Opinion
C.A. No. 06C-06-185 (JTV).
Submitted: May 17, 2007.
Decided: July 16, 2007.
Upon Consideration of a Motion For Admission Pro Hac Vice GRANTED.
Timothy J. Houseal, Esq., and Anthony G. Flynn, Esq., Young, Conaway, Stargatt Taylor, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for Defendant TIG Insurance Company.
OPINION
Before the Court is a motion filed by Delaware counsel for admission pro hac vice of Jody H. Schwarz, Esquire. Ms. Schwarz is a member of the bars of Virginia, Illinois, and the District of Columbia.
The standard of review for such a motion is found in Superior Court Civil Rule 90.1.
The rule requires that the moving attorney must be a member of the Delaware Bar who maintains an office in this State for the practice of law and must certify that he or she finds the applicant to be a reputable and competent attorney and is in a position to recommend the applicant's admission. That certification has been filed with the motion.
Rule 90.1(a) and (h).
The rule also requires that the attorney seeking admission pro hac vice must file a certificate containing the certifications required by Rule 90.1(b). That certification has also been filed with the motion and contains all of the required certifications.
Finally, Rule 90.1(g) requires the Court to consider the following:
. . . whether, in light of the nature and extent of the practice in the State of Delaware of the attorney seeking admission, that attorney is, in effect, practicing as a Delaware Counsel without complying with the Delaware requirements for admission to the Bar.
Ms. Schwartz certifies that she has appeared in no actions in a court of record of Delaware in the preceding twelve months. Therefore, no further inquiry under Rule 90.1(g) is needed.
The requirements of Rule 90.1 having been satisfied, no further inquiry or consideration is necessary, and I exercise my discretion to grant the motion.
It should be observed that Rule 90.1 does not call for any inquiry into the Rule 90.1(a) and (h). relationship between out-of-state counsel and the party he or she will be representing, or any inquiry into out-of-state counsel's degree of expertise in the issues in the case. It does not require any showing of any need for the services of out-of-state counsel. Inquiry into such matters is beyond the scope of Rule 90.1 and is improper.
The policy of the Court is to honor a party's choice to retain out-of-state counsel where the requirements set forth in Rule 90.1 are appropriately satisfied. Although the decision on a motion for admission pro hac vice is a matter within the sound discretion of the Court, denial of such a motion should occur only where there is a clear showing that denial is warranted.
The motion for admission pro hac vice is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.