In a class action involving a retailer’s practice of requesting personal information from consumers during credit card transactions, the settlement agreement between the parties provided the retailer would not oppose class counsel’s application for court approval of attorney fees and costs in the amount of $210,000 and payment to plaintiff of an incentive award in the amount of $3,500. The initial complaint listed California counsel as plaintiffs’ counsel of record and several out-of-state lawyers with the notation “pro hac vice admittance to be sought.” One of the lawyers practices in Illinois, but while an application for admission pro hac vice in California was filed, no order was ever issued because the application was defective. At the time of the motion to confirm the settlement, the court conducted a hearing on a renewed application and denied it because of “the great number of pro hac vice applications” [Rule 9.40(b) of the California Rules of Court states: “Absent special circumstances, repeated appearances by any person under this rule is a cause for denial of an application.”] The trial court approved the settlement, awarded $11,000 in fees and $500 as a plaintiff’s incentive. The Court of Appeal affirmed, stating “A fundamental principle of California law, enshrined in the State Bar Act (Business & Professions Code section 6000 et seq.), is that no person may ‘practice law in California’ unless that person is an active member of the State Bar. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6125.) As a corollary principle, no person may recover compensation for practicing law ‘in California’ unless that person was a member of the State Bar or admitted pro hac vice at the time the services were performed, or the legal services fall within an exception.” (Golba v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 3; July 24, 2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1251 [190 Cal.Rptr.3d 337].)Out-Of-State Pro Hac Vice Class Action Lawyer Denied Fees.
In a class action involving a retailer’s practice of requesting personal information from consumers during credit card transactions, the settlement agreement between the parties provided the retailer would not oppose class counsel’s application for court approval of attorney fees and costs in the amount of $210,000 and payment to plaintiff of an incentive award in the amount of $3,500. The initial complaint listed California counsel as plaintiffs’ counsel of record and several out-of-state lawyers with the notation “pro hac vice admittance to be sought.” One of the lawyers practices in Illinois, but while an application for admission pro hac vice in California was filed, no order was ever issued because the application was defective. At the time of the motion to confirm the settlement, the court conducted a hearing on a renewed application and denied it because of “the great number of pro hac vice applications” [Rule 9.40(b) of the California Rules of Court states: “Absent special circumstances, repeated appearances by any person under this rule is a cause for denial of an application.”] The trial court approved the settlement, awarded $11,000 in fees and $500 as a plaintiff’s incentive. The Court of Appeal affirmed, stating “A fundamental principle of California law, enshrined in the State Bar Act (Business & Professions Code section 6000 et seq.), is that no person may ‘practice law in California’ unless that person is an active member of the State Bar. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6125.) As a corollary principle, no person may recover compensation for practicing law ‘in California’ unless that person was a member of the State Bar or admitted pro hac vice at the time the services were performed, or the legal services fall within an exception.” (Golba v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 3; July 24, 2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1251 [190 Cal.Rptr.3d 337].)