Filppula-McArthur v. Halloin

Summary

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed orders revoking Attorney James T. Ball’s pro hac vice admission in two consolidated medical malpractice actions and assessing costs and fees against him. The court held that revocation under SCR 10.03(4) is within the circuit court’s discretion and may be based on incompetence, unwillingness to follow professional-conduct rules, or unwillingness to follow courtroom-decorum rules. The court also held that a judge may consider the attorney’s conduct in another Wisconsin courtroom when deciding whether to revoke pro hac vice admission.

Holdings

1. Under SCR 10.03(4), a circuit court may revoke pro hac vice admission when the attorney manifests incompetency to represent a client in a Wisconsin court, is unwilling to abide by the rules of professional conduct for attorneys, or is unwilling to abide by the rules of courtroom decorum.
2. Revocation of pro hac vice admission is reviewed for an erroneous exercise of discretion; no erroneous exercise exists when the circuit court reaches a reasonable conclusion after applying the law to the relevant facts.
3. A circuit court may consider an attorney's conduct in another Wisconsin courtroom when determining whether the attorney manifests incompetency to represent a client in a Wisconsin court.
4. The circuit courts properly exercised their discretion in revoking Ball's pro hac vice admissions because the record supported findings that he was incompetent to represent a client in a Wisconsin court and unwilling to abide by professional-conduct and courtroom rules.
5. SCR 10.03(4) does not require revocation only for egregious conduct likely to infect future proceedings, and it does not make consideration of the client's interest in counsel of choice mandatory.
6. A circuit court may impose costs on an attorney whose actions result in a mistrial, and the assessment against Ball was not an erroneous exercise of discretion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a circuit court has discretion under SCR 10.03(4) to revoke an attorney's pro hac vice admission for incompetency or unwillingness to abide by professional-conduct and courtroom-decorum rules.
2. Whether a circuit court may consider the attorney's conduct before a different Wisconsin court when deciding whether to revoke pro hac vice admission.
3. Whether the circuit courts properly exercised their discretion in revoking Ball's pro hac vice admissions.
4. Whether the assessment of mistrial-related costs and attorney fees against Ball personally was an erroneous exercise of discretion.
5. Whether SCR 10.03(4) requires an egregiousness standard, likely future prejudice, or mandatory consideration of the client's choice of counsel before revocation.

Disposition

affirmed