951 N.E.2d 315
Mass.2011Background
- PCG Trading, LLC sues Seyfarth Shaw, LLP and associated attorneys for legal malpractice and related claims based on alleged conflicts of interest and representation failures in Costigan-related litigation.
- Seyfarth represented both Converge entities and PCG, purchased Converge assets, but allegedly did not disclose conflicts between clients.
- Seyfarth filed an unsealed withdrawal motion in Essex County (2003) claiming Converge had no Massachusetts assets and would not be harmed by withdrawal.
- California wage judgment and subsequent California and Norfolk County proceedings formed the basis of claims against PCG and Converge.
- PCG sought pro hac vice admission for Garner (and Brewer initially agreed) but PCG filed only Garner pro hac vice admission; a National Law Journal article later criticized Brewer’s statements.
- The Superior Court motion judge denied Garner’s pro hac vice admission; PCG appealed to the Appeals Court and this court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of Garner pro hac vice admission was proper | PCG contends denial was improper based on Rule 3.6 and lack of adequate reasons | Seyfarth contends denial was warranted due to Rule 3.6 violation and adequate local representation | Denied on Rule 3.6 grounds, reversed because no violation; remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether Brewer’s comments violated Rule 3.6 to justify denial | Brewer’s statements reflected PCG’s allegations that Seyfarth misstated facts | Statements were within Rule 3.6(b) safe harbor for public record context | No Rule 3.6 violation; safe harbor applied; denial reversed |
| Whether adequate local representation alone could justify denial | Local counsel adequacy should not independently deny admission | Adequate representation is a relevant factor | Not alone sufficient to uphold denial; issue remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Merles v. Lerner, 391 Mass. 221 (Mass. 1984) (discretion in deciding pro hac vice admissions)
- DiLuzio v. United Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers, Local 274, 391 Mass. 211 (Mass. 1984) (necessity of court permission for out-of-state counsel to appear)
- Matter of Cobb, 445 Mass. 452 (Mass. 2005) (safe harbor for certain extrajudicial statements in trial publicity)
- Panzardi-Alvarez v. United States, 879 F.2d 975 (1st Cir. 1989) (denials based on ethical violations; proper basis for denial)
- Obert v. Republican W. Ins. Co., 398 F.3d 138 (1st Cir. 2005) (cannot base pro hac vice denial on unsupported ethical-rule violations)