I am admitted in a number of federal districts -- I am a member of the bar of those courts; in other federal courts, I must be admitted pro hac -- for the one matter pending. Admission standards vary for permanent admission, and are found in local rules.)
Motions pro hac are also governed by local rules. Some federal courts (ND VA) do not allow such motions for lead counsel (you can only be admitted if you are a member of the bar of VA and live and practice in VA at the time you move for admission to the ND VA bar). Others, like WD TEX are very liberal and waive local counsel.
AUSA's are permitted to practice in any federal district court and are not required to be members of the bar of the state in which the federal court is located.
Challenges to venue are governed by statute, in title 28 (no USCA available). Challenges to particular divisions within a district are governed by local rule -- i.e., can I file in WD Texas El Paso or in San Antonio. In WD Tex there is no local rule, but you may file a motion to transfer based upon inconvenience -- it's 600 plus miles from SA to El Paso.
A challenge to subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time in federal court, including on appeal.
A challenge to jurisdiction over the person in the US District Court is waived unless raised in the form of a FRCivP 12 motion, asserting lack of in personam jurisdiction. One files this response prior to filing an answer. See Rule 12.
In Federal Court, one does not enter an appearance; an attorney files a lawsuit and signs it; if he is not authorized to practice in that court, the lawsuit is accompanied by a motion pro hac vice. If defending, the attorney files an answer and if necessary a motion pro hac vice. (I am admitted in a number of federal districts -- I am a member of the bar of those courts; in other federal courts, I must be admitted pro hac -- for the one matter pending. Admission standards vary for permanent admission, and are found in local rules.)
Motions pro hac are also governed by local rules. Some federal courts (ND VA) do not allow such motions for lead counsel (you can only be admitted if you are a member of the bar of VA and live and practice in VA at the time you move for admission to the ND VA bar). Others, like WD TEX are very liberal and waive local counsel.
AUSA's are permitted to practice in any federal district court and are not required to be members of the bar of the state in which the federal court is located.
Challenges to venue are governed by statute, in title 28 (no USCA available). Challenges to particular divisions within a district are governed by local rule -- i.e., can I file in WD Texas El Paso or in San Antonio. In WD Tex there is no local rule, but you may file a motion to transfer based upon inconvenience -- it's 600 plus miles from SA to El Paso.
"My Health is Better in November."
-
jwthomas
Hopefully last Question
So how did Cole file anything when he waas not enrolled as Counsel in the Case and representing someone?
Does the term AUSA mean every attorney that works for the government? - The guy in question is a Tax Division, Civil Division, Trial Attorney
Does the term AUSA mean every attorney that works for the government? - The guy in question is a Tax Division, Civil Division, Trial Attorney
-
LPC
- Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
- Posts: 5233
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
- Location: Earth
Re: Hopefully last Question
Cole filed pleadings with the court on behalf of some of the defendants (the IRS and individual defendants) and the clerk accepted the pleadings.jwthomas wrote:So how did Cole file anything when he waas not enrolled as Counsel in the Case and representing someone?
In many courts, that's all that's necessary, because the filing of the pleadings themselves serves as an entry of appearance. In some courts, the attorney is supposed to file a separate document to enter his appearance.
And, as I explained above, many courts have local rules specifically allowing attorneys of the Department of Justice to practice before the court.
So by filing pleadings without first filing a separate entry of appearance, and without asking to be admitted pro hac vice, Cole was probably following what is considered to be standard practice in many if not most courts.
An AUSA is an Assistant United States Attorney, which is a specific position defined by statute for each federal District Court. An attorney working for the U.S. Department of Justice is an attorney working for the U.S. Department of Justice, which is different. However, as I explained above, there is a statute that allows the Attorney General to send any lawyer from the Department of Justice into any district court, regardless of whether the lawyer resides in the district, and that is why Cole is now representing employees of the United States in the Northern District of Illinois.jwthomas wrote:Does the term AUSA mean every attorney that works for the government? - The guy in question is a Tax Division, Civil Division, Trial Attorney
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
-
jwthomas
ok ThenLast Question
They why did he file the form on the 30th saying who he represented? I think thats the part that has me so confused.
This is the one where he enrolled as counsel to the people that he already represented according to the rules you guys are talkin about?
This is the one where he enrolled as counsel to the people that he already represented according to the rules you guys are talkin about?
-
jwthomas
Northern District Local Rules
LR83.12. Appearance of Attorneys Generally
(a) Who May Appear. Except as provided in LR83.14 and LR83.15 and as otherwise provided in this rule, only members in good standing of the general bar of this Court may enter appearance of parties, file pleadings, motions or other documents, sign stipulations or receive payments upon judgments, decrees or orders. Attorneys admitted to the trial bar may appear alone in all matters. Attorneys admitted to the general bar, but not to the trial bar, may appear in association with a member of the trial bar in all matters and may appear alone except as otherwise provided by this rule. The following officers appearing in their official capacity shall be entitled to appear in all matters before the court without admission to the trial bar of this Court: the Attorney General of the United States, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, the attorney general or other highest legal officer of any state, and the state’s attorney of any county in the State of Illinois. This exception to membership in the trial bar shall apply to such persons as hold the above-described offices during their terms of office, not to their assistants.
(a) Who May Appear. Except as provided in LR83.14 and LR83.15 and as otherwise provided in this rule, only members in good standing of the general bar of this Court may enter appearance of parties, file pleadings, motions or other documents, sign stipulations or receive payments upon judgments, decrees or orders. Attorneys admitted to the trial bar may appear alone in all matters. Attorneys admitted to the general bar, but not to the trial bar, may appear in association with a member of the trial bar in all matters and may appear alone except as otherwise provided by this rule. The following officers appearing in their official capacity shall be entitled to appear in all matters before the court without admission to the trial bar of this Court: the Attorney General of the United States, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, the attorney general or other highest legal officer of any state, and the state’s attorney of any county in the State of Illinois. This exception to membership in the trial bar shall apply to such persons as hold the above-described offices during their terms of office, not to their assistants.
-
Prof
- El Pontificator de Porceline Precepts
- Posts: 1209
- Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 9:27 pm
- Location: East of the Pecos
You might just find the answer in the local rules for ND Ill.
No similar rule has been adopted in the districts in which I regularly practice; the only thing similar is designation of local counsel when that is required.
As LPC and I suggested earlier, always check the local rules, all of which are always available on-line.
Perhaps, because Cole is not a USA/AUSA, he felt he should file as required by this local rule, even though he is not required to apply for admission pro hac?LR83.16. Appearance Forms
(a) General. The Executive Committee will approve the format of the appearance form to be used. The clerk shall provide copies of the forms on request.
(b) Who Must File. Except as otherwise provided in these rules, an appearance form shall be filed by every attorney, including senior students admitted pursuant to LR83.13 and attorneys admitted pursuant to LR83.14, who represents a party in any proceeding brought in this Court, whether before a judge or magistrate judge, except that no appearance form need be filed by the United States attorney or any assistant United States attorney where the appearance is on behalf of the United States, any agency thereof or one of its officials pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Where more than one attorney represents the same party or parties, only one appearance form shall be filed. The form shall indicate which of the attorneys is lead counsel and which is designated on behalf of all for purposes of service.
No similar rule has been adopted in the districts in which I regularly practice; the only thing similar is designation of local counsel when that is required.
As LPC and I suggested earlier, always check the local rules, all of which are always available on-line.
"My Health is Better in November."
-
jwthomas
That Is Why I asked
I checked the Local rules - and the form - he is required to either be a member of the bar or apply pro hac vice. He filed an appearance but did not request pro hac vice.
That is why I am confised - but it did just dawn on me that maybe Henry is bitching about something that is an issue.
LR83.12. Appearance of Attorneys Generally
(a) Who May Appear. Except as provided in LR83.14 and LR83.15 and as otherwise provided in this rule, only members in good standing of the general bar of this Court may enter appearance of parties, file pleadings, motions or other documents, sign stipulations or receive payments upon judgments, decrees or orders. Attorneys admitted to the trial bar may appear alone in all matters. Attorneys admitted to the general bar, but not to the trial bar, may appear in association with a member of the trial bar in all matters and may appear alone except as otherwise provided by this rule. The following officers appearing in their official capacity shall be entitled to appear in all matters before the court without admission to the trial bar of this Court: the Attorney General of the United States, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, the attorney general or other highest legal officer of any state, and the state’s attorney of any county in the State of Illinois. This exception to membership in the trial bar shall apply to such persons as hold the above-described offices during their terms of office, not to their assistants.
Cole is not admitted to the bar - I used the Illinois ARDC site so unless I am reading all of this wrong - Cole had to not only file the Appearance but because he was not a member of the Bar he was also required to apply pro hac vice?
So Cole screwed up?
That is why I am confised - but it did just dawn on me that maybe Henry is bitching about something that is an issue.
LR83.12. Appearance of Attorneys Generally
(a) Who May Appear. Except as provided in LR83.14 and LR83.15 and as otherwise provided in this rule, only members in good standing of the general bar of this Court may enter appearance of parties, file pleadings, motions or other documents, sign stipulations or receive payments upon judgments, decrees or orders. Attorneys admitted to the trial bar may appear alone in all matters. Attorneys admitted to the general bar, but not to the trial bar, may appear in association with a member of the trial bar in all matters and may appear alone except as otherwise provided by this rule. The following officers appearing in their official capacity shall be entitled to appear in all matters before the court without admission to the trial bar of this Court: the Attorney General of the United States, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, the attorney general or other highest legal officer of any state, and the state’s attorney of any county in the State of Illinois. This exception to membership in the trial bar shall apply to such persons as hold the above-described offices during their terms of office, not to their assistants.
Cole is not admitted to the bar - I used the Illinois ARDC site so unless I am reading all of this wrong - Cole had to not only file the Appearance but because he was not a member of the Bar he was also required to apply pro hac vice?
So Cole screwed up?
-
Prof
- El Pontificator de Porceline Precepts
- Posts: 1209
- Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 9:27 pm
- Location: East of the Pecos
I do not know whether Cole was required to file pro hac vice in Chicago. I doubt it, because when assigned down from justice -- in my experience -- the lawyer is treated like an AUSA, but I am not admitted in ND Ill and do not know how things are done there.
As to the claim that Cole is practicing law without a license in Ill. and that the federal court should do something, that is just specious. Federal courts set their own admission standards. See 28 USC and the Supremacy Clause. Federal courts routinely allow pro hac motions by non-residents who are not admitted to the state bar of the state in which the federal court sits. I am admitted in Texas and DC as a member of the bar of each. I am also admitted in the ND Miss. and D. Md. I have been admitted pro hac in E.D. LA., D. Del., M.D. PA, ND OHIO and -- I'm sure -- a few other places I've forgotten. I am not admitted to the bars of LA, DEL, MISS, or PA, and no one ever suggested that I was practicing law without a license in those states. In fact, the bars of those states have no "say" in who a federal court allows to practice. (Often, however, federal courts say that a person disbarred by a state court is automatically disbarred or barred from a federal courtroom; see the local rules. Note this is the federal court's own rule, not a state rule.)
As to the claim that Cole is practicing law without a license in Ill. and that the federal court should do something, that is just specious. Federal courts set their own admission standards. See 28 USC and the Supremacy Clause. Federal courts routinely allow pro hac motions by non-residents who are not admitted to the state bar of the state in which the federal court sits. I am admitted in Texas and DC as a member of the bar of each. I am also admitted in the ND Miss. and D. Md. I have been admitted pro hac in E.D. LA., D. Del., M.D. PA, ND OHIO and -- I'm sure -- a few other places I've forgotten. I am not admitted to the bars of LA, DEL, MISS, or PA, and no one ever suggested that I was practicing law without a license in those states. In fact, the bars of those states have no "say" in who a federal court allows to practice. (Often, however, federal courts say that a person disbarred by a state court is automatically disbarred or barred from a federal courtroom; see the local rules. Note this is the federal court's own rule, not a state rule.)
"My Health is Better in November."
-
LPC
- Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
- Posts: 5233
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
- Location: Earth
State courts too.Prof wrote:Federal courts routinely allow pro hac motions by non-residents who are not admitted to the state bar of the state in which the federal court sits.
I have limited litigation experience, and yet I have represented a client in an Ohio court, and I have also opposed a Florida lawyer in a Pennsylvania case.
It is part of the inherent power of every court to decide who will practice before it. And both federal and state courts regularly allow out-of-state lawyers to practice in their courts when it is expedient to do so.
And, as far as I have been able to determine, it has *NEVER* been considered to be a violation of an "unauthorized practice of law" statute for an out-of-state lawyer to appear in a local court for a particular proceeding. The "unauthorized practice of law" has always been limited to those who are either (a) not admitted to practice law in any state or (b) regularly hold themselves out to practice law in a state in which they are not licensed.
For example, the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide as follows:
Rule 5.5 Unauthorized Practice Of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice Of Law
(a) A lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so.
(b) A lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction shall not:
(1) except as authorized by these Rules or other law, establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law; or
(2) hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction.
(c) A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services on a temporary basis in this jurisdiction that:
(1) are undertaken in association with a lawyer who is admitted to practice in this jurisdiction and who actively participates in the matter;
(2) are in or reasonably related to a pending or potential proceeding before a tribunal in this or another jurisdiction, if the lawyer, or a person the lawyer is assisting, is authorized by law or order to appear in such proceeding or reasonably expects to be so authorized;
(3) are in or reasonably related to a pending or potential arbitration, mediation, or other alternative dispute resolution proceeding in this or another jurisdiction, if the services arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted to practice and are not services for which the forum requires pro hac vice admission; or
(4) are not within paragraphs (c)(2) or (c)(3) and arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted to practice.
(d) A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services in this jurisdiction that:
(1) are provided to the lawyer’s employer or its organizational affiliates and are not services for which the forum requires pro hac vice admission; or
(2) are services that the lawyer is authorized to provide by federal law or other law of this jurisdiction.
Last edited by LPC on Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
-
LPC
- Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
- Posts: 5233
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
- Location: Earth
Re: That Is Why I asked
Watching you s--l--o--w--l--y process this stuff is painful.jwthomas wrote:I checked the Local rules - and the form - he is required to either be a member of the bar or apply pro hac vice. He filed an appearance but did not request pro hac vice.
That is why I am confised - but it did just dawn on me that maybe Henry is bitching about something that is an issue.
Three days ago, on Sunday morning, I posted the following:
Let us know when your time-space bubble catches up with the conflict between 28 USC 515 (a federal statute) and LR 83.12 (a local rule of a federal court).LPC wrote:A federal statute allows attorneys of the Department of Justice to act in any court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. 515. Normally, local rules exempt attorneys from the DoJ from pro hac vice requirements, but N.D. Illinois Local Rule 83.12 appears to conflict with 28 U.S.C. 515, because read literally the local rule allows the Attorney General to appear personally, but not attorneys for the Attorney General.
The odds of a district court judge not allowing a lawyer from the Department of Justice to represent interests of the United States are, needless to say, very slim.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
-
Brian Rookard
- Beefcake
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 5:09 am
Re: That Is Why I asked
And let me go out on a limb and take a wild shot in the dark that on the basis of the Supremacy Clause (and the reasoning of Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379 (1963)) that the federal statute will be held controlling.LPC wrote:Let us know when your time-space bubble catches up with the conflict between 28 USC 515 (a federal statute) and LR 83.12 (a local rule of a federal court).
I don't think the U.S. attorney's will have a problem.
-
jwthomas
Conflicting Information
I am trying to understand why the Local Court would make a rule that you are saying will not be upheld!
So if anyone can explain to me why a local rule would be written when it would not be upheld please tell me why this would occur.
Are you all trying to tell me that the Northern District of Illinois Court is stupid? Or the Judges in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals are stupid? Their both in the Same Building.
I am reading each comment and trying to figure out why the rule was written. It seems to me their is a reason.
Why do you guys choose to beat on me for trying to learn and understand?
You quote things and I follow and research - just like earlier 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) was quoted as part of one of the local rules
I went and read it- And was happy that it was pointed out. I was happy that 3 days ago the conflict between the Local rules was pointed out.
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 89 > § 1442
§ 1442. Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted
(a) A civil action or criminal prosecution commenced in a State court against any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:
(1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, sued in an official or individual capacity for any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.
(2) A property holder whose title is derived from any such officer, where such action or prosecution affects the validity of any law of the United States.
(3) Any officer of the courts of the United States, for any act under color of office or in the performance of his duties;
(4) Any officer of either House of Congress, for any act in the discharge of his official duty under an order of such House.
(b) A personal action commenced in any State court by an alien against any citizen of a State who is, or at the time the alleged action accrued was, a civil officer of the United States and is a nonresident of such State, wherein jurisdiction is obtained by the State court by personal service of process, may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division in which the defendant was served with process.
So if anyone can explain to me why a local rule would be written when it would not be upheld please tell me why this would occur.
Are you all trying to tell me that the Northern District of Illinois Court is stupid? Or the Judges in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals are stupid? Their both in the Same Building.
I am reading each comment and trying to figure out why the rule was written. It seems to me their is a reason.
Why do you guys choose to beat on me for trying to learn and understand?
You quote things and I follow and research - just like earlier 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) was quoted as part of one of the local rules
I went and read it- And was happy that it was pointed out. I was happy that 3 days ago the conflict between the Local rules was pointed out.
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 89 > § 1442
§ 1442. Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted
(a) A civil action or criminal prosecution commenced in a State court against any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:
(1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, sued in an official or individual capacity for any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.
(2) A property holder whose title is derived from any such officer, where such action or prosecution affects the validity of any law of the United States.
(3) Any officer of the courts of the United States, for any act under color of office or in the performance of his duties;
(4) Any officer of either House of Congress, for any act in the discharge of his official duty under an order of such House.
(b) A personal action commenced in any State court by an alien against any citizen of a State who is, or at the time the alleged action accrued was, a civil officer of the United States and is a nonresident of such State, wherein jurisdiction is obtained by the State court by personal service of process, may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division in which the defendant was served with process.
-
grammarian44
The local rule would be upheld with respect to purely local issues, that is, when there is no federal statute in conflict with it. Thus, it's not an irrelevant or useless rule. Because federal law would trump the local rule, then in a factual situation where both laws could apply--which is what we have here--the federal rule will be applied.jwthomas wrote:So if anyone can explain to me why a local rule would be written when it would not be upheld please tell me why this would occur.
So to answer your question: The local rule would be written in the first place because in the vast majority of situations, i.e., where the US or its agencies are not parties, it's a perfectly good rule and will determine who is or is not authorized to appear in court in that jurisdiction.
Your real mistake here is that you assumed at the start that having found a rule that apparently applies to the situation, the legal question of authority to practice in a particular jurisdiction was answered once and for all. Finding a rule that applies is just one step to drawing a legal conclusion. You also have to consider other applicable rules and still other rules that determine which of two conflicting rules should apply to a given case. That's why most of the time, and especially concerning procedural matters, it's important not to draw a conclusion too quickly.
You also have to consider the pragmatics of the situation: How likely is it that we would set up a legal system in which US government attorneys, who will have to practice in many states, would have to be admitted to practice in every state? It's just not practical to set up the system that way. That should be the first clue that, notwithstanding a local rule that would appear to exclude a non-admitted US government attorney from appearing, other rules are likely to override the local rule.
-
jwthomas
Thanks for Helpful Comments
I understand what your saying - but then I also read the rule it seems it was trying to address something the Court did not want to happen - otherwise why the specific exclusion of anyone but the United States Attorney.
Now at the risk of getting attacked - could this be taken to mean that outside Government Attorneys who do not work for the local USA and not licensed to practice law in Illinois can not come in and act as Lead Counsel and not conduct the trial? Could the local Court be trying to force the local USA Office to review filings and take responsibility for the outside government attorneys action?
LR83.12. Appearance of Attorneys Generally
(a) Who May Appear. Except as provided in LR83.14 and LR83.15 and as otherwise provided in this rule, only members in good standing of the general bar of this Court may enter appearance of parties, file pleadings, motions or other documents, sign stipulations or receive payments upon judgments, decrees or orders. Attorneys admitted to the trial bar may appear alone in all matters. Attorneys admitted to the general bar, but not to the trial bar, may appear in association with a member of the trial bar in all matters and may appear alone except as otherwise provided by this rule. The following officers appearing in their official capacity shall be entitled to appear in all matters before the court without admission to the trial bar of this Court: the Attorney General of the United States, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, the attorney general or other highest legal officer of any state, and the state’s attorney of any county in the State of Illinois. This exception to membership in the trial bar shall apply to such persons as hold the above-described offices during their terms of office, not to their assistants.
Now at the risk of getting attacked - could this be taken to mean that outside Government Attorneys who do not work for the local USA and not licensed to practice law in Illinois can not come in and act as Lead Counsel and not conduct the trial? Could the local Court be trying to force the local USA Office to review filings and take responsibility for the outside government attorneys action?
LR83.12. Appearance of Attorneys Generally
(a) Who May Appear. Except as provided in LR83.14 and LR83.15 and as otherwise provided in this rule, only members in good standing of the general bar of this Court may enter appearance of parties, file pleadings, motions or other documents, sign stipulations or receive payments upon judgments, decrees or orders. Attorneys admitted to the trial bar may appear alone in all matters. Attorneys admitted to the general bar, but not to the trial bar, may appear in association with a member of the trial bar in all matters and may appear alone except as otherwise provided by this rule. The following officers appearing in their official capacity shall be entitled to appear in all matters before the court without admission to the trial bar of this Court: the Attorney General of the United States, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, the attorney general or other highest legal officer of any state, and the state’s attorney of any county in the State of Illinois. This exception to membership in the trial bar shall apply to such persons as hold the above-described offices during their terms of office, not to their assistants.
-
grammarian44
I'm not interested in attacking, but I don't understand your question. I'll try to answer anyway, as best I can.
I'm not sure how, in enacting the local rules, the local jurisdiction could be trying to "force the local USA Office to review filings and take responsibility for the outside government attorneys action." What do you mean by "take responsibility for"? What is it in the statute that you quoted to me that would suggest such an intention?
I'm not sure how, in enacting the local rules, the local jurisdiction could be trying to "force the local USA Office to review filings and take responsibility for the outside government attorneys action." What do you mean by "take responsibility for"? What is it in the statute that you quoted to me that would suggest such an intention?
-
Prof
- El Pontificator de Porceline Precepts
- Posts: 1209
- Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 9:27 pm
- Location: East of the Pecos
Re: Thanks for Helpful Comments
Again, you are not staying in context. To be admitted to the bar (not pro hac) in ND ILL, a general admission gets you into court for non-trial stuff. To actually try a case all by your lonesome, you have to be admitted to the "trial" bar, which requires a showing of experience levels.jwthomas wrote:I understand what your saying - but then I also read the rule it seems it was trying to address something the Court did not want to happen - otherwise why the specific exclusion of anyone but the United States Attorney.
Now at the risk of getting attacked - could this be taken to mean that outside Government Attorneys who do not work for the local USA and not licensed to practice law in Illinois can not come in and act as Lead Counsel and not conduct the trial? Could the local Court be trying to force the local USA Office to review filings and take responsibility for the outside government attorneys action?
LR83.12. Appearance of Attorneys Generally
(a) Who May Appear. Except as provided in LR83.14 and LR83.15 and as otherwise provided in this rule, only members in good standing of the general bar of this Court may enter appearance of parties, file pleadings, motions or other documents, sign stipulations or receive payments upon judgments, decrees or orders. Attorneys admitted to the trial bar may appear alone in all matters. Attorneys admitted to the general bar, but not to the trial bar, may appear in association with a member of the trial bar in all matters and may appear alone except as otherwise provided by this rule. The following officers appearing in their official capacity shall be entitled to appear in all matters before the court without admission to the trial bar of this Court: the Attorney General of the United States, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, the attorney general or other highest legal officer of any state, and the state’s attorney of any county in the State of Illinois. This exception to membership in the trial bar shall apply to such persons as hold the above-described offices during their terms of office, not to their assistants.
As I recall, the pro hac rule does not really reflect this two-tier membership structure. The rules admitting certain senior lawyers TO THE TRIAL BAR is mere eye candy. The possiblity of the USAG, the USA for ND ILL, a State AG appearing to try a cse in a USDC is NONE. The possibility of a State's Attorney from an ILL county appearing is not quite that slim, but is certainly remote where the country is very large. The DA in my metropolitan county ( which I think is the same thing as ILL's County SA) tries about 1 case a year.
Also, I think the pro hac admission would ordinarily be to the TRIAL BAR for lead counsel, anyway. I do not think the USDC cares whether government counsel is licensed in ILL or not, especially since there is no similar rule for private lawyers seeking admission pro hac. Go read the Pro Hac rule and look at the pro hac form on the USDC ND ILL web site. The form might give you some answers.
Again, I do not know whether Cole is required to apply pro hac and whether that is the practice in ND ILL. My guess is that this is just one of those errors in drafting that no one on the local rules committee noticed. I've found (and corrected) several of those over the years here in WD TEX.
"My Health is Better in November."
-
jwthomas
Court
So I looked at this thing and - the Judge did not rule against henry from the bench he did a briefing schedule for the issues.
He also denied a motion for the new defendants for additional time to file an answer to his amended complaint for him adding a bunch of people is bankruptcy fraud and cancelled the hearing. This motion was filed by some very big law firms - Winston and Strawn, Latham and Watkins and Morgan Lewis.
I know that you have all said this guy is crazy but it seems he has caught the Judges attention on something. My friend sent me a piece of the oral court hearing transcript.
I am not quite sure what it means but here it is
Judge Coar asked how the Government was going to continue making the claim that the debt was forgiven and income to Henry if Henry Paulson- Then Chairman of the Board
of Goldman Sachs answer that the debt was never forgiven in 1999 and now Henry Paulson Secretary of the Treasury now takes the posistion that the debt was forgiven and income. The Judge asked the Government if it had evidence that the debt was forgiven. The Attorney answered we will have to wait and see and present our evidence when discovery starts.
He then stated it seems Mr. Henry you have solved your biggest problem with Cisco seizing all of the records to control their other problems as part of purchasing AMC’S assets out of Bankruptcy Court.
so if anyone has any ideas on what they think the Judge has going on his mind I would be interesting to hear them.
BUt He did not just dismiss the individual government defendants like everyone here was telling me was the law and that Henry was an idiot for suing them in the first place.
He also denied a motion for the new defendants for additional time to file an answer to his amended complaint for him adding a bunch of people is bankruptcy fraud and cancelled the hearing. This motion was filed by some very big law firms - Winston and Strawn, Latham and Watkins and Morgan Lewis.
I know that you have all said this guy is crazy but it seems he has caught the Judges attention on something. My friend sent me a piece of the oral court hearing transcript.
I am not quite sure what it means but here it is
Judge Coar asked how the Government was going to continue making the claim that the debt was forgiven and income to Henry if Henry Paulson- Then Chairman of the Board
of Goldman Sachs answer that the debt was never forgiven in 1999 and now Henry Paulson Secretary of the Treasury now takes the posistion that the debt was forgiven and income. The Judge asked the Government if it had evidence that the debt was forgiven. The Attorney answered we will have to wait and see and present our evidence when discovery starts.
He then stated it seems Mr. Henry you have solved your biggest problem with Cisco seizing all of the records to control their other problems as part of purchasing AMC’S assets out of Bankruptcy Court.
so if anyone has any ideas on what they think the Judge has going on his mind I would be interesting to hear them.
BUt He did not just dismiss the individual government defendants like everyone here was telling me was the law and that Henry was an idiot for suing them in the first place.