Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08024/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08024-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

• 

' 

FI LED 

Uctited States C:OUrt of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

AUG 16 1990 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAJ;,S 

KOBERT L. HOECKER 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk 

In re: EL RANCHO, INC., ) 

) 

Debtor, ) 

) 

--------------------------------) ) 

SAM LUNSWAY and VERA LUNSWAY, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

DAN TURNER and PHILLIP L. ) 

TURNER, ) 

) 

Appellants, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

THE TOP TEN PARTNERSHIP, a/k/a ) 

The Top Ten Joint Venture, ) 

) 

Appellee. ) 

Nos. 90-8023, 90-8024 

(D.C. Nos. 89-0277K 

and 89-0278K) 

(D. Wyoming) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-8024 Document: 010110040906 Date Filed: 08/16/1990 Page: 1 
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Sam and Vera Lunsway appeal from the dismissal of two 

bankruptcy appeals on the grounds their counsel (the Turners) 

refused to comply with an order of the bankruptcy court that the 

Turners, who are not admitted in Wyoming, associate with local 

counsel. We reverse. 

The district court found that despite the bankruptcy court's 

order that all out of state counsel affiliate with local counsel, 

the Turners refused to comply. As a sanction for disobeying that 

order, the district court dismissed the appeals. The Lunsways 

have appealed the orders of dismissal. 

The Turners claim to have been allowed to appear in this 

case, but there is no order of court in the record before us 

permitting the Turners to appear for the 1 Lunsways. Moreover, 

Local Rule 103(b) of the District of Wyoming requires all 

nonresident attorneys who are not admitted to the bar of the state 

of Wyoming seek admission pro hac vice "upon a motion made by a 

resident member of the bar of this Court." Addendum to Appellee's 

brief, p.1. The rule further provides, "a motion to appear pro 

1

Found in the record is a peculiar "Entry of appearance" which 

recites: "COME NOW, Dan E. Turner and Phillip L. Turner, Topeka, 

Kansas, attorneys for the debtor, and enters [sic] the appearance 

of Sam and Vera Lunsway as the sole stockholders of El Rancho, 

Inc." (Vol. 1, doc. 1, at SO). Why it was necessary for the 

Lunsways to enter an appearance is not explained. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-8024 Document: 010110040906 Date Filed: 08/16/1990 Page: 2 
hac vice shall be granted only if the applicant associates with an 

active resident member of the bar of this Court who shall 

participate in the preparation and trial of the case to the extent 

required by the Court." Id. 

Local Rule 1003 of the Bankruptcy Court of the District of 

Wyoming contains provisions similar to those of the district 

court. Under Rule 1003(b), a local attorney must move the 

admission of a nonresident lawyer, and the motion will be granted 

"only if the applicant associates an active member of the bar of 

this court who shall paticipate (sic] in the case or proceeding to 

the extent required by the court." 

Despite the bald statements of the Turners, there is nothing 

in the record to indicate they have complied with the local rules 

of either the bankruptcy or district court regarding admission to 

the bar. No motion was made by a resident member of the bar of 

either the district court or the bankruptcy court to admit the 

Turners pro hac vice as counsel for the appellants. Moreover, 

there is no appearance of a local member of the bar in association 

with the Turners. 2 Accordingly, we cannot find any reason to 

conclude the district court erred in its finding that the Turners 

wilfully failed to qualify as counsel pro hac vice. 3 

2The record indicates the Turners were associated with Hanes, 

Burke & Woodard, a Wyoming firm, in the Turners' representation of 

El Rancho, Inc. Hanes was permitted to withdraw, however, 

(Vol. I, doc. 1, at 28) and no other local counsel entered an 

appearance for either the debtor or the Lunsways. 

3 Counsel for appellants have presented portions of transcripts in 

which the bankruptcy judge referred to their admission in the 

bankruptcy case; the statements in those transcripts are ambiguous 

and no substitute for an order allowing counsel to appear pro hac 

(Continued to next page.) 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-8024 Document: 010110040906 Date Filed: 08/16/1990 Page: 3 
The next issue is whether dismissal of the Lunsways' appeal 

was proper. Appellants' only argument is that the Turners were in 

fact appointed in the bankruptcy court and consequently the 

"district court committed error." 

Because the district court dismissed the appeal as a sanction 

for the Turners' disregard of the bankruptcy court's order to 

affiliate with 4 local counsel, the issue is whether the district 

court has authority to dismiss a bankruptcy appeal on the ground 

the appellants' counsel have failed, and disobeyed a court order 

requiring them to qualify for admission. 5 

Appellees assert the "actions of the district court in this 

case in dismissing the appeal and striking pleadings filed by 

Turners is entirely consistent with the policy of preserving the 

court's ability to control the practice of those attorneys that 

appear before it, and does not constitute an abuse of discretion." 

Unfortunately, no authority for this position is cited, and we 

have found none. 

While it is true any court has the power to control the 

admission of attorneys to its bar, and while the conduct of those 

(Continued from prior page.) 

vice. Indicative of the bankruptcy court's practice to reduce 

such permission to a written order is the order admitting opposing 

counsel. (Vol. I, doc. 1, at 180). 

4 The court stated: "[s]uch disregard for local rules of practice 

and a lawful order of court will not be tolerated." 

5Because of this failure, we assume counsel were not admitted to 

practice in the district court as well; however, that issue has 

not been addressed. Moreover, the papers relating to the appeal 

should not have been accepted by the Clerk of the District Court 

when presented by the Turners. See District of Wyoming Rule 

103(b). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-8024 Document: 010110040906 Date Filed: 08/16/1990 Page: 4 
• 

attorneys is subject to the court's disciplinary authority, the 

real question is whether the clients' right of appeal can be 

denied because of the failure of their attorneys. We have no 

difficulty approving the imposition of sanctions against the 

Turners because their omissions are flagrant. Moreover, the 

sanction of dismissal for disobedience of a court order is within 

the power of the district court, Burden v. Yates, 644 F.2d 503, 

505 (5th Cir. 1981); yet, when the sanction has harsh results, it 

should be imposed with reluctance. Id. In this instance, the 

dismissal which cuts off the Lunsways' right of appeal is harsh, 

particularly because the Lunsways have neither caused nor 

benefited from their counsel's refusal to comply with the court's 

directives. 

The Lunsways are entitled to a review of their appeal on the 

merits. Whether the Turners should be permitted to continue in 

their attempt to represent the Lunsways in the appeal is a matter 

we leave to the discretion of the district court. If the district 

court decides the Turners should be barred from proceeding further 

with the appeal, the Lunsways should be given the opportunity to 

obtain other counsel or to represent themselves. Only after such 

an opportunity is extended for a reasonable time and then not 

taken should the district court entertain a dismissal of the 

appeal. 

The motion to consolidate these cases is GRANTED. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-8024 Document: 010110040906 Date Filed: 08/16/1990 Page: 5