Lewis v. Astrue

Filing 9

ORDER directing Attorney Gantt to comply with one of the following within 20 days of the entry of this order. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 07/16/2010. (thh)

Lewis v. Astrue

Doc. 9

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION C IV IL CASE NO. 1:10cv001 S H E R R Y E. LEWIS, ) ) P l a i n t if f , ) ) vs . ) ) M IC H AE L J. ASTRUE, Commissioner ) o f Social Security, ) ) D e fen d a n t. ) )

ORDER

TH IS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte to consider, pursuant to Local Rule 83.1(D), the admission status of attorneys who have made an a p p e a ra n c e on behalf of Plaintiff. Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1] was filed by C. David Gantt (hereinafter, "A tto rn e y Gantt") who is admitted to the Bar of this Court. Plaintiff's s u m m a ry judgment brief bears key elements and a format that have b e c o m e familiar to this Court. Among other things, the signature page for th e brief indicates that it has been presented to this Court by attorneys G a n tt, Charles Martin, and Perrie Naides even though it bears only the e le c tro n ic signature of Mr. Gantt. [Doc. 8]. The brief contains the notation in its Certificate of Interested Parties, "Charles L. Martin, Esq., Attorney for P la in tiff," and "Perrie H. Naides, Esq., Attorney for Plaintiff". Attorneys

Dockets.Justia.com

Martin and Naides, however, are neither counsel of record for the Plaintiff in this case, nor licensed to practice law in this district. They have neither s o u g h t nor obtained permission to appear pro hac vice in this Court. Under th e s e circumstances this Court must determine whether Attorneys Martin a n d Naides have been undertaking the unauthorized practice of law or h a ve made an improper appearance in this matter. If so, the brief p re s e n te d on behalf of the Plaintiff is not properly before this Court. T h e Court is aware of recent participation by Mr. Martin in cases in th is district. The Court is also aware that Mr. Martin takes the position that h e is merely providing "brief writing services" to attorneys similarly situated to Mr. Gantt, rather than representing Social Security plaintiffs such as the P la in tiff herein. See, e.g., Jones v. Astrue, 4:09-205-TLW (D.S.C. 2010); M c C h e s n e y v. Astrue, 2009 WL 4267076 (D.S.C. 2009); Alverson v. A s tru e , 2:08-3092-CMC-RSC (D.S.C. 2009); Mortenson v. Barnhart, 8:075 4 7 - J F A (D.S.C. 2009). T h e position taken by Mr. Martin, however, is not well supported by d o c u m e n ts filed with this Court. These documents reflect a much more c o m p le x relationship between attorneys of record, Mr. Martin and their re s p e c tive clients. In a number of cases Mr. Martin and the record attorney h a ve filed their time records with this Court in the context of seeking

attorneys fees when they prevailed. Those time records reflect that on s o m e occasions Mr. Martin was involved in the decision of whether the a p p e a l to District Court should be filed, even reflecting an entry for a n a lyz in g a given case before the first work performed by the attorney of re c o rd as shown thereon. [See, e.g., 2:08cv017, Docs. 21-5 and 21-4, filed 0 4 /2 6 /1 0 ; 2:09cv056, Docs. 10-4 and 10-3, filed 05/21/10; 2:04cv255, D o c s . 21-5 and 21-4, filed 09/28/05]. Mr. Martin also routinely prepared the p e titio n s under EAJA when they were filed. [See, e.g., 1:09cv320, Doc. 142 ; 2:08cv17, Doc. 21-5; 2:08cv34, Doc. 19-4; 2:09cv27, Doc. 15-4; 2 :0 9 c v5 6 , Doc. 10-4]. In some cases, the attorney of record's time c o n s is te n tly represents a fraction of that devoted to a case by Mr. Martin or o th e r attorneys in Mr. Martin's law firm, [Id.; 1:09cv320, Doc. 14-1 and 143 ; 2:08cv17, Doc. 21-4; 2:08cv34, Doc. 19-3; 2:09cv27, Doc. 15-3 and 155 ]. Mr. Martin has also filed affidavits with this Court in Social Security c a s e s identifying himself as "Counsel for the Plaintiff" and "Attorney for P la in tiff." As noted above, on the brief filed in the present case, Attorneys M a r tin and Naides have identified themselves as "Attorney for Plaintiff." Perrie Naides, who is apparently an associate in Mr. Martin's firm, in an

affidavit filed with this Court identifies Mr. Martin as "lead counsel for the p la in tiff/a p p e lla n t." [2:08cv017, Doc. 15-5] (emphasis added). These facts are inconsistent with an assertion that Attorneys Martin a n d Naides provide only "brief writing services". On the contrary, they reflect active representation of plaintiffs. It is the obligation of this Court to participate in the regulation of the p r a c tic e of law in this District. In Re G.L.S., 745 F.2d 856 (4 th Cir. 1984); F e d . R. Civ. P. 83, LcvR 83.1. Acting on that obligation protects the c itiz e n s of this District from "quality control problems" enabled by the ro u tin e exercise of significant influence over local cases by persons over wh o m no local authority otherwise can assert credentialing, service of p ro c e s s , and discipline. Hon. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., "Renting Your Law L ic e n s e Can Be Dangerous: Avoiding the Rubber-Stamp Mentality S u rro u n d in g Pro Hac Vice Admissions", South Carolina Lawyer, March 2 0 1 0 , p. 33; Sanders v. Russell, 401 F.2d 241, 245 (5 th Cir. 1968). T h is matter has not proceeded far enough for the facts to inescapably d e m o n s tra te the active representation of the Plaintiff by the non-admitted a tto rn e ys Martin and Naides before this Court. See, N.C. Gen. Stat. §842 .1 . However, given its similarities through this stage to other cases in w h ic h Martin has participated, the Court must conclude that the summary

judgment brief filed on behalf of the Plaintiff may not be properly before this C o u rt. In the interests of justice, however, the Court will not strike the brief a t this time. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that Attorney Gantt comply with one o f the following: (1) Within 20 days of the entry of this Order, submit a certificate

a ve rrin g that before submitting this summary judgment brief [Doc. 8], he re vie we d the transcript record, the law applicable to the case, and provided a t least active oversight as to the preparation of the brief, reviewed it upon c o m p le tio n , and presents this brief as his own work product. Upon such s u b m is s io n , the Court will not deem the involvement of Attorneys Martin a n d Naides to be appearances requiring pro hac vice admissions. OR (2) If he cannot comply with option 1, withdraw this summary

ju d g m e n t brief [Doc. 8] and, within 30 days of the entry of this Order, submit a new brief that is in compliance with and covered by a certificate fulfilling th e terms of option 1. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 16, 2010