Florida Pro Hac Vice: Fill & Download for Free

Let me see if I understand the facts behind your question. I’ll summarize a few things you’ve mentioned in your comments on other people’s answers, add what I’ve learned in my one-minute Google search, and then make a few educated guesses.As I understand it, you are currently the plaintiff in a civil lawsuit that is pending in the state of California. The defendant wants to be represented by a lawyer who is not admitted to practice before California state courts and who has applied to be admitted pro hac vice. The lawyer — shall we call him Larry Klayman for the sake of convenience? — is admitted to the DC Bar, where he is currently suspended from the practice of law for a period of 90 days. If my back-of-the-envelope calculation is correct, Mr. Klayman’s suspension will end on about November 9th.You say Mr. Klayman falsely stated in his pro hac vice application that he was a member of the bar in good standing in all states where he is admitted. When the judge who is presiding over your case learned that Mr. Klayman is currently suspended from the practice of law in DC, the judge denied his pro hac vice application but invited him to re-apply after his suspension is completed.(You have not mentioned any other bar disciplinary actions that may be pending against Mr. Klayman. If my guess about the lawyer’s identity is correct, you should click on the link at the bottom of my answer for the latest chapter in the Larry Klayman saga. He’s also facing a potential 33-month suspension for some other unethical conduct, but I have no idea what the timeline in the pending disciplinary action is.)Now, let’s look at the question you asked.“Why would a judge permit a lawyer who is currently suspended from the practice of law to re-submit an application for admission pro hac vice after he completes his suspension, instead of simply denying the lawyer’s application outright?”I’ll admit I think this is a little weird, especially in light of Mr. Klayman’s reputation for unprofessional conduct. The man is famous. Most of the judges I know would simply have denied Mr. Klayman’s application.My best guess is that the judge who is presiding over your case is bending over backwards to avoid the appearance of unfairness, especially since Mr. Klayman will have completed his suspension long before the scheduled trial date.The fact that the judge is permitting Mr. Klayman to re-apply for admission pro hac vice does not necessarily mean that the judge plans to grant Mr. Klayman’s application. This invites us to ask a second question.“What should you do at this point, and how worried should you be?”Is it safe to assume you’re representing yourself? Ideally, you should be letting your lawyer handle this mess. But I get the impression you don’t have one.One thing I would do, if I were in your shoes, is to make sure the judge had copies of the official records of all prior disciplinary charges Mr. Klayman had faced. I would visit the DC Bar website and download copies of the two disciplinary proceedings in DC and the one disciplinary proceeding in Florida. I would make sure the judge knew that Mr. Klayman still has a second disciplinary action pending against him and that he might be facing a second suspension, which could be significantly longer than the first one was.I would also remind the judge that Mr. Klayman had lied on the record when he filed his initial pro hac vice application.https://www.dcbar.org/ServeFile/GetDisciplinaryActionFile?fileName=HCLarryEKlayman02811.pdf

The answer is yes to both questions. Biglaw shops are often asked to work outside their physical locations: in nearly 4 years with the San Francisco office of a large firm, I worked in Florida, Ohio, and D.C., and in practicing since then at a Houston boutique, I've worked in New York, Connecticut, Florida, Oklahoma, California, Arizona, Illinois, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and probably more places I've forgotten about. So while a New York shop is going to do most work in New York, pro hac opportunities do happen.Local counsel is sometimes required by a particular court, but usually, it's a strategic concern. If I had a small matter in Chicago, for example, I'd probably just handle it myself, but if it was a medium-large sized case, I'm getting local counsel (1) because I don't know all the little things about practicing in Illinois, (2) because I don't know anything about the judges up there, and (3) because I want to guard against being treated as a second-class class citizen because I'm an outsider and get any advantage that having experienced local counsel can provide. Many large law firms have preferred local counsel in all 50 states, but even where they don't, most people tend to rely on professional/law school networks to fill in the gaps. One advantage of having attended a national law school is that my classmates are just about everywhere: I've called upon people for help from Maine to Hong Kong.

No - per the FL board of bar examiners website, there are no reciprocity rules in Florida [1]:Does Florida have reciprocity with any jurisdiction?There is no reciprocity between Florida and any other jurisdiction. Submission to the Florida Bar Examination is required of all applicants.Most District and Circuit Courts require that a lawyer appearing before them be licensed to practice in the jurisdiction in which the Court is located. If you could work into being admitted to either the Florida bar or the District/Circuit courts pro hac vice, then you could practice without having a FL license.[1] http://www.floridabarexam.org/public/main.nsf/faq.html#faq06