IADC Submits Model Pro Hac Vice Rule to ABA Multijurisdictional Practice Commission

The International Association of Defense Counsel has developed a model pro hac vice rule that was submitted to the American Bar Association Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice on February 16 after approval by the IADC Executive Committee. The model rule is the product of the IADC Interstate Practice Committee, headed by William T. Barker of Chicago, and including Harry F. Mooney of Buffalo, Richard P. Campbell of Boston, Michael A. Pope of Chicago, Richard L. Neumeier of Boston, and Richard B. Allen of Chicago. Following is presentation made by Mr. Barker to the ABA Commission. INTEREST OF THE IADC The International Association of Defense Counsel is the oldest international association of attorneys representing corporations and insurers. Its membership includes approximately 2,400 leading attorneys engaged in defense, prosecution and resolution of claims affecting the interests of corporations and insurers. They are partners in large and small firms, senior counsel in corporate law departments, and corporate and insurance executives. IADC members regularly represent and counsel clients with multistate and interstate problems. In this age of globalization, such problems are more and more likely to have an international dimension, and many IADC members practice in other countries. The IADC takes an active role in legal reform, especially regarding the civil justice system. SUMMARY OF POSITION The American Bar Association Symposium on the Multijurisdictional Practice of Law, held at Fordham University School of Law in March 2000, identified three broad goals for reforming the law on the jurisdictional scope of lawyers' work: ... First, there is a need to promote greater uniformity in how states address the work of out-of-state lawyers. Second, there is a need for greater clarity, so that lawyers have more guidance about what they may or may not do in relation to a state where they are not licensed. Third, restrictions on the work of out-of-state lawyers should be liberalized so as to serve the relevant state regulatory interests in a manner that is not simply exclusionary and that, recognizing the changing nature of clients' legal needs, accommodates the legitimate interests of clients in retaining counsel of choice and in obtaining effective and economical legal assistance.1 We strongly support all of those goals and seek to move as rapidly as possible to achieve them. But we recognize that full achievement of those goals will require reform of existing state admission and disciplinary mechanisms to cope with the additional challenges and burdens created by increasingly mobile lawyer activities. If reform of the law moved too rapidly, without corresponding strengthening of the regulatory mechanisms, the effort could endanger the protection and confidence of the public and the acceptance of the reform by the bar. We recommend that this commission undertake to start the necessary process rather than try to propose a complete solution in a single year. We recommend that either this commission or a successor commission be directed to continue the study of these issues and to propose both substantial reforms and institutional adjustments necessary to handle those reforms. The twelve options identified by this commission run the gamut from maintaining the status quo to nationalizing lawyer regulation.2 The status quo is unacceptable, and nationalization is unrealistic, unnecessary and undesirable. We do not think it is necessary to decide now how far the professional should move. What is necessary is to start moving in the right direction and begin substituting policy analysis for the accidents of history that have produced the existing system. We suggest that the process begin with small steps utilizing existing regulatory mechanisms. As an example, we offer a proposed Model Pro Hac Vice Rule, which we urge the commission to propose to the ABA House of Delegates. …