Court Opinion

ID: 9791170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:07:03.718861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:34.586779
License: Public Domain

Utter, C.J.
(concurring) — The sole issue before this court is whether the trial court has discretion to deny admission to plaintiffs' out-of-state counsel because of an alleged pattern of unethical behavior in this and other cases. I believe this discretion does not exist because APR 7 does not expressly or impliedly grant discretion to the trial court to make an ethics or moral character determination when reviewing a pro hac vice motion.
*38The four areas of inquiry required are that the applicant be (1) in good standing of the bar of another state, (2) a resident in the other state, (3) maintaining a practice in the other state, and (4) associated with an active member of the Washington state bar. The question of whether the applicant attorney should in fact be a member in good standing of the bar of a foreign state is for that state to determine, not this state or the courts of this state. Although different jurisdictions may be inconsistent in their enforcement of ethical standards, the possibility of even greater inconsistency of treatment exists in local trial courts.
The language in APR 7 providing that an attorney may appear as trial counsel "with permission of the court" does not imply there are other standards, beyond those enumerated in the rule, that the trial court may consider. Its purpose is to ensure that the requirements of the rule have in fact been met, and to prevent self-certification by the out-of-state counsel and local associated counsel.
On the facts before us in this case I concur that the order of the trial court be reversed and a limited hearing only conducted to determine whether the requirements of APR 7(a) have been met.
Horowitz, J., concurs with Utter, C.J.