Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

litigationlawyerappealmotiondiscriminationdeclaratory judgment
attorneylawyerappealdiscrimination

Related Cases

Doe v. City of Memphis, 928 F.3d 481, 104 Fed.R.Serv.3d 124
View Case »
U.S. v. Plache, 913 F.2d 1375, 31 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 247
View Case »
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305, 54 USLW 4789
View Case »
Hayes v. Central States Orthopedic Specialists, Inc., 51 P.3d 562, 2002 OK 30
View Case »
Nation-Wide Check Corp., Inc. v. Forest Hills Distributors, Inc., 692 F.2d 214, 11 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1588
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Parnell v. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, 110 F.3d 1077, 65 USLW 2682

Facts

Albert H. Parnell, a Georgia lawyer licensed in West Virginia, filed a motion to have three colleagues admitted pro hac vice in a West Virginia asbestos case. His motion was denied because he did not have a West Virginia office from which he practiced law daily, as required by the amended Rule 8.0(c). Parnell subsequently filed a declaratory judgment action against the West Virginia Supreme Court and the State Bar, arguing that the rule violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

This case stems from a 1995 amendment to West Virginia's Practice Rule for visiting lawyers, Rule 8.0, 'Admission Pro Hac Vice.' Prior to the amendment, the rule simply required the pro hac vice applicant to 'be associated with an active member in good standing of the state bar, who shall be a responsible local attorney in the action….'

Issue

Did the West Virginia rule requiring pro hac vice sponsors to maintain a physical office in the state violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution?

Did the West Virginia rule requiring pro hac vice sponsors to maintain a physical office in the state violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution?

Rule

The Privileges and Immunities Clause protects citizens from discrimination based on residency, but only if the activity in question is fundamental to the livelihood of the nation.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause protects citizens from discrimination based on residency, but only if the activity in question is fundamental to the livelihood of the nation.

Analysis

The court determined that Rule 8.0(c) did not impose a residency requirement because it allowed nonresidents to practice law in West Virginia as long as they met the daily practice requirement. The court also concluded that sponsoring pro hac vice applicants was not a fundamental component of the right to practice law, as Parnell could still perform essential litigation tasks without being able to sponsor others.

The court determined that Rule 8.0(c) did not impose a residency requirement because it allowed nonresidents to practice law in West Virginia as long as they met the daily practice requirement.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Parnell's complaint, concluding that the rule did not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Parnell's complaint, concluding that the rule did not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Who won?

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia prevailed because the court found that the rule did not impose a residency requirement and that sponsorship of pro hac vice applicants was not a fundamental right.

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia prevailed because the court found that the rule did not impose a residency requirement and that sponsorship of pro hac vice applicants was not a fundamental right.

You must be