Agree. And in general, appellate judges are very deferential to trial courts controlling their courtrooms and cases.
But in this ONE case the SC might make a non- precedent setting exception…
Sorry wrong thread
oops - didn’t notice - deleting
My mistake I was on the wrong thread with my previous comment
On behalf of whom? His cellmate?
Oops!
Tldr: John Lauro isn’t licensed to practice law in the court he is defending Trump in.
So, ahh, what does that amount to?
Like when the umpire announces “Play ball!” he’s made sure everything is in order first. Surely our courts do something similar. They must, right?
If a lawyer isn’t a member of the bar authorized to practice in a particular court, s/he can petition the court to proceed pro hac vice.
In almost all U.S. jurisdictions, attorneys who practice pro hac vice must do so with a local lawyer acting as local counsel.
What I mean is, that happened, right? Surely the court didn’t announce “Play ball!” without making sure everything was in order, right?
If not, it seems like the court fucked up more than Trump’s lawyer did.
So back to my question, what does this amount to?
His accountants aren’t accountants, why would you expect his attorneys to be attorneys?
To me it reads like he can get his application to that court’s bar and payment in by Nov 2 and proceed just fine.
Am I reading incorrectly?
For the federal appeal courts you don’t have to appear Pro Hac Vice. That’s what we do if we want to appear in a case in a different state than we’re licensed in, or a federal district court. To practice in the Court of Appeals (or SCOTUS), you just apply to be a member of that bar. It’s a form that says you’re admitted in your state, and probably requires two references. No test or anything. For example, I’m admitted to practice in the 10th circuit, although I’m not licensed in any state in that circuit.
Right, pro hac vice is a simple thing to accomplish – presuming the attorney knows the heck what they’re doing to begin with. Any competent – ah, there we go!
@bobot, normally a competent attorney knows or can find out quite well what’s required to practice before a court that s/he’s not licensed to appear in, and will file the necessary paperwork before things get rolling. As officers of the court, there’s a presumption (rebuttable, to be sure) that the lawyers will follow proper procedure.
I suspect the clerk of the court ran a routine check and discovered the failure to seek bar membership status, and that, rather than, say, serving as of counsel while a properly admitted attorney did the actual filing, this bozo just plowed ahead as if the court rules didn’t matter.
@Procrustus can correct me if I’ve misstated anything, like whether the “of counsel” kind of appearance would get around the failure to be a member of that bar.
That’s right, if he does that he’ll be allowed to appear in the case. Any competent (ah-hahahahahahaha) attorney would have done that first thing as a matter of routine, before trying to file anything case-related.
Sure be a shame if this causes the original filing to fail as a nullity, and also blows the time limits on whatever they were trying to file. One can only hope.
I beleive thatt he is a memeber of the bar for the DC circuit court, but not for the Appeals court. So he is a “real” lawyer, just not a “really good” lawyer.
That’s sort of how I’m reading the letter. It sounds like any filings that Lauro submitted are void, and that he must be struck off any filings he had signed on to.
Two questions for our legal eagles:
1 - Am I reading that correctly?
2 - If I am, how many filings will that strike?
due to sidney powell taking a plea deal in ga, does that open the door for jack smith to get her as a source/witness. the ga thing was mostly coffee county, but the conspiracy part of the ga case impacts smith’s dc case.
I think it does.
She may be nuts, but she’s not so nuts that she’s not aware that the first one to flip gets the best deal.