Opinion
No. 02 Civ. 8613 (LAK).
March 22, 2005
ORDER
The order [endorsed on docket item 150] granting Linda Woolf, Esq., leave to appear pro hac vice was signed prior to receipt of answering papers in error and is hereby vacated.
The motion [docket item 150] for leave to appear pro hac vice is denied, largely for the reasons set forth in defendants' memorandum in opposition to the motion. It is clear that Ms. Woolf and her firm engaged in blatant misconduct earlier in this action. Indeed, plaintiffs' reply papers do not dispute this or attempt to defend their behavior. They largely confine themselves to arguing that her participation would not taint this trial, as this Court held in refusing to issue an injunction earlier in the action. True though that is, it is not a satisfactory reason to grant the motion.
The Court does not accept so much of defendants' argument as is based on the fact that two of Ms. Woolf's partners will be trial witnesses.
Leave to appear pro hac vice is a privilege, not a right, and its availability rests in the discretion of the trial judge. As the cases cited at page 6 of defendants' memorandum show, previous ethical lapses may be sufficient basis for denying that privilege. In this case, Ms. Woolf's actions were sufficiently egregious that the Court, in the exercise of discretion, denies her motion to appear pro hac vice. Ms. Woolf is hereby directed to attach a copy of this order to any subsequent application for leave to appear pro hac vice in this District.
SO ORDERED.