Case Number: BC554117    Hearing Date: October 21, 2014    Dept: 34
The Pro Hac Vice Applications of Richared G. Haddad and Erik B. Weinick are GRANTED.

BACKGROUND:

This is an action for professional malpractice stemming from accounting and legal services. The Complaint alleges: 1) Accountant Malpractice, 2) Legal Malpractice, 3) Breach of Contract by Accountant and 4) Breach of Contract by Attorney. Defendant Holthouse, Carlin & Van Trigt LLP provided the accounting services. Defendant Venable LLP provided the legal services. The services provided related to the winding-down and liquidation of O&S Holdings, LLC (“O&S”). O&S is a business entity ultimately owned by Plaintiff Safady and Paul Orfalea. Plaintiff alleges that the dissolution of O&S was the result of a negligently drafted Dissolution Agreement. The agreement resulted in large tax and monetary consequences.

ANALYSIS:

Counsel who are not active members of the California State Bar, and have not been granted permission to appear pro hac vice, are prohibited from representing a party in California courts. (Gentis v. Safeguard Bus. Systems, Inc. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1308.) Absent consent, local practice by out-of state counsel in California courts is disallowed. (Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 119, 130; Consumers Lobby against Monopolies v. PUC (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 891, 914 n.11.) “It is common practice … to permit upon request an attorney holding a license to practice law from one state to appear in the courts of a sister state, and there take part in the trial of an action pending in said courts.” (In re Application of McCue (1930) 211 Cal. 57, 67.) A judge’s determination of whether to grant an application to appear pro hac vice is evaluated under the abuse-of-discretion standard. (Walter E. Heller Western, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 706, 711; United States Golf Ass’n v. Arroyo Software Corp. (1999) 69 Cal. App. 4th 607, 624; Magee v. Superior Court (1973) 8 Cal.3d 949, 953-54 (criminal action). Appearance pro hac vice is a privilege and not a right under the United States constitution. (Leis v. Flynt (1979) 439 U.S. 438, 441.) “Absent special circumstances, repeated appearances by out-of-state counsel in California lawsuits is cause for denial of his or her application.” (Walter E. Heller, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d 706).

All procedural and substantive requirements have been met for both applications. Mr. Weinick represents that he is only appearing pro hac vice in one other matter, with no other pro hac vice appearances in California during the past two years. Mr. Haddad represents that he appeared/is appearing pro hac vice in three other matters, with no other pro hac vice appearances in California during the past two years. Both Counsels appear to be qualified and ready to appear pro hac vice and there are no other facts or circumstances to show that both Counsels’ appearance in this action would cause a significant disruption of orderly justice. (Magee v. Superior Court (1973) 8 Cal.3d 949, 953-54.)
The Pro Hac Vice Applications of Richared G. Haddad and Erik B. Weinick are GRANTED.