Big Lots Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, No. D077486 (D4d1 Nov. 20, 2020)
Defendants in this employment case are primarily represented by lawyers from an Ohio firm who are admitted pro hac vice. On several occasions the Ohio lawyers also claimed to represent ten deponents—eight former employees and two current store managers—in the case, for whom they had never been authorized to represent pro hac. When the trial court got word of this, it revoked the Ohio lawyers’ pro hacs. Defendants took a writ.
The Court of Appeal splits the difference. It is true, the Court holds, that a pro hac permits an out of state lawyer to represent only a particular party in a particular case. In a slightly different context, Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2(a) says that a lawyer who represents a company also represents officers, directors, managing agents, and Rule 4.2(b) says that lawyer also represents other current employees whose admissions could be held against the company. But that didn’t apply to former employees. Nor did it apply to current store managers, who could not have made binding admissions given the factual particulars of the case. Thus the Ohio lawyers were not authorized to represent the witnesses.
But that said, the revocation of the pro hacs—an effective disqualification—was too drastic a remedy that deprived Defendants of their choice of counsel. No doubt, the Ohio lawyers misinterpreted the pro hac orders and the relevant rules. But the mistakes were innocent. So a DQ was not warranted.
Writ granted.