Temporary Practice and Pro Hac Vice in a D.C. Contract Case
Sofia Ramirez is admitted in New York and has practiced commercial litigation there for nine years. Her client, a New York fabricator, is being sued in D.C. Superior Court by a D.C. supplier over a $480,000 contract. Sofia has no D.C. office and is not admitted in D.C. She associates with a D.C. lawyer who will review pleadings but will not attend the trial. Sofia plans to (1) negotiate a settlement with opposing counsel in D.C., (2) take a deposition of a witness in D.C., and (3) appear at trial. She asks whether association with local counsel makes her "admitted enough" and whether she must file anything. The client wants to avoid delay and asks if Sofia can just sign the pleadings.
1. May Sofia negotiate a settlement and take a deposition in D.C. without being admitted in D.C.?
Read the worked answer
Possibly, but only if she fits within D.C.'s temporary-practice rule and does not hold herself out as a D.C. lawyer. D.C. Rule 49(c) permits an out-of-state lawyer to engage in temporary practice in D.C. under specified conditions, often including association with a D.C. lawyer who actively participates. Her planned settlement negotiation and deposition may be temporary practice if the representation is genuinely temporary, she is admitted and in good standing in New York, and she associates properly with local counsel. Association cannot be nominal, however. The D.C. lawyer must actually participate and be available for consultation. Sofia should document the association, avoid using a D.C. office or holding out as licensed in D.C., and confirm that no court rule requires separate admission for the deposition. If the representation becomes ongoing or local, the temporary-practice basis weakens and she should seek admission or pro hac vice status.
2. What must Sofia do before she appears at trial in D.C. Superior Court?
Read the worked answer
She must obtain pro hac vice admission from the court or otherwise be admitted to the D.C. Bar. Association with local counsel does not automatically authorize a court appearance. She should file a pro hac vice motion under the court's procedure, supported by proof of her New York admission and good standing, a statement identifying local counsel and counsel's active role, and any required fee or proposed order. The court has discretion to grant or deny the motion, and it may impose conditions such as limiting local counsel's role or requiring compliance with D.C. rules. If the motion is granted, she may appear subject to those conditions. If it is denied or not yet granted, she should not appear at trial. The client's desire to avoid delay does not override the court's admission requirements.
3. What are the risks if Sofia signs pleadings or appears without authorization?
Read the worked answer
Signing pleadings or appearing in court without admission or pro hac vice status can be treated as unauthorized practice and may expose Sofia to discipline in New York and D.C., even if she is not a D.C. Bar member. It can also prejudice the client: pleadings may be stricken, rulings may be challenged, and the court may impose sanctions or require replacement counsel. The local lawyer's review does not cure the problem if Sofia is the one signing or appearing without authorization. The safer course is to have D.C. counsel sign and file papers until pro hac vice status is granted, and to ensure that any out-of-court activity fits Rule 49(c). Sofia should explain the delay risk to the client candidly and not let the client's urgency push her into unauthorized practice.