Wasserman's Appellate Summaries
October 17, 2000
By Lawrence Wasserman, Esq.
Netlaw Libraries welcomes back attorney Lawrence Wasserman as a new website contributor. We are pleased to announce that his guest column, which synopsizes the recent decisions from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court, the six California appellate districts, as well as some of the recent and interesting decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, will be appearing as a regular feature for members and guests visiting the Netlaw Libraries website. We hope that you will find it to be a good way to start your legal research day and welcome your comments and criticisms regarding the column.
KEEPING CURRENT, October 17, 2000
1 NEW APPELLATE CASE
CASES OF PARTICULAR INTEREST:
Don Quixote lives. The attorney who doesn't like what the California Bar Association and the California Supreme Court do in regulating the practice of law.
Paciulan v. George, Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court
Case No. 99-15687
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
OTHER-CHALLENGE TO PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA-DUE PROCESS-FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT-FIRST AMENDMENT-PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
Paciulan and Kruse sued the Justices of the California Supreme Court and individuals from the State Bar of California, challenging the constitutionality of California's rules regulating pro hac vice admission to practice in California courts. The district court dismissed the complaint.
HELD: Under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Federal Constitution the citizens of each State are entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. The states have traditionally enjoyed the exclusive power to license and regulate members of their respective bars. The fourteenth amendment has traditionally protected only those rights accruing by virtue of being a citizen of the United States. In requiring Paciulan to meet the standard requirements for admission to the California bar, the State Bar is ensuring that they will be treated like all other California citizens. Under Paciulan's sweeping formulation of the First Amendment, any regulation of bar membership would be deemed unconstitutional. No case has ever suggested that states are constitutionally barred from regulating admission to their respective bars. To allege a due process violation, a claimant must initially demonstrate the existence of a protectable property interest. Paciulan alleges that the right to practice law pro hac vice qualifies as such an interest. The Supreme Court has squarely rejected this claim. There is no right of federal origin that permits a lawyer to appear in state courts without meeting that State's bar admission requirements. Affirmed.
Holmes v. Jones
Case No. B129808
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three
ORDER
Modification of opinion filed on September 18, 2000, not effecting the judgment.
Lammers v. Superior Court/Michele K. Lammers
Case No. D035476
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One
ORDER
Modification of opinion filed herein on September 29, 2000, not effecting the judgment.
*Change in law, interesting case, or just watch out!
For the complete California cases, visitors can click on here to go to
STATE DAILY OPINIONS
For the complete 9th Circuit cases, visitors can click on here to go to
FEDERAL RESOURCES
Wasserman's Archived Appellate Summaries
Back to Netlaw Libraries' Home Page