Opinion
No. CV 06 4010686 S
May 23, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION #101 APPLICATION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
On May 18, 2006 the Plaintiff, pursuant to Practice Book § 2-16, filed an application for consent for admission pro hac vice of Mark E. Nagle, Esq. in the matter of Tunxis, as Claimant, against the State of Connecticut, as Respondent, in the Matter No. 20188 before the State of Connecticut Commissioner of Claims. With the exception of the instant application, there are no actions pending in the State's Court system regarding this matter.
The standards for admission pro hac vice are well settled in this state. These standards require a balancing between the right of an individual to be represented by the counsel of their choice, and a legitimate state interest that may affect said right.
A trial court entertaining an application for admission pro hac vice must also consider the interests of the client who seeks to have the out-of-state attorney admitted. The right to have counsel of one's own choice, although not absolute, is important enough to require a legitimate state interest before a person can be deprived of that right. (Footnotes omitted).
Enquire Printing Publishing Co. v. O'Reilly, 193 Conn. 370, 374 (1984).
Upon reviewing the instant application, this Court inquired of the parties as to whether admission was proper in the current case in light of the fact that the application sought admission to appear before the State of Connecticut Commissioner of Claims and not a Court of the State of Connecticut. In Re The Application To Admit James W. Glatthaar, Pro hac vice, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford, d.n. CV 05-4015630 (October 24, 2005, Berger, J.) ( 40 Conn. L. Rptr. 237), the Court held that an application for admission of an out of state attorney should be denied when the application sought pro hac vice admission to appear in a Connecticut arbitration proceeding. On the other hand in the matter of In Re Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission, Reich, 83 Conn.App. 432 (2004), the Applicant sought and was granted permission for an out of state attorney to serve as Special Counsel to the Select Committee of Inquiry appointed to conduct an investigation and submit to the House of Representatives of the State of Connecticut findings and recommendations concerning, among other things, whether sufficient grounds existed for the impeachment of the Governor. Although our Supreme Court held that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the matter in light of the circumstances concerning the Complainant's lack of standing, this Court finds it persuasive that despite the subject matter jurisdiction issue concerning the appeal, the Court did not find it necessary to address the issue of whether it was proper for attorney Reich to be admitted pro hac vice to practice before as the Special Counsel in a matter that was not before the Superior or the Appellate Courts of this State.
Section 51-88 of the Connecticut General Statutes concerns the unauthorized practice of law in this State. Subsection 51-88(a) provides that: "A person who has not been admitted as an attorney under the provisions of section 51-80 shall not: (1) Practice law or appear as an attorney-at-law for another, in any court of record in this state, (2) make it a business to practice law, or appear as an attorney-at-law for another in any such court, (3) make it a business to solicit employment for an attorney-at-law, (4) hold himself out to the public as being entitled to practice law, (5) assume to be an attorney-at-law, (6) assume, use or advertise the title of lawyer, attorney and counselor-at-law, attorney-at-law, counselor-at-law, attorney, counselor, attorney and counselor, or an equivalent term, in such manner as to convey the impression that he is a legal practitioner of law, or (7) advertise that he, either alone or with others, owns, conducts or maintains a law office, or office or place of business of any kind for the practice of law."
Section 51-80 concerns admission to the Connecticut bar. This statute provides as follows: "The Superior Court may admit and cause to be sworn as attorneys such persons as are qualified therefor, in accordance with the rules established by the judges of the Superior Court. The judges of the Superior Court may establish rules relative to the admission, qualifications, practice and removal of attorneys."
Section 2-2 of the Practice Book provides that: "No person shall be admitted as an attorney except as herein provided." Section 2-16 of the Connecticut Practice Book concerns attorneys appearing pro hac vice. It provides in part that: "An attorney who is in good standing at the bar of another state, the District of Columbia, or the commonwealth of Puerto Rico, may, upon special and infrequent occasion and for good cause shown upon written application presented by a member of the bar of this state, be permitted in the discretion of the court to participate to such extent as the court may prescribe in the presentation of a cause or appeal in any court of this state . . . Good Cause for according such privilege shall be limited to facts or circumstances affecting the personal or financial welfare of the client and not the attorney. Such facts may include a showing that by reason of a longstanding attorney-client relationship predating the cause or subject matter of the litigation at bar, the attorney has acquired a specialized skill or knowledge with respect to the client's affairs important to the trial of the cause, or that the litigant has been unable to secure the services of Connecticut counsel . . ."
There is an important governmental interest in maintaining the standards of legal practice in this state. Section 1-1 of the Connecticut Practice Book states in pertinent part that: "(a) The rules for the superior court govern the practice and procedure in the superior court in all civil and family actions whether cognizable as cases at law, in equity or otherwise, in all criminal proceedings and in all proceedings on juvenile matters. These rules also relate to the admission, qualifications, practice and removal of attorneys."
Section 4-157-7 of the Regulations of State and Municipal Agencies concerns the requirements for practice before the State Claims Commissioner. This regulation provides that: "All claims against the state of Connecticut are defended by the office of the attorney general. A claimant need not be represented by an attorney. No person shall be permitted to represent a claimant except attorneys admitted to practice law before the courts of the state of Connecticut and who are in good standing before those courts. Student interns with the counsel of the claimant or the Attorney General's office may be permitted to appear before the claims commissioner in any hearing or motion before the claims commissioner, but his representation must be accompanied by an attorney duly authorized and qualified." (Emphasis added.)
Pursuant to our local rules of practice an out of state attorney may be admitted provided that they have met the requirements of the Practice Book. Although the Practice Book does not appear to directly address the issue of the "practice of law" in forums other than in a "presentation of a cause or appeal in any court of this state," the regulation of the practice of law outside of the courtroom is a judicial function. To "practice law" means to perform either in or out of court any acts commonly understood to be the practice of law. State Bar Assn. v. Connecticut Bank Trust Co., 145 Conn. 222 (1958). (Emphasis added.) It is well settled law in this State that "[f]ixing the qualifications for, as well as admitting persons to, the practice of law in this state has ever been an exercise of judicial power." Heiberger v. Clark, 148 Conn. 177, 185, 169 A.2d 652 (1961).
The Court notes that Section 1-8 of the Connecticut Practice Book provides that: "The design of these rules being to facilitate business and advance justice, they will be interpreted liberally in any case where it shall be manifest that a strict adherence to them will work surprise or injustice."
After reviewing the facts concerning this matter and taking into consideration: 1) That State Regulations only permits attorneys admitted to practice law before the courts of this State to represent claimants before the State Claims Commissioner; and 2) The litigant's right to be represented by an attorney of its own choice, as balanced against the important governmental interest of maintaining standards for the practice of law in this State, whether such practice takes place inside or outside of a courtroom, the Court concludes that the Applicant has met its burden of proof to show good cause for the motion to be granted, therefore the Plaintiff's application for the pro hac vice admission of Mark E. Nagle, Esq. is granted.
So ordered.