Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567

Attorneys Irma Solares, Julianna McCabe, and Markham Leventhal pro hac vice admitted for defendants in a putative class action about alleged breaches of supplemental cancer insurance policies.
Hearing in July 2009 raised concerns about Runyan settlement and class certification scheduling; district court made unfavorable remarks about the case and the lawyers.
The district court revoked the attorneys' pro hac vice status after a July 27, 2009 revocation hearing, asserting bad faith filings and local-rule violations among other grounds.
The revocation followed the attorneys’ recusal motion against the district judge, which the court characterized as inappropriate and a primary driver of the revocation.
Plaintiffs settled the underlying action months later; attorneys moved to vacate the revocation order, which the district court denied; the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded.
Court vacated the revocation order, remanding with directions that the matter be concluded forthwith, emphasizing due process requirements for pro hac vice revocation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Pro hac vice revocation due process	Due process required notice and an opportunity to respond.	Court has discretion; minimal process suffices for revocation.	Revocation without adequate process violated due process
Recusal motion as basis for bias	Recusal motion showed bias against defendants and justified sanctions.	No sufficient bias; recusal not warranted.	Recusal motion not a sufficient basis for disqualification
Extrajudicial bias standard	Judge’s remarks and conduct reflected bias influencing rulings.	In-trial remarks do not generally constitute bias under Liteky.	Standard for bias requires extraordinary showing; not satisfied
Impact of district court remarks on revocation	Court’s hostile comments toward attorneys demonstrated prejudice.	Comments reflect vigor in case management, not recusal grounds.	Comments did not independently justify recusal or sanctioning of counsel

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (Supreme Court, 1994) (extrajudicial bias must be from outside the case; opinions formed in the proceeding rarely justify recusal)
In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818 (4th Cir.1987) (bias against attorney alone not sufficient; must show bias against party)
Johnson v. Trueblood, 629 F.2d 302 (3d Cir.1980) (notice and opportunity to respond required for pro hac vice revocation)
Lasar v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir.2005) (due process in sanctions includes notice and opportunity to be heard)
Martens v. Thomann, 273 F.3d 159 (2d Cir.2001) (revocation of pro hac vice is a sanction; requires due process)
Kirkland v. Nat'l Mortgage Network, Inc., 884 F.2d 1367 (11th Cir.1989) (some notice and opportunity to respond required in pro hac vice contexts)
In re United States, 441 F.3d 44 (1st Cir.2006) (recusal framework; emphasizes due process in sanctions)
Sentis Group, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 559 F.3d 888 (8th Cir.2009) (recusal standards; disturbing remarks can be insufficient for disqualification)
United States v. Antar, 53 F.3d 568 (3d Cir.1995) (egregious conduct may warrant recusal; but typical heated rhetoric does not)