Williams v. City of New Orleans ex rel. Public Belt Railroad Commission of New Orleans
Docket: No. 2002-CC-1127
Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana; December 3, 2002; Louisiana; State Supreme Court
Bristol Baxley, a Texas attorney, sought pro hac vice admission to represent plaintiffs in two Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) cases in Louisiana, associated with local attorneys. The cases, filed by railroad workers Robert Bodenheimer and Brandon Williams, were consolidated for appeal. The City of New Orleans, through the Public Belt Railroad Commission, moved to disqualify Baxley, asserting he had not followed the necessary procedures for visiting attorneys and was thus unqualified to represent the plaintiffs. The district court initially disqualified him in the Bodenheimer case but later granted a motion allowing him to represent this plaintiff after reviewing his credentials, including an affidavit confirming no disciplinary action against him and a good standing certificate from the Texas Bar. A similar motion was filed for the Williams case. The court, however, found the record insufficient to establish that Baxley maintained an active law practice in Louisiana, leading to a remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine his status as a "visiting attorney" under Louisiana law.
On September 27, 2000, Judge Ganucheau authorized Mr. Baxley to serve as co-counsel for Williams alongside Mr. Dugan, leading to an appeal by NOPB. The court of appeal consolidated the appeals, converted them to supervisory writs, and upheld the trial courts' decisions allowing Mr. Baxley to appear pro hac vice. Following a writ application granted by this Court on June 7, 2002, NOPB contested the trial court's ruling instead of seeking a stay. The Bodenheimer case proceeded to trial on March 21, 2001, and by the time of the court of appeal's decision, it had reached judgment. Bodenheimer subsequently filed a motion to dismiss NOPB's writ application as moot, given that NOPB's contention focused solely on Mr. Baxley's disqualification. Notably, Baxley left the Youngdahl firm and was removed as counsel for Bodenheimer in August 2001, rendering NOPB's motion moot.
In a related case, State v. Landry, the court found that the disqualification of the defendant's counsel became moot after the defendant retained new counsel. Similarly, the removal of Mr. Baxley as Bodenheimer's attorney led to the dismissal of NOPB's writ application in that case as moot. The discussion then shifted to the Williams case, where NOPB argued that the ex parte order permitting Mr. Baxley to enroll as pro hac vice counsel violated the contradictory hearing requirements under LSA-C.C.P. art. 963, which outlines the conditions for granting such motions.
The court of appeal dismissed NOPB’s argument regarding the necessity of a contradictory hearing for a visiting attorney to appear pro hac vice, noting no statutory requirement exists for such a motion. However, the court emphasized that LSA-R.S. 37:214 implies that a visiting attorney must demonstrate specific qualifications: being licensed in another state, temporarily present in Louisiana, and associating with a licensed Louisiana attorney. The statute does not detail the procedural requirements for this showing. Acknowledging the inherent authority to regulate legal practice, the court referenced established practices derived from Federal Rules of Court, specifically Local Rule 83.2.6W, which outlines the process for out-of-state attorneys seeking to participate in Louisiana courts. This includes submitting a written motion with a certificate of good standing, disclosing any disciplinary proceedings, and ensuring that local counsel co-signs documents. The court adopted interim measures to clarify these requirements, mandating that out-of-state attorneys associate with licensed Louisiana counsel to gain pro hac vice admission.
An attorney licensed in Louisiana must file a written ex parte motion to admit an out-of-state attorney pro hac vice, including a certificate of good standing from the attorney's home state licensing authority. The out-of-state attorney must attest under oath to any disciplinary actions or criminal charges and confirm their temporary presence in Louisiana. The motion must be served on the opposing party. If granted, the out-of-state attorney can participate in the proceeding but must have local counsel co-sign any documents. Local counsel remains responsible to the court throughout the process. Interested parties may file a motion to disqualify the visiting attorney based on competence or ethical fitness, requiring the attorney to prove their temporary presence and adherence to professional standards. Decisions on such motions are interlocutory and not appealable, as outlined in LSA-C.C.P. arts. 1841 and 2083. In a specific case, Mr. Dugan filed a motion for Mr. Baxley to appear pro hac vice, which was granted by the trial court despite an appeal by NOPB, who argued that Mr. Baxley's active practice in Louisiana disqualified him from being classified as a visiting attorney. Mr. Baxley countered that he met all statutory requirements.
The court of appeal determined that Mr. Baxley, residing in Texas, meets the 'temporarily present' requirement under LSA-R.S. 37:214. The only evidence regarding his residency appeared in motions to appear pro hac vice, where he claimed not to be a resident of Louisiana. The court found the evidence insufficient to support NOPB's claim that he is not a visiting attorney. Consequently, the ruling was reversed and the case was remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to assess Mr. Baxley's status as a visiting attorney in Louisiana.
Additionally, Mr. Dugan, associated with a Metairie law firm, has been practicing law in Louisiana since 1997. The Supreme Court holds the exclusive authority to regulate legal practice, including attorney admissions, as established in various case law references. Local Civil Rule 11.2 stipulates that when a law firm represents a party, one attorney must be designated as the 'Trial Attorney' responsible for all case communications. This designation can be changed via ex parte motion. NOPB argued that Mr. Baxley has practiced in approximately 100 cases in Louisiana over the last three years, with evidence showing he was involved in at least 24 cases in Orleans Civil District Court from 1996 to 2000. Mr. Baxley’s counsel claimed he has participated in about 40 state court cases throughout his career.
