Opinion ID: 1349371
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Obey v. Halloin

Text: ¶ 22. The second action is in many ways similar to Filppula-McArthur. It too was a medical malpractice action brought in Brown County Circuit Court by a mother and child against certain medical providers, including Dr. Halloin. Attorney Janet Angus, who again represented the interests of the minor-plaintiff as guardian ad litem, began the action in December 1997. This case was assigned to Judge William Atkinson. ¶ 23. In September 1998, Attorney Angus moved to have Attorney Ball admitted pro hac vice, and upon that motion and an affidavit of Ball, Judge Atkinson granted that request. Ball then assumed an active role in the litigation. ¶ 24. Several months later, Attorney Ball moved for an order confirming his pro hac vice status. Apparently, defendants' counsel had suggested that as a result of the revocation in Filppula-McArthur, they would contest Ball's pro hac vice privilege in Obey. In response to Ball's preemptive motion, the defendants filed an affidavit of Dr. Halloin objecting to Attorney Ball's continued involvement in Obey, a copy of Judge McKay's order revoking Ball's pro hac vice privilege in Filppula-McArthur, and the transcript of the hearing at which Judge McKay made his ruling. At an ensuing hearing the defendants explicitly moved for revocation of Ball's status. ¶ 25. After hearing argument on the motions, Judge Atkinson postponed his ruling. Judge Atkinson did, however, express his concerns about allowing Ball to proceed in his courtroom when his conduct in another branch of the same circuit court was sufficient to cause revocation of the privilege to appear. Judge Atkinson said that he did not want to submit these defendants [and] future Wisconsin jurors, Brown County jurors, in this case to the possibility of a mistrial, as was granted by [Judge McKay]. ¶ 26. Several weeks later, Judge Atkinson issued his order revoking Attorney Ball's pro hac vice admission. Judge Atkinson stated that he had reviewed a partial transcript of Filppula-McArthur, which he noted was a medical malpractice action with nearly identical defendants as before him in Obey. After enumerating the reasons given by Judge McKay for revoking Ball's privilege, Judge Atkinson undertook consideration of several other factors. First, he noted that Attorney Ball's clients had an interest in representation by counsel of their choice. Second, he considered the countervailing interest in the integrity of the judicial system, which dictated due consideration of Judge McKay's comments. ¶ 27. Third, Judge Atkinson focused on Attorney Ball's competence to practice law in a Wisconsin court: Wisconsin has the benefit of extremely competent counsel in all facets of law, including medical malpractice cases. Clearly, there are other attorneys who can competently handle this case and represent the best interests of the Plaintiffs. Attorney Ball's Illinois residence does not preclude him from obtaining a license to practice law in the state of Wisconsin. Mr. Ball can apply for Wisconsin licensure and become a member of this state's bar....Wisconsin's continuing legal education requirements can be utilized by Attorney Ball to address practice concerns noted by Judge McKay. Weighing these factors, Judge Atkinson concluded it was proper to revoke Ball's pro hac vice admission. ¶ 28. Ball and his clients appealed and the court of appeals affirmed. It concluded that the circuit court had properly exercised its discretion by applying the relevant facts to the appropriate standard, i.e., SCR 10.03(4), and reaching a reasonable conclusion in revoking Ball's pro hac vice admission. Obey v. Halloin, 2000 WI App 99, ¶ 20, 235 Wis. 2d 118, 612 N.W.2d 361. In doing so the court of appeals rejected, among other arguments, Ball's contention that under SCR 10.03(4) a circuit court may not consider conduct that occurred before another court. Id. at ¶ 10. The court of appeals noted that because SCR 10.03(4) allows revocation of pro hac vice status for `incompetency to represent a client in a Wisconsin court, ' the rule by its terms also applies to conduct that has not occurred before the court withdrawing admission. Id. at ¶¶ 8-9.