- Currently, most but not all federal district courts have local rules mandating that lawyers obtain in-state bar admission in order to represent litigants, or to apply pro hac vice on a case-by-case basis subject to certain restrictions and fees.
- During a meeting Thursday, members of a Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure exploring a proposal to simplify the admissions process welcomed one suggestion in particular: a federal rule that would foreclose trial courts from making out-of-state attorneys be a member of the state bar where the court is located, which sometimes requires passing the state’s bar exam. Critics of the current patchwork of requirements say it creates costly and time-consuming barriers to accessing the courts and needlessly delays litigation.
- The committee is examining a suggestion from George Washington University Law School Dean Alan Morrison, who has proposed a single bar admissions application for all 94 federal district courts that would be reviewed by a centralized office within the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
- According to Morrison’s proposal, 60 of the 94 federal district courts require attorneys to be admitted to the local state bar, which means paying additional bar membership annual dues and in some states passing the bar exam again.
- One reason for the current system may be that state law is sometimes relevant in federal cases based on diversity jurisdiction, said Ninth Circuit Judge Jay Bybee. He asked if the committee plans to delve into that issue, though he said he doesn’t see it as a “terribly compelling” reason for local state bar admissions requirements.
If this idea moves forward, the next obvious question is "why should there be separate admission requirements for the federal appellate circuit courts?" Of course, those admission requirements do not require admission to any state within the circuit, so there is no argument that separate admission creates a serious hurdle to admission.
Posts
