Attorney Admission Application United States District Court: Fill & Download for Free

This is like a case of the good, the bad, and the ugly.I'm going to cover about 8 - 10 cases here, maybe 3 in each category. Hope that that's enough for you - There's no shortage of Supreme Court Cases that fall into at least one of those three categories.ODD1) Nix vs. HeddenBelieve it or not, in 1893, the Supreme Court, the Highest Court of the Land, heard arguments on whether a tomato was a fruit or a vegetable.The Tariff Act of 1883 placed high import taxes on vegetables, but not fruits. So of course, some vegetable importers felt they could tiptoe around the law, as tomato was, botanically speaking, a fruit.The arguments included reading the definitions of both a fruit and a vegetable from several dictionaries, and bringing in botanists to declare the true identity of the tomato. Customs agents countered this, claiming that the words "fruit" and "vegetable" had no legal significance, and while it may technically be a fruit, it is commonly considered a vegetable.VERDICT: 9 - 0; For legal purposes, a tomato shall be considered a vegetable.Some may consider this case important; I consider it quite odd.2) PGA Tour, Inc. vs. MartinIt's a sad day for the Supreme Court when their biggest case of the day is about walking or driving in a golf cart to the next hole. I'm serious.It all started when Casey Martin requested that the PGA allow him to play every round of an upcoming tournament riding in a cart rather than walking from hole to hole. Martin was born with Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber Syndrome ( Scrabblers...), which didn't allow full use of his right leg.The PGA Tour refused, claiming that Martin would not only have an unfair advantage against his competition, but would remove one of the fundamental aspects of golf. Martin sued, and somehow this ridiculous, odd case made its way before the Supreme Court, where Scalia delivered a crushing masterpiece:"We Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States ... to decide What Is Golf. I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution ... fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? Either out of humility or out of self-respect (one or the other) the Court should decline to answer this incredibly difficult and incredibly silly question."VERDICT: 7 - 2; The Court found for Martin in this case.3) Buck vs. BellThis case would have seemed absolutely outrageous today. The question - Whether sterilization is justified in the case of the "feeble-minded."Carrie Buck, a young woman who was characterized as above, was raped by her adoptive mother's nephew, and gave birth to a child. Both her mother, an immoral, promiscuous woman, and her baby, along with herself, were all ruled feeble-minded, with mental ages of less than half their normal ones. This characterization was flawed at best. Carrie was subsequently sterilized.The primary thought of the time was that intelligence, or lack thereof, was only an inherited trait and could be passed on genetically. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of sterilization.VERDICT: 8 - 1; Sterilization of people considered genetically unfit is permissible under the law. As Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. infamously quoted - "Three generations of imbeciles is enough!"INTERESTING1) Korematsu vs. United StatesThe US has been characterized by periods of paranoia throughout history, whether Japanese, foreigners in general, or European philosophies such as Marxism and Communism. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, the US feared another attack by Japan, and that those of Japanese descent living in the US would aid them. Therefore, FDR signed an executive order ordering all Japanese relocated to internment camps.Fred Korematsu, the "Rosa Parks" of Japanese rights, refused, disguising himself as a Mexican-American and going on the run. He was eventually caught and brought before the Supreme Court on the premise of violating an executive order. Korematsu stood his ground, claiming racial injustice and the fact that the US government did not have the authority for this action.VERDICT: 6 - 3; The Court ruled that the need to protect the country was a greater priority than individual rights of the Japanese Americans.2) Texas vs. JohnsonThis is perhaps one of the more famous Supreme Court Cases. In 1984, upset with the policies of the Reagan Administration, Gregory Lee Johnson doused an American flag with kerosene and set it on fire. No one was hurt, but Johnson was charged and convicted with the "destruction of a venerated object", in accordance with the Texas Penal Code.This was a clash between American ideals, whether the First Amendment's right to free speech trumped the burning of the national US symbol, its very own flag. It was a battle of wills that might have ended dead even if not for an odd number of judges. As it turned out, the verdict was the closest it could be.VERDICT: 5 - 4; The Court ruled in favor of Johnson, saying that the right to differ is an integral part of the First Amendment, and flag burning is perfectly legal under these circumstances. They also concluded that the flag burning was not a breach of the peace.3) Regents of the U. Of California vs. BakkeThis remains one of the raging controversies of today - "Affirmative Action" in college, or not. In the early 1970s, the medical school of UC Davis came up with a dual admissions program to increase disadvantaged minority representation. Alan Bakke, a white male who applied and was rejected from regular admissions, sued on the fact that minority applications with lower grades and less impressive resumes got in through the speciality admissions program.Bakke alleged that this system in itself violated the Equal Protection Clause, discriminating on the basis of race. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, where it was fiercely debated before ending on an ambiguous note.VERDICT: 5 - 4; The Court voted to allow Bakke to enter UC Davis's medical school. However, there was a twist - They also declared that the use of race as a criteria in considering admissions was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.IMPORTANTWell, well, well. The three most important Supreme Court Cases in the history of the United States. Picking them will be hard, but I will choose those that had the most historical significance, i.e. impacted us as a country the most.1) Brown vs. Board of EducationIn Kansas 1950, schools were segregated by race. Linda Brown and her sister braved dangerous conditions and low-quality schools for much of their lives, but her family believed that the segregated schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment. They sued, boldly, considering that a previous case ( Plessy vs. Ferguson ) had introduced the "separate but equal" theory as law.However, the Court refused to apply that decision to public education, calling it the "very foundation of global citizenship." Access to an education was a right to be made on equal, and segregation would not fit the bill.VERDICT: 9 - 0; All the judges voted in favor of Brown, banning segregation in schooling.This was a landmark decision, as it paved the way for the slow dissolving of racial barriers in America, eventually leading to greater equality between blacks and whites.2) Marbury vs. MadisonAt the end of President John Adams’ term, his Secretary of State failed to deliver documents commissioning William Marbury as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. Once President Thomas Jefferson was sworn in, in order to keep members of the opposing political party from taking office, he told James Madison, his Secretary of State, to not deliver the documents to Marbury. Marbury then sued James Madison, asking the Supreme Court to require Madison to deliver the documents necessary to officially make Marbury Justice of the Peace.This case eventually put the Supreme Court on equal footing with Congress and the executive branch, establishing the Constitution as the law of the land and giving the Supreme Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional.VERDICT: 9 - 0; The Court did not require Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. The Court ruled that Marbury was entitled to his commission, but that according to the Constitution, the Court did not have the authority to require Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury in this case. They found that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution because it gave the Supreme Court more authority than it was given under the Constitution.3) Roe vs. WadeJane Roe was an unmarried and pregnant Texas resident in 1970. Texas law made it a felony to abort a fetus unless “on medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Roe filed suit against Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, contesting the statue on the grounds that it violated the guarantee of personal liberty and the right to privacy implicitly guaranteed in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.This was another pivotal Supreme Court cases, as it contested one of the most important moral dilemmas in recent US history. Abortion vs. Anti-Abortion was and still is a raging debate that remains to be fully settled.VERDICT: 7 - 2; The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roe, upholding abortion as the right to privacy and declaring the fetus an unborn organism, and not deserving of the rights of the Fourteenth Amendment.Hope this helps! Enjoy!

Mr. Keith Shannon does an excellent job of summarizing the theory behind forfeiture laws, but there are baseline cases that have required at the least notice and an opportunity for interested parties to be heard:1. Krimstock v. Kelly United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. September 18, 2002 306 F.3d 40 (Individuals whose vehicles where seized by city as instrumentalities of crimes brought action challenging city's post-seizure, pre-judgment retention of the vehicles without a prompt opportunity to challenge probable validity of and justification for that deprivation. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2000 WL 1702035, granted city's motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals held that due process required that prompt post-seizure, pre-judgment hearing to determine whether city was likely to succeed on merits of forfeiture action.)2. U.S. v. James Daniel Good Real Property Supreme Court of the United States December 13, 1993 510 U.S. 43 1993 WL 505539 (Four years after property owner pled guilty to drug charges under Hawaii law, government filed action seeking forfeiture of owner's home and, pursuant to seizure warrant, seized home. The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, Harold M. Fong, J., granted summary judgment in favor of government, in proceeding brought by owner challenging seizure, and owner appealed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 971 F.2d 1376, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. Certiorari was granted. The United States Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy, held that: (1) in absence of exigent circumstances, due process clause requires government to afford notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard before seizing real property subject to civil forfeiture, and (2) courts may not dismiss forfeiture action filed within five-year statute of limitations, for noncompliance with internal timing requirements of procedures involving seizure, summary and judicial forfeiture, and condemnation of property for violation of customs laws, made applicable to drug forfeiture cases. Reversed and remanded.More recent cases have reached not only assets directly involved in commission of the alleged crime, but assets traceable to those assets:3. U.S. v. Bonventre United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. June 19, 2013 720 F.3d 126 2013 WL 3023011 (Government sought civil forfeiture of assets owned by criminal defendant, his wife, and his son, alleging that the assets were traceable to the alleged fraud for which defendant was awaiting trial. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Barbara S. Jones, J., 2012 WL 2900487, denied defendant's request for a Monsanto-like hearing regarding his claim of insufficient alternative assets to fund counsel of choice in the criminal case. Criminal defendant appealed. Held: Whatever the full extent of the Sixth Amendment's protection of one's right to retain counsel of his choosing, that protection does not go beyond the individual's right to spend his own money to obtain counsel, and accordingly, neither the Fifth Amendment right to due process nor the Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires Congress to permit a defendant to use assets adjudged to be forfeitable to pay that defendant's legal fees; no violation of the constitutional rights to due process and counsel of choice occurs when, after probable cause that assets are forfeitable is adequately established, the government obtains an order barring a defendant from dissipating his assets prior to trial. The constitutional rights to due process and counsel of choice entitle a presumably innocent criminal defendant to an adversarial, pre-trial Monsanto hearing to address two questions regarding forfeiture of assets that could otherwise be used to retain counsel: (1) whether there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crimes providing a basis for forfeiture, and (2) whether there is probable cause to believe that the assets are properly forfeitable. (My bolding as this is where the justification for forfeiture rests – notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a showing of probable cause for guilt).Note that to maintain a forfeiture, the Government has to make a showing of admissible evidence that a reasonable would think it probable that the defendant is guilty of the accused crime. If courts will not permit an exception to seizures to obtain criminal defense counsel - a right that would otherwise be funded by taxpayers - they are not going to make exceptions for other expenses that are not based in the Constitution.The above case was a reflection of earlier decisions on the same issue, including:4. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. U.S. Supreme Court of the United States June 22, 1989 491 U.S. 617 109 S.Ct. 2646 87-1729 (Narcotics defendant's counsel challenged validity of forfeiture statute to extent that it prevented defendant from paying attorney fees; held, statute, which provided no exception for property used to pay attorney fees, did not impermissibly burden defendant's Sixth Amendment right to retain counsel of his choice.)I close with a wonderfully named case that illustrates Mr. Shannon’s discussion:5. U.S. v. Ninety Three Firearms United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. May 27, 2003 330 F.3d 414 2003 WL 21210444 01-5348 ((1) Government's filing of administrative forfeiture proceeding with respect to 93 firearms and ammunition within 120 days of their seizure tolled statute of limitations requiring that any action or proceeding for forfeiture of firearms be commenced within 120 days of seizure, and thus government's subsequent action for judicial forfeiture of same firearms five years after seizure was timely; although meaning of any action or proceeding was ambiguous, statute expressly incorporated provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, which authorized five-year statute of limitations for judicial forfeiture actions, administrative forfeiture proceedings were favored as more efficient and less burdensome, and requiring both administrative and judicial forfeiture proceedings to be filed within 120-day period after seizure would be unreasonable; (2) owner's due process rights were not violated by five-year delay in filing judicial forfeiture proceeding because, with respect to firearms, a potential claimant has no right to contest seizure or forfeiture of weapons that are intrinsically illegal in character because he would have no property right in such a weapon; (3) District court was not required to dismiss based upon government's failure to serve claimant within 120 days after filing forfeiture complaint; Owner of firearms seized by government during execution of search warrant waived argument on appeal that government's forfeiture action, accrued, for limitations purposes, on date upon which government allegedly knew that he had prior felony conviction and was aware that he possessed firearms illegally, rather than on date of the actual seizure of the firearms, where owner failed to raise argument before the district court; and (4) any error in failing to inform owner of summary judgment requirements was harmless. Due process rights of owner of firearms were not violated by government's five-year delay after seizure of firearms in bringing civil forfeiture proceeding; initial three-year period of delay was justified by pending proceeding for remission and criminal prosecution against defendant, during remaining two years owner did not actively seek return of firearms after his petition for remission was denied, and owner was not prejudiced by delay.)Note: I should mention that, for particularly convoluted reasons, 18 U.S.C. sec. 924, on which forfeiture in this case was based, has been found unconstitutional in whole or some undefined part by numerous courts and not replaced by legislative action, although there have been (so far) no less than 51 proposed pieces of replacement legislation, so this whole issue sometimes goes forward under the only authority around - judicial action. Write your elected representative and complain. It is a ridiculous situation that members of Congress seem too busy to address, even though such things are part of their primary responsibilities.As can be readily seen, forfeiture is conditioned upon compliance with constitutional safeguards and, while admittedly harsh because it takes place prior to conviction and depends upon a fiction, is intended to safeguard the interests of taxpayers by permitting recovery of some or all of the costs of the prosecution from the defendant before the defendant has an opportunity to transfer or dissipate those assets. I used to occasionally be called upon to assert the rights of a secured creditor holding a lien on one or more of the seized assets and never heard a peep from any defendant about getting the property back once it was turned over to the creditor. Perhaps it would only have been re-seized; I never knew.

Yes and no. Full admission to a state’s bar requires compliance witih everything that particularly state requires, even of those already licensed elsewhere. There are several states, like California, that require that lawyers admitted in other states, but wanting to open a practice in California, take and pass the “attorney’s exam”, which is just a slightly shortened regular bar exam, to be licensed.The one exception, at least in federal courts, is often called a “Rule 1” request. If a lawyer admitted into another jurisdiction wants to appear before another court in a different jurisdiction, she can ask to be admitted under Rule 1 of the court’s local rules. This may or may not require presentation of a certificate of good standing from some other jurisdiction, or taking a little test on the local rules, but it’s pretty quick and doesn’t require taking the state’s bar. But it is only for admission for a limited purpose and single case.Here’s an example of a local rule in New York which covers several different levels of “less than full” admission: https://www.nynd.uscourts.gov/sites/nynd/files/local_rules/2018_Atty_Admissions_831.pdf Notice how formal and complex this is. New York requires that even attorneys admitted in order jurisdictions take the New York bar to be fully admitted. Since that is a rather expensive and several-month process, the net result is to keep visitors out.Here’s an example of a local rule from Maryland on the same point, which is more representative of the general run of such rules:Rule 9010-1 Bar Admission.The Bar of this Court. The Bar of this Court shall consist of those persons heretofore admitted to practice in the District Court and those who may hereafter be admitted in accordance with these Rules.Admission Pro Hac Vice. Attorneys admitted, practicing, and in good standing in another jurisdiction, who are not admitted to practice by the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware and the District Court, may be admitted pro hac vice in the discretion of the Court, such admission to be at the pleasure of the Court. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, or authorized by the Constitution of the United States or acts of Congress, an applicant is not eligible for permission to practice pro hac vice if the applicant:Resides in Delaware; orIs regularly employed in Delaware; orIs regularly engaged in business, professional, or other similar activities in Delaware.Any Judge of the Court may revoke, upon hearing after notice and for good cause, a pro hac vice admission in a case or proceeding before a judge. The form for admission pro hac vice, which may be amended by the Court, is Local Form 105 and is located on the Court's website.Association with Delaware Counsel Required. Unless otherwise ordered, an attorney not admitted to practice by the District Court and the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware may not be admitted pro hac vice unless associated with an attorney who is a member of the Bar of the District Court and who maintains an office in the District of Delaware for the regular transaction of business ("Delaware counsel"). Consistent with CM/ECF Procedures, Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. Unless otherwise ordered, Delaware counsel shall attend proceedings before the Court.Time to Obtain Delaware Counsel. A party not appearing pro se shall obtain representation by a member of the Bar of the District Court or have its counsel associate with a member of the Bar of the District Court in accordance with (paragraph (c) above) within thirty (30) days after:The filing of the first paper filed on its behalf; orThe filing of a case transferred or removed to this Court.Failure to timely obtain such representation shall subject the defaulting party to appropriate sanctions.Motion for Pro Hac Vice and Association with Delaware Counsel not Required.Government Attorneys. An attorney not admitted in the District Court but admitted in another United States District Court may appear representing the United States of America (or any officer or agency thereof) or any state or local government (or officer or agency thereof) so long as a certification is filed, signed by that attorney, stating (a) the courts in which the attorney is admitted, (b) that the attorney is in good standing in all jurisdictions in which he or she has been admitted and (c) that the attorney will be bound by these Local Rules and that the attorney submits to the jurisdiction of this Court for disciplinary purposes.Delaware Attorney with Out of State Office. Attorneys who are admitted to the Bar of the District Court and in good standing, but who do not maintain an office in the District of Delaware, may appear on behalf of parties upon approval by the Court.Claim Litigation. Parties (pro se or through out of state counsel) may file or prosecute a proof of claim or a response to their claim. The Court may, however, direct the claimant to consult with Delaware counsel if the claim litigation will involve extensive discovery or trial time.Standards for Professional Conduct. Subject to such modifications as may be required or permitted by federal statute, court rule or decision, all attorneys admitted or authorized to practice before this Court, including attorneys admitted on motion or otherwise, shall also be governed by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association, as may be amended from time to time.The bottom line is that it depends on whether you’re going to be in a given jurisdiction enough to warrant the hassle and expense of taking the bar exam, or whether you want to short cut it under a Rule 1 admission. Of course, you can start out with a Rule 1, but if you start getting more business in a jurisdiction, then you may have to look at regular admission, even with all the extra hassle and expense (as I had to in California so I could open an office there.)