A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT S A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLEE S

James F. Groves F. Joseph Jaskowiak

South Bend , I ndiana Lauren K. Kroeger

Merrillville , Indiana

Karl L. Mulvaney Nana Quay

- Smith Indianapolis, Indiana

______________________________________________________________________________



# In the
Indiana Supreme Court

_________________________________

No. 45S03

- 1505

- PL

- 264

YTC D REAM H OMES

, I NC

., ET AL

. , Appellant s ( Plaintiff s b elow)

,

v.

D IRECT B UY

, I NC

., ET AL

. , Appellee s ( Defendant

s b elow )

.

_________________________________

Appeal from the Lake Superior Court , No. 45D01

- 1302

- PL

- 21

The Honorable John M. Sedia , Judge

_________________________________

On Petiti on t o Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 45A03

- 1312

- PL

- 467

_________________________________

May 12, 2015

Per Curiam.

YTC Dream Homes, Inc. and several other franchisees (collectively, “YTC”) filed a

contract

- related action against franchiso r DirectBuy, Inc. and related parties (collectively,

“DirectBuy”) in Lake Superior Court. YTC, through its local counsel, filed a motion requesting

temporary

— or pro hac vice

— admission of five out

- of

- state attorneys (the “Attorneys”) to2

represent YTC in th e case. Each Attorney is licensed and in good standing in his or her

respective state, and each has participated in a related federal case involving some of the same

parties . None of the Attorneys has previously appeared by temporary admission in Indiana

.

After t he trial court initially granted YTC’s motion

, DirectBuy objected

, contending YTC’s

motion for the Attorneys’ admission “fails to comply with Rule 3 of the Indi ana Rules for

Admission to the B ar and the Discipline of Attorneys . . . and also fail s to comply with Lake

County Local Rule 45

- TR3.1

- 5(C).” 1 Appellee s ’ App. at 19.

The trial court vacated its original order, held a hearing, and subsequently issued an order

denying YTC’s motion. The trial court concluded, in relevant part,

There is no doubt that the five [A ttorneys] are eminently qualified, knowledgeable [

, ] and have a high level of competence in the area of franchise

law.

* * * *

[But t here are] no less than seventeen licensed Indiana attorneys . . . that are

members of the America n Bar Association Forum on Franchising.

* * * * Even assuming that the plaintiffs have shown good cause to admit these attorneys because of their specialized skills, the pro hac vice petitioner must overcome the presumption under Lake County Local Rule 5(C ) that an attorney not licensed in Indiana is not permitted to practice before it. . . . [T]he Court is not persuaded that the plaintiffs cannot locate attorneys licensed in the State of Indiana that have expertise in the field of franchise law.

A ppell ant s ’ App. at 18 ( Order ¶¶ 6, 8, 9 ).

1 Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 3 (2)(a ) provides in relevant part:

Any court of the State of Indiana, in the exercise of discr etion, may permit a member of the bar of another state . . . to appear in a particular case or proceeding, only if the court before which the attorney wishes to appear

. . . determines that there is good cause for such appearance [ and that other specific c onditions are met ]

. Lake County Rule of Civil Procedure 5(C) provides:

A person not a member of the Bar of the State of Indiana shall not generally be permitted to practice in the Civil Division of the Lake County Court System. The Court in its

discretion may permit such counsel to appear only for a specifically li mited purpose and

time. Counsel’ s Motion shall strictly comply with Admission and Discipline Rule 3, and disclose such purpose, time, and all other cases in which the attorney or members of the firm have been permitted to appear in the State of Indiana.

LR 45

- TR3.1

- 5 (C) ( Feb. 2, 2015 ), available at : http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/lake

- local

- rules.pdf

.3

The trial court certified its order for interlocutory appeal, which the Cour t of Appeals

accepted

. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with instructions

that the trial court grant the At torneys’ petitions for temporary admission. YTC Dream Homes,

Inc. v. DirectBuy, Inc. , 18 N.E.3d 635 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). DirectBuy petitioned this Court for

transfer, which we now grant

. See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A).

As the trial court correctly reco gnized, “t emporary admission of an out

- of

- state lawyer

pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 3(2) is within the discretion of the trial court.” State

ex rel. Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Comm’ n v. Farmer , 978 N.E.2d 409, 414 (Ind. 2012)

(citing Matter of Fieger

, 887 N.E.2d 87, 90 (Ind. 2008) (per curiam) ). See Admis. Disc. R.

3(2)(a). We agree with the Court of Appeals ’ conclusion that Loca l Rule 5(C) does not create a

presumption against pro hac vice admissions. YTC Dream Homes , 18 N.E.3d at 649. The l ocal

rule cannot vitiate the trial court’s disc retion to find good cause for temporary admission under

Admission and Discipline Rule 3(2).

Accordingly, w e reverse and reman d to the trial court with instructions to determine

,

without restric tion by local rule and within the discretion granted by Indiana Admission and

Discipline Rule 3(2), whether good cause exists for the admission of the Attorneys. W e

summarily affirm that part of the Court of Appeals opinion addressing the meaning of the “ good

cause” requirements of Admission and Discipline Rule 3(2). See App. R. 58(A)(2).

All Justices concur.