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

attorneystatutecompliance

attorneylawyermotionvisa

Related Cases

In re Ferrey, 774 A.2d 62

Facts

Attorney Steven E. Ferrey, a member in good standing of the Massachusetts bar, filed a petition seeking pro hac vice permission to provide legal services to a client involved in an ongoing administrative proceeding before the Energy Facility Siting Board. He had previously appeared before the Board without formal approval, believing he had the agency's permission to do so. The Court noted that this situation raised concerns about the unauthorized practice of law under Rhode Island statutes.

In this matter, Steven E. Ferrey, Esquire, a member in good standing of the Massachusetts bar, has moved for pro hac vice permission to provide legal services to a client in a continuing administrative proceeding before a state agency.

Issue

Whether the Supreme Court may grant pro hac vice approval to an out-of-state attorney to practice law before a municipal or state agency, and whether such approval can be made effective nunc pro tunc to the date of the attorney's first appearance.

Rule

The Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to determine who may practice law in the state, and pro hac vice admission is required for out-of-state attorneys to represent clients in Rhode Island. The Court has never granted a pro hac vice request nunc pro tunc when it could be construed as sanctioning unauthorized practice of law.

We begin by noting that this Court never before, in any published opinion or order, has granted a pro hac vice request nunc pro tunc when to do so 'would be tantamount to affixing an ex post facto imprimatur of approval on what might under some circumstances be construed as the unauthorized practice of law[,]' a criminal offense prohibited by G.L.1956 § 11–27–5.

Analysis

The Court applied the rule by recognizing that while it has the authority to grant pro hac vice admission to out-of-state attorneys, it must also adhere to the statutes prohibiting unauthorized practice of law. The Court found that granting nunc pro tunc approval would effectively retroactively validate Ferrey's prior unauthorized practice, which it could not condone. The decision emphasized the need for compliance with state law and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal profession.

Thus, it is abundantly clear that since 1917, chapter 27 of title 11 has made unlawful the practice of law in this state by any lawyer who is not a member of the Rhode Island bar and who has not been given prior pro hac vice permission to practice here, regardless of whether that attorney appears before any court or before any municipal or state agency, board or commission.

Conclusion

The Court granted Attorney Ferrey's request for pro hac vice admission effective as of the date of the opinion but denied the request for retroactive approval. This decision underscored the necessity of following legal protocols regarding the practice of law in Rhode Island.

We deny, however, that part of his motion seeking our permission, nunc pro tunc, to the date of his first appearance before that state agency, and we deem it advisable at this time to give our reasons for so doing.

Who won?

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island prevailed by denying the nunc pro tunc request, emphasizing the importance of adhering to state laws regarding the practice of law.

The Court recognized full well that 'practice of law under modern conditions consists in no small part of work performed outside of any court and having no immediate relation to proceedings in court.'

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Oetting v. Norton, 795 F.3d 886

Woods v. Covington County Bank, 537 F.2d 804, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,745

In re Grand Jury Investigation, 437 Mass. 340, 772 N.E.2d 9, 167 Ed. Law Rep. 388

Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 974 F.Supp.2d 362, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 12,464

Redd v. Hill, 304 P.3d 861, 737 Utah Adv. Rep. 35, 2013 UT 35