Court Opinion

ID: 9457164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:14:23.889614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:14.620792
License: Public Domain

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
While it is disappointing that the entire court will not take this case en banc, I desire to point out that the panel has not held that a district court may not have a rule that forbids one from being admitted pro hac vice for a ease if the applicant has been in the State of California long enough to have qualified for admission to the California State Bar. Neither has it held that for good cause pro hac vice status may not be denied. (Judge Trask may be correct that a district judge does not have to make a record of “good cause” to reject a pro hac vice application, but I think such meaning may be implicit in the panel’s opinions of April 21, 1971.)
The majority of the panel has simply held that the present local rule does not ipso facto bar Tigar and that denial on the basis of the rule cannot stand.