Enquire Printing and Pub. Co., Inc. v. O'Reilly

• Decision Date: 12 June 1984
• Citation: 193 Conn. 370,477 A.2d 648
• Parties: ENQUIRE PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. v. John O'REILLY, et al.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

Page 648

477 A.2d 648

193 Conn. 370

ENQUIRE PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. v. John O'REILLY, et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued April 6, 1984.

Decided June 12, 1984.

John O'Reilly, pro se, appellant (named defendant).

Kenneth R. Davis, Stamford, for appellant (defendant The Contemporary Mission, Inc.).

Burton M. Weinstein, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was Richard Emanuel, Bridgeport, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before PETERS, HEALEY, PARSKEY, SHEA and GRILLO, JJ.

SHEA, Associate Justice.

The principal issue raised in this appeal in an action for nonpayment for goods sold and delivered is whether the trial court erred in refusing to permit an attorney, licensed by another state, to be admitted pro hac vice when it was reasonably likely that the attorney would be called as a witness.

The defendants, Rev. John O'Reilly and The Contemporary Mission, appeal from a judgment following a jury verdict for the plaintiff, Enquire Printing Company, Inc., claiming that the court erred (1) in denying the application to have an out-of-state attorney admitted pro hac vice; (2) in dismissing the counterclaims filed by the defendants; and (3) in refusing to set aside the verdict.

The jury could have reasonably found the following facts: Pursuant to two purchase orders ¹ made out on Contemporary Mission's stationery, dated October 17, 1977, and December 6, 1977, and signed by the defendant O'Reilly, Enquire Printing sold and delivered to Contemporary Mission printed materials used in Contemporary Mission's mail order business. The printed materials were all delivered by January 31, 1978. Payment for the goods was made in several installments, beginning in November, 1977, and continuing until May 8, 1978. At that time an outstanding balance of $19,938.35 was still due and owing.

Thereafter, Enquire, through its attorney, made demand for payment. William O'Reilly, an attorney licensed to practice in Massachusetts, who represented Contemporary Mission, proposed in a letter dated September 19, 1978, and sent to Enquire's counsel, that his client pay the outstanding balance in a series of four monthly payments. ² Subsequently, on November 1, 1978, ³ Attorney O'Reilly informed Enquire's counsel by letter that Contemporary Mission was experiencing "cash flow problems" and could not adhere to the agreed-upon schedule. Attorney O'Reilly informed Enquire's counsel that the first payment would be received by late November, 1978. In a letter dated November 28, 1978, however, Attorney O'Reilly told Enquire's counsel that because of a lack of available funds payment would not be forthcoming until January, with the balance being fully paid off by March, 1979.

Enquire refused to agree to any further delay in payment, and filed suit on December 19, 1978.

I

The first claim of error arises out of the following events: On April 9, 1979, local counsel for Contemporary Mission, Kenneth Davis, filed an application to admit William O'Reilly pro hac vice. In his application Davis alleged that William O'Reilly was a member in good standing of the Massachusetts bar, and that good cause existed because of his long standing attorney-client relationship with Contemporary Mission and his special knowledge of the facts of the case. Enquire filed an objection to the application, claiming that William O'Reilly would be a witness in the case. ⁴ The application was denied on April 20, 1979.

Neither party disputes the fact that state courts possess the inherent power to regulate admission to the bar. See Leis v. Flynt, 439 U.S. 438, 443, 99 S.Ct. 698, 701, 58 L.Ed.2d 717 (1979); State v. Reed, 174 Conn. 287, 293, 386 A.2d 243 (1978). Included within the general regulatory power is the right to establish guidelines for determining when an out-of-state attorney should be admitted pro hac vice. Leis v. Flynt, supra; State v. Reed, supra. Practice Book § 24 ⁵ sets out the guidelines for Connecticut judges to follow when reviewing an application for admission pro hac vice: The application must be sponsored by an attorney licensed to practice in this state, who will "assume full responsibility" for the applicant's conduct. The applicant must be an attorney in "good standing at the bar of another state," and there must be good cause shown for admission. The decision to grant or deny an application to appear pro hac vice rests within the sound discretion of the court. See State v. Reed, supra, 291-94, 386 A.2d 243; Silverman v. St. Joseph's Hospital, 168 Conn. 160, 363 A.2d 22 (1975); see also Silverman v. Browning, 414 F.Supp. 80 (D.Conn.), aff'd, 429 U.S. 876, 97 S.Ct. 228, 50 L.Ed.2d 162 (1976).

Although the court receiving an application for admission pro hac vice has broad discretionary power, the exercise of that power is not unfettered. Our federal and state constitutions prohibit requiring applicants--including those who request admission for "special and infrequent occasion"--to possess qualifications that have no "rational connection with the applicant's fitness or capacity to practice law." Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 239, 77 S.Ct. 752, 756, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957); ⁶ State v. Reed, supra.

A trial court entertaining an application for admission pro hac vice must also consider the interests of the client who seeks to have the out-of-state attorney admitted. ⁷ The right to have counsel of one's own choice, ⁸ although not absolute, is important enough to require a legitimate ⁹ state interest before a person can be deprived of that right. See State v. Rapuano, 192 Conn. 228, 232-33, 471 A.2d 240 (1984); United States v. Curcio, 694 F.2d 14, 23 (2d Cir.1982); see also United States ex rel. Spurlark v. Wolff, 683 F.2d 216, 220 (7th Cir.1982). In fact, Practice Book § 24 embodies this constitutional mandate, requiring the court to consider the "facts or circumstances affecting the personal or financial welfare of the client," when reviewing the application. This limited scope of inquiry strikes the balance between the state's interest in regulating attorneys seeking to be admitted to practice pro hac vice and the litigant's interest in obtaining counsel of his own choice. In this period of greater mobility among members of the bar and the public, and the corresponding growth in interstate business, a court should reluctantly deny an application to appear pro hac vice. A litigant's request to be represented by counsel of his choice, when freely made, should be respected by the court, unless some legitimate state interest is thwarted by admission of the out-of-state attorney.

Contemporary Mission maintains that the court abused its discretion in denying the application because the court considered factors irrelevant to the good cause requirement of Practice Book § 24, including the nature and difficulty of the case. ¹⁰ Although we agree that the court did inquire into issues that are clearly irrelevant ¹¹ at the hearing on the application, we find no abuse of discretion.

We have recently stated that "[w]henever counsel for a client reasonably foresees that he will be called as a witness to testify on a material matter, the proper action is for that attorney to withdraw from the case. See State v. Blake, 157 Conn. 99, 102-103, 249 A.2d 232 (1968); Jennings Co. v. DiGenova, 107 Conn. 491, 497-99, 141 A. 866 (1928); Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-102(A), Practice Book, p. 31. An attorney is not absolutely prohibited from testifying on behalf of a client, but should only do so when the testimony concerns a formal matter, or the need for the testimony arises from an exigency not reasonably foreseeable. State v. Blake, supra; French v. Hall, 119 U.S. 152, 7 S.Ct. 170, 30 L.Ed. 375 (1886); Miller v. Urban, 123 Conn. 331, 333-34, 195 A. 193 (1937) .... Where, however, an attorney does not withdraw, a court exercising its supervisory power can enforce the mandate of DR 5-102(A) and disqualify the attorney. See State v. Jones, 180 Conn. 443, 448, 429 A.2d 936 (1980) and cases cited therein." State v. Rapuano, supra, 192 Conn. at 231-32, 471 A.2d 240.

An attorney admitted pro hac vice is governed by the Code of Professional Responsibility and the decisions of this court. At the hearing on the application, the court was informed that all parties intended to call William O'Reilly as a witness. He could not, therefore, have represented Contemporary Mission without violating DR 5-102(A). Under these circumstances the court did not err in concluding that the application should be denied. Cf. State v. Rapuano, supra; see State v. Reed, supra.

II

The defendants' next claim of error concerns the court's decision to strike their counterclaim. On January 16, 1979, the defendants filed a counterclaim alleging that the plaintiff had agreed to render services with respect to the delivery of the printed materials; that it was understood that time was of the essence; and that the plaintiff had breached the agreement by failing to deliver on time. The plaintiff filed a request on January 30, 1979, that the defendants revise the counterclaim. The defendants took no action with respect to the request; and, therefore, on March 18, 1979, the plaintiff filed a motion to strike, ¹² which was granted by the court on April 6, 1979.

Thereafter, on June 4, 1979, a second counterclaim was filed by the defendants, alleging the same facts as those contained in the original counterclaim. The plaintiff moved to strike this pleading, claiming that it was not timely filed. The court granted the motion on September 11, 1979.

The defendants maintain that the court erred because the plaintiff's motions were not properly filed and, therefore, should not have been entertained. ¹³ Specifically, the defendants point to the plaintiff's failure to file a memorandum of law with the first motion and to have the defendants' copies of the second motion marked with a certificate of service. Neither claim of error is of any merit.

The...