THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JACK BEAM and RENEE BEAM, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

MATTHEW S. PETERSEN, FEDERAL 

ELECTION COMMISSION CHAIRMAN, 

 Defendant. 

Civil No. 07cv1227 

Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer 

Magistrate Judge Cole 

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM 

IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO 

COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH 

LOCAL RULE 83.12(b) 

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION 

TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 83.12(b) 

 Defendant Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or “Commission”) respectfully 

moves this Court for an order compelling plaintiffs Jack and Renee Beam to retain 

counsel admitted to the trial bar of this Court. Attorneys who are members of the general 

bar “may appear during testimonial proceedings only if accompanied by a member of the 

trial bar who is serving as advisor.” Local Rule 83.12(b) (N.D. Ill.) (emphasis added). 

Plaintiffs’ counsel Michael Dezsi and plaintiff Jack Beam are general bar members, but 

neither has been admitted to the trial bar, and no attorney admitted to the trial bar has to 

date filed an appearance on behalf of plaintiffs — even though FEC counsel raised this 

omission at the April 6, 2010, status hearing and plaintiffs’ counsel stated then that he 

would find qualified counsel, without disputing that the trial bar requirement applied to 

plaintiffs. Therefore, the FEC requests that this Court compel plaintiffs to retain a 

member of the trial bar and notice that person’s appearance before the trial of this matter. 

 

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 199 Filed 08/13/10 Page 1 of 5
ARGUMENT 

I. IN ORDER FOR GENERAL BAR MEMBERS TO APPEAR IN 

TESTIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS LIKE THE UPCOMING TRIAL, 

A MEMBER OF THE TRIAL BAR MUST BE PRESENT 

Under this Court’s Local Rules, members of the general bar may enter 

appearances, file pleadings, motions or other documents and sign stipulations, but they 

“may appear during testimonial proceedings only if accompanied by a member of the trial 

bar who is serving as advisor.” LR83.12(b) (emphasis added). In order to ensure that 

counsel have the experience necessary for the conduct of testimonial proceedings, 

admission to the trial bar requires experience in such proceedings beyond that required 

for the general bar. See LR83.11(b). 

The trial in this case qualifies as a testimonial proceeding within the meaning of 

LR83.12(b) and therefore requires an appearance by an attorney admitted to the trial bar. 

Under this rule, testimonial proceedings are “evidentiary proceedings in which all 

testimony is given under oath and a record is made of the testimony,” LR83.11(a)(1)(A), 

“witnesses are subject to cross-examination,” LR83.11(a)(1)(B), “a presiding officer is 

present,” LR83.11(a)(1)(C), and “parties to such proceedings are generally represented 

by attorneys.” LR83.11(a)(1)(D). This trial will follow the Federal Rules of Evidence 

and witnesses’ testimony will be given under oath. See Final Pretrial Order ¶ (2). All 

witnesses will be available for cross examination. See id. ¶ (2)(d). Plainly, the trial of 

this matter will be a testimonial proceeding under LR83.12(b). 

 

2 

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 199 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 5
II. ALTHOUGH TRIAL IS APPROACHING, NO COUNSEL 

ADMITTED TO THE TRIAL BAR HAS FILED AN APPEARANCE 

ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS IN THIS CASE 

Each attorney “who represents a party in any proceeding brought in this Court” 

must file an appearance form. LR83.16(b). Furthermore, “[o]nce an attorney has filed an 

appearance form pursuant to LR83.16, that attorney is the attorney of record” and “may 

not withdraw, nor may any other attorney file an appearance on behalf of the same 

party...without first obtaining leave of the court.” LR83.17. 

In this matter, attorney Michael R. Dezsi has filed appearances on behalf of 

plaintiffs Jack and Renee Beam. Mr. Dezsi was admitted to the general bar on February 

16, 2007. See Northern District of Illinois Active General and Trial Bar Members, 

available at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/datalookup/attrec/index.cfm (visited 

Aug. 9, 2010). Plaintiff Jack Beam was admitted to the general bar on March 16, 2007, 

see id., and designated as local counsel on April 6, 2007, see Docket #18. Neither 

attorney, however, is listed as a member of the trial bar, nor have plaintiffs obtained leave 

of the Court for another attorney to appear in this proceeding. See LR83.17(b). Since 

Mr. Dezsi is not accompanied by a member of the trial bar as required for testimonial 

proceedings, Mr. Dezsi may not appear as counsel for plaintiffs at trial. See LR83.16(b).

Mr. Beam’s designation as local counsel does not alleviate the need for an 

attorney admitted to the trial bar. Designation of local counsel allows “[a]n attorney not 

having an office within this District” to “appear before this Court.” LR83.15(a). Such 

designation permits nonresident counsel, such as Mr. Dezsi, to handle matters consistent 

with LR83.12 and 83.14. But the requirements of LR83.12(b) remain, and LR83.15 does 

not permit local counsel to usher into court nonresident counsel who is also not a member 

3 

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 199 Filed 08/13/10 Page 3 of 5
of the trial bar. To read LR83.15 as permitting such appearances would in effect subject 

resident counsel to more stringent requirements than nonresident counsel, an intent 

manifested nowhere in LR83.15. Thus, plaintiffs must still obtain counsel admitted to the 

trial bar if Mr. Dezsi is to appear at the pending testimonial proceedings. 

III. NO EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT A WAIVER 

OF THE TRIAL BAR REQUIREMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS 

Only in “exceptional circumstances” and “upon written request by the client and a 

showing that the interests of justice are best served by waiving the experience 

requirements otherwise required by these rules” may a judge grant permission to an 

attorney admitted to the general bar but not to the trial bar to appear in a proceeding. 

LR83.12(d). No such request has been made here, but even if one had been, the 

circumstances of this case are hardly “exceptional.” This litigation has been ongoing for 

more than three years. Plaintiffs appear able to obtain qualified counsel, and Mr. Beam is 

himself a lawyer admitted to the general bar in this jurisdiction. Plaintiffs selected this 

venue and its rules. Counsel has had ample opportunity to notice an appearance by a 

member of the trial bar or to apply for admission to the trial bar himself, yet he has failed 

to do so. Moreover, at the April 6, 2010 status hearing in this matter, see Docket #176 

(Minute entry for hearing), counsel for the FEC informed the Court of this omission. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel did not deny that the trial bar requirement applied, and he pledged to 

find qualified counsel, but to date he has failed to do so. Plaintiffs should meet the basic 

requirements that litigants follow in this Court. 

4 

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 199 Filed 08/13/10 Page 4 of 5
5 

CONCLUSION

 For the foregoing reasons, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court 

require plaintiffs to retain a member of the trial bar of this Court and notice that person’s 

appearance before the trial of this matter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 Thomasenia P. Duncan 

General Counsel 

David Kolker 

Associate General Counsel 

Harry J. Summers 

Assistant General Counsel 

/s/_Benjamin A. Streeter III

Benjamin A. Streeter III 

Attorney 

Holly J. Baker 

Attorney 

August 13, 2010 FOR THE DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

AND ITS CHAIRMAN 

999 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

(202) 694-1650 

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 199 Filed 08/13/10 Page 5 of 5