Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Justices issue order detailing exception to pro hac vice rule

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//February 13, 2019//

Justices issue order detailing exception to pro hac vice rule

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//February 13, 2019//

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday handed down a written order on its recent decision to approve exceptions to its pro hac vice rule for certain tribal attorneys.

Before the exception, the rule had required out-of-state lawyers who wished to appear before Wisconsin courts to first submit an application and pay $250 per case. Even for lawyers who met those requirements, individual courts still had the final say over the could appear in court.

The justices’ order stems from a rule-change petition filed in July by Starlyn Tourtillott and Danica Zawieja asking the court to make an exception for out-of-state tribal attorneys appearing in cases involving the Indian Child Welfare Act and its state counterpart, the Wisconsin Indian Child Welfare Act.

The justices heard public testimony on the proposal at a hearing on Jan. 17 and voted shortly afterward in a closed session to grant the petition as long as they could modify its language.

The high court on Tuesday laid out what those modifications were. The court voted to excuse nonresident tribal attorneys in ICWA cases from having to associate with local counsel and pay the $250 fee as long as they filled out a pro hac vice application.

Also, the justices decided to leave it up to individual courts to decide whether nonresident attorneys in ICWA cases should be admitted to appear in those courts pro hac vice.

“We accord the same standards to a nonresident attorney seeking admission pro hac vice to represent a tribe as we apply to all nonresident counsel seeking admission pro hac vice, so that we are assured the tribe receives fully competent representation of its interests,” the court wrote.

Polls

Should Wisconsin Supreme Court rules be amended so attorneys can't appeal license revocation after 5 years?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests