Guthrie v. Hall et al

Filing 47

ORDER directing Plaintiff's Counsel to Associate Herself with Local Counsel within 7 days. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 10/30/2017. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
OTIS ANDRE GUTHRIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CPL DANIEL T. HALL,
BADGE 342, individually, and
CITY OF MUSTANG,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-1148-D

ORDER
On June 21, 2017, counsel for Plaintiff, who practices in Texas, entered her
appearance in this case [Doc. No. 24]. Pursuant to the local rules of this Court, it is
incumbent upon an attorney to obtain admittance to practice here. See LCvR 83.2(a)
(“The bar of this court shall consist of those attorneys admitted to practice before
this court who have taken the prescribed oath and who have signed the roll of
attorneys of this judicial district.”). A nonresident attorney may be admitted pro hac
vice, but must associate local counsel. See LCvR 83.3 (“[w]hen representing a party
in this court, any attorney who is not a resident of, and does not maintain an office
in, Oklahoma shall show association with an attorney who is personally appearing
in the action and who is a resident of Oklahoma and maintains a law office within

the State of Oklahoma, and who has been duly and regularly admitted to practice in
this court.”).1
A review of the record shows that Plaintiff’s counsel is not a member of this
Court, nor has she, as prescribed by local rule, associated herself with local counsel.
Accordingly, she is not admitted to practice in this case. Although the Court
acknowledges counsel’s representation that she is attempting to obtain local counsel
(see Pl. Mot. for Extension of Time at 1), she has had ample opportunity to do so.
Accordingly, the Court directs Plaintiff’s counsel to associate herself with local
counsel within seven (7) days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of October 2017.

1

“The requirement that out-of-state attorneys associate with local counsel serves
three important purposes: (1) members of the local bar are familiar with the rules
and customs of this Court and are expected to educate pro hac vice attorneys on, and
enforce, those rules and customs; (2) members of the local bar of this Court are more
readily available than pro hac vice attorneys for conferences and other matters that
arise in the course of litigation, and (3) the Court looks to members of the local bar
to serve as a liaison between it and pro hac vice attorneys and to ensure effective
communications between the Court and pro hac vice attorneys.” In re Stewart, No.
15-12215-JDL, 2017 WL 1185171, at *2 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. Mar. 29, 2017) (citing
Ingemi v. Pelino & Lentz, P. C., 866 F.Supp.156, 162 (D.N.J. 1994)).