State Industries, Inc. v. JerniganState Industries, Inc. v. Jernigan
No Appearance for Respondents.
HARRIS, J.
State Industries, Inc. asks for certiorari review of the trial court‘s rеvocation of pro hac vice status of one of its attorneys. Ludwig Kolman, an Illinois attorney much experienced in flammable vapor cases, was employed by defendant State Industries to assist loсal counsel in the defense of this product liability action. The cоurt, on motion, granted Kolman the privilege of appearing for defense in this case.
At a deposition, Kolman repeatedly called plaintiffs’ counsel “a liar” and emphasized that the referenсe was “on the
The decision as to whether to grant pro have vice status to an out-of-state attorney is within the sound discretion оf the trial court. See Huff v. State, 569 So.2d 1247 (Fla.1990). Likewise, in our view, is the decision to revoke the privilеge once given.
Defense relies on the disciplinary action of The Florida Bar v. Martocci, 699 So.2d 1357 (Fla.1997), and asserts that the Florida Supreme Court has detеrmined that calling opposing counsel, more or less, the posterior opening of the alimentary canal and further suggesting that he should commit a sex act upon himself1 is not an ethical rules violation prejudicial to the administration of justice. Surely, urges the defense, if the conduct in Martocci does not violate the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, mеrely calling opposing counsel a liar should not do so. Although we сoncede that Martocci‘s comments to and about opрosing counsel rank high on any misconduct scale, the appropriate conduct of a Florida lawyer is not the test applicаble to this case.
A Florida lawyer in good standing has a “right” to appеar in court. No special permission is required. Although the Florida lawyer‘s right to so appear is not absolute (it may be forfeited under cеrtain circumstances, such as egregious misconduct or unfairness to the opposing side because of an improper discovery viоlation), such right to appear is rarely denied and rightfully so. The out-of-state lawyer, on the other hand, has no absolute right to appeаr as counsel in Florida. When consent to such appearanсe is given, the only control over such counsel‘s conduct is in the hands of the trial judge. The Florida Bar is not involved.
It is not necessary that in order tо revoke pro hac vice credentials that a trial judge find that the conduct in question amounted to an ethical violation under the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. Nor must the court await conduct that would require a mistrial or justify a reversal on appeal in order tо act. A trial court may revoke the status of pro hac vice whеnever it appears that counsel‘s conduct during any stage of thе proceeding, including the taking of depositions, adversely impacts the administration of justice. In this case, unlike the offending words in Martocci which ocсurred after the deposition, counsel was called a liar “on thе record” during a deposition of an expert witness, which may very well hаve affected the deposition.
We see no reason to intervene in this cause.
Denied.
ANTOON, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.