Matter of Town of Beekman v. Town Bd. of the Town of Union Vale

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an attorney does not have a federal right to state court pro hac vice admission
• holding that out-of-state attorneys did not have a federal constitutional right to appear pro hac vice in Ohio court
• concluding that no property right to appear pro hac vice in Ohio court existed because the plaintiffs counsel did not demonstrate “the requisite mutual understanding that they would be permitted to [appear pro hac vice ].”
• holding that an attorney does not have a property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment in appearing pro hac vice in another state, but not addressing the criminal defendants’ constitutional rights in having counsel of their choice represent them
• noting that the Due Process Clause “extends various procedural safeguards to certain interests ‘that stem from an independent source such as state law”’
• noting that it is well established that the States, not federal courts, “prescribe the qualifications for admission to practice and the standards of professional conduct” as well as be “responsible for the discipline of lawyers”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).