Thomas v. Cassidy
| Decision Date | 07 November 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 7486.,7486. |
| Citation | 249 F.2d 91 |
| Parties | Irene R. THOMAS, and Benedict F. FitzGerald, Appellants, v. Billie Smith CASSIDY, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Albert J. Ahern, Jr., Washington, D. C. (James J. Laughlin, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellants.
No appearance for appellee.
At the request of the Court John R. Willett, Alexandria, Va., argued.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal by an attorney at law from an order refusing him permission to appear pro hac vice in a case pending in a court before which he had not been admitted to practice. The attorney was not a citizen of the state where the court was held and had not been admitted to practice in either the state or federal courts of that state. The judge denied him the right to appear in the case on the ground that he had been guilty of unlawyerlike conduct in connection with the case in which he wished to appear and which was being prosecuted by his sister as plaintiff.
It is well settled that permission to a nonresident attorney, who has not been admitted to practice in a court, to appear pro hac vice in a case there pending is not a right but a privilege, the granting of which is a matter of grace resting in the sound discretion of the presiding judge. 5 Am.Jur. p. 572; Manning v. Roanoke & T. R. Co., 122 N.C. 824, 28 S.E. 963; Youmans v. Hanna, 35 N.D. 479, Ann.Cas.1917E, 263; Note 24 L.R.A.,N.S., 754. There is grave doubt whether the denial of such permission is appealable, since what is denied is not a right but a mere privilege; but, assuming that the matter is properly before us for review, we would not be justified in holding that the findings of the judge below were clearly wrong or that there was any abuse of discretion on his part.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Fett
...of counsel admitted pro hac vice justified removal in the interests of the integrity of the judicial process). See also Thomas v. Cassidy, 249 F.2d 91, 92 (C.A.4, 1957) (the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying pro hac vice motion where the out-of-state lawyer had been "guilt......
-
State v. Reed
...but a privilege, the granting of which is a matter of grace resting in the sound discretion of the presiding judge." Thomas v. Cassidy, 249 F.2d 91, 92 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 958, 78 S.Ct. 544, 2 L.Ed.2d 533; Silverman v. Browning, 414 F.Supp. 80 (D.Conn.), affirmed, 429 U.S. 87......
-
Estate of Rowell v. Walker Baptist Med. Ctr.
...of this District. D. H. Overymyer, Co. v. First National Bank of Boston, 750 F.2d 31, 34 (6th Cir. 1984) (citing Thomas v. Cassidy, 249 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1957) (per curiam), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 958 (1958)) (alterations and emphasis supplied). 20. Note that the dates listed in text are th......
-
United States v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Nev. (In re United States)
...hac vice based on the attorney's “unlawyerlike conduct in connection with the case in which he wished to appear.” Thomas v. Cassidy, 249 F.2d 91, 92 (4th Cir.1957) (per curiam). We need not announce specific factors that should inform a district court's exercise of its discretion to deny pr......