The Meaning Of Pro Hac Vice

The New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department imposed a two-year suspension for assisting unauthorized practice

The firm’s website and Le Du’s business cards did not indicate that he was not admitted to the Bar in New York State. Neither the respondent nor Le Du had an office or address in New Jersey for the law firm.

During the respondent’s examination under oath on May 2, 2019, she explained that, when Le Du failed to receive a passing score on the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination for New York State Bar admission after his second attempt in November 2017, she researched pro hac vice admission in New York State. She found 22 NYCRR part 523 (Rules of the Court of Appeals for the Temporary Practice of Law in New York). The respondent testified that she understood the meaning of these rules and related treatise commentary as “relax[ing] the laws on pro hac vice admissions,” which would allow Le Du to practice under her supervision, without moving for his pro hac vice admission. The respondent later admitted that she had misapprehended the meaning of 22 NYCRR part 523, as the rules prohibit a lawyer who is not admitted in New York State from establishing a “systematic and continuous presence in this State for the practice of law,” or holding out to the public or otherwise representing “that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in this State” (id. § 523.1[a], [b]). As reflected in the record, by the time of this disciplinary proceeding, the respondent had allowed Le Du to participate as an attorney in approximately 30 of her cases.

Notwithstanding her explanation that she aided Le Du in the unauthorized practice of law due to her misapprehension of 22 NYCRR part 523, the respondent’s testimony at her examination under oath reveals that on two occasions, in addition to the Dunkin-Matthews action, she knowingly permitted Le Du to appear as counsel, by signing preliminary conference orders as an attorney, before he was an admitted attorney in any jurisdiction, prior to her research regarding 22 NYCRR part 523, and without receiving permission from the respective courts to do so.

Mitigation

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline, we have considered the respondent’s personal issues during the beginning of the Khosrova trial, as well as her ongoing health challenges from chronic Lyme disease, as these factors contributed to her feeling overwhelmed and exhausted, but also led her to rely on her husband to handle her legal cases. We have also considered in mitigation the substantial evidence presented of the respondent’s good character and her pro bono work with autistic and other special-needs children, as well as with students who have been bullied. The respondent received a Letter of Advisement in July 2019.

(Mike Frisch)