Opinion
Case No. 1:03-cv-288.
October 14, 2006
This case is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion Pursuant to Loc. R. 84.3 to Permit Staughton Lynd, Esq., to Serve As Co-counsel for the Amicus American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc. (the "ACLU") (Doc. No. 87).
On October 12, 2006, the Court postponed consideration of the ACLU's Motion for Leave to File an amicus curiae brief until it demonstrated compliance with two formalities. One of those was the failure to obtain admission pro hac vice for attorney Staughton Lynd, a signing attorney on the proposed amicus brief. The instant Motion appears to be intended to deal with that formality, but fails to comply with S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 83.4(c) in several respects:
1. It does not demonstrate that Mr. Lynd "is not otherwise eligible to become a member of the bar of this Court." Because he is a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of Ohio, he would appear to be eligible for admission. See S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 83.3(b).
2. It is not accompanied by a certificate of good standing from the Ohio Supreme Court.
3. It is not accompanied by the required pro hac vice admission fee.
It may be that all that is intended is to have Mr. Lynd's name appear on the papers. If that is the case, he need not be admitted pro hac vice. See S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 83.4(c.) If that is all that is intended, ACLU should so notify the Court.
Respondent has notified the Court of his intention to oppose leave being granted to the ACLU to file a brief amicus curiae. Any such opposition shall be filed not later than October 20, 2006.