Opinion
Case #02-11193
September 6, 2002
ORDER
Debtors' counsel, Attorney Michael Kainen, filed a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Carl D. Hansen, Esq. (Attorney Hansen will be referred to as "Applicant".) (See doc. #2-1.) In support of the Motion, Attorney Kainen submitted the Applicant's Affidavit. The Affidavit, however, does not comport with Vt. LBR 2090-1(b). It fails:
(1) to state the Applicant's office address, telephone number, and fax number, see Vt. LBR 2090-1(b)(1)(B)(i);
(2) to include a statement that the Applicant is in good standing and eligible to practice in the courts, see Vt. LBR 2090-1(b)(1)(B)(iii); and
(3) to include a statement that the Applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any jurisdiction, see Vt. LBR 2090-1(b)(1)(B)(iv).
Moreover, while the Applicant includes a statement that he has read the Local Rules of this court, his flawed pro hac vice application evidences otherwise. See Erbacci, Cerone, and Moriarty, Ltd. v. United States, 923 F. Supp. 482, 486 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (reasoning that attorney who submits flawed pro hac vice application did not provide necessary assurances that attorney was familiar with the Local Rules). Thus, since it is in the Court's discretion to decide whether to admit an attorney pro hac vic, see id. at 485 (citing Spano v. Skouras Theatres Corp., 364 F.2d 161, 167 (2d Cir. 1965)), Debtor's Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Carl D. Hansen, Esq. is DENIED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.