Classifying Lawyers: The General Bar and Trial Bar of the Northern District of Illinois

Must You Have a Trial Bar Member on Your Team?

In many common-law jurisdictions, their are two classes of lawyers: barristers and solicitors. Barristers tend to specialize in courtroom advocacy and litigation. Solicitors tend to focus on transactional matters and general legal advice to clients.

Legal systems in the United States generally do not respect such distinctions. For the most part, lawyers are of one class. Any lawyer admitted to the bar in a jurisdiction may advise clients in transactions or appear in court on their behalf.

But the Northern District of Illinois (like many other federal courts) does make one significant distinction: some members of its bar may appear alone in all matters; others may not.

The Court distinguishes between members of its “General Bar” and members of its “Trial Bar.”

Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 83.12 (What Only Trial Bar Members May Do)

All attorneys admitted to practice (except pro hac vice) are members of the General Bar. Usually, one must at least be a General Bar member to appear in a case:

Except as provided in LR83.14 and LR83.15 and as otherwise provided in this rule, only members in good standing of the general bar of this Court may enter appearance of parties, file pleadings, motions or other documents, sign stipulations or receive payments upon judgments, decrees or orders.

Local Rule 83.12(a) (Who May Appear).

But being a member of the General Bar does not allow you to appear alone in all proceedings. To appear alone in some proceedings, you must also be a Trial Bar member:

Attorneys admitted to the trial bar may appear alone in all matters. Attorneys admitted to the general bar, but not to the trial bar, may appear in association with a member of the trial bar in all matters and may appear alone except as otherwise provided by this rule.

Local Rule 83.12(a) (Who May Appear).

That is, only Trial Bar members may appear alone in “testimonial proceedings.” In any such proceeding, at least one member of the Trial Bar must be present to advise a General Bar member not admitted to the Trial Bar:

An attorney who is a member of the trial bar may appear alone during testimonial proceedings. An attorney who is a member of the bar, but not of the trial bar, may appear during testimonial proceedings only if accompanied by a member of the trial bar who is serving as advisor.

Local Rule 83.12 (b) (Testimonial Proceedings).

This requirement will only be waived in “exceptional circumstances.”

A judge may grant permission in a civil or criminal proceeding pending before that judge to an attorney admitted to the general bar, but not to the trial bar, to appear alone in any aspect of the matter only upon written request by the client and a showing that the interests of justice are best served by waiving the experience requirements otherwise required by these rules. Such permission shall apply only to the proceeding in which it was granted. Granting of such permission shall be limited to exceptional circumstances.

Local Rule 83.12(d) (Waiver).

Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 83.14 (Pro Hac Vice Admissions)

Attorneys admitted pro hac vice, by definition, are not members of the General Bar (and therefore, not members of the Trial Bar).

The local rules are somewhat unclear about how the Trial Bar requirement should affect lawyers admitted pro hac vice. Local Rule 83.14 (one we’ve visited before) concerns pro hac vice admission:

A member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of any state or of any United States district court may, upon motion, be permitted to argue or try a particular case in whole or in part subject to the requirements of LR83.12.

Local Rule 83.14 (Appearance by Attorneys Not Members of the Bar)

Local Rule 83.14 makes no mention of the Trial Bar requirement. Neither does Local Rule 83.15 concerning local counsel. The Court appears to have broad discretion to admit, temporarily, any attorney to argue or try a case (that is, to appear in testimonial proceedings). Thus, one might argue that under Local Rule 83.14, the Trial Bar requirement does not strictly apply to lawyers admitted pro hac vice; such lawyers should be permitted to appear, alone, in testimonial proceedings.

Here’s the counterargument. While Local Rule 83.14 does not mention the Trial Bar explicitly, it does express that appearances pro hac vice are subject to Local Rule 83.12—the rule that substantially describes the Trial Bar requirement. This, one might argue, means that any attorney admitted pro hac vice (like any member of the General Bar), must have at least one lawyer present who is a Trial Bar member.

I want to hear others’ experiences on how the judges in the Northern District of Illinois, in practice, have dealt with the Trial Bar requirement in pro hac vice situations. My cases have always included Trial Bar members in testimonial proceedings, so it is not an issue I have faced.

In a future post, I will describe some of the requirements for Trial Bar admission. For now, you should understand that not lawyers admitted to practice in the Northern District of Illinois (including potential local counsel) are Trial Bar members, and it may be to your advantage (if not required) to have a Trial Bar member on your team.

 

From Which Federal Court Should You Issue a Subpoena

So you have a case in federal court outside Illinois and you need to subpoena someone in Chicago. What court must issue the subpoena?

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(2) addresses this:

Issued from Which Court. A subpoena must issue as follows:

(A) for attendance at a hearing or trial, from the court for the district where the hearing or trial is to be held;

(B) for attendance at a deposition, from the court for the district where the deposition is to be taken; and

(C) for production or inspection, if separate from a subpoena commanding a person’s attendance, from the court for the district where the production or inspection is to be made.

So basically this:

  • for trial or hearing, the court where the case is pending;
  • for deposition, the court where the deposition will take place (if the deposition has to take place in Chicago because the witness resides here, issue the subpoena from the Northern District of Illinois); and
  • for documents and inspection, the court where the production or inspection will happen (again, Northern District of Illinois if in Chicago).

Under FRCP 45(a)(3), the attorney who signs the subpoena can be one admitted where the case is pending, even if the subpoena is coming from a different federal court. So you probably don’t need local counsel to sign the subpoena. But recognize that any proceedings or motions regarding the subpoena may occur in the issuing court, and an appearance or filings might require local counsel and pro hac vice admittance.

Are You Paying Attention to This Local Counsel Rule in The Northern District of Illinois?

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (centered in Chicago) has a multijurisdictional practice rule that differs quite a bit from that in many state rules of professional conduct.

Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 83.14 allows pro hac vice (temporary) admission to practice before the court:

LR83.14. Appearance by Attorneys Not Members of the Bar

A member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of any state or of any United States district court may, upon motion, be permitted to argue or try a particular case in whole or in part subject to the requirements of LR83.12. A petition for admission under this rule shall be on a form approved by the Executive Committee. The clerk shall provide copies of such forms on request.

The fee for admission under this Rule shall be established by the Court. The fee shall be paid to the clerk who shall deposit it in the District Court Fund.

A petition for admission under this rule may be presented by the petitioner. No admission under this rule shall become effective until such time as the fee has been paid. (Amended 05/31/11)

A petition must be filed and, at least technically under the rule, need not be filed by a local counsel in Chicago. But note that there is a local counsel requirement under Local Rule 83.15(a):

LR83.15. Local Counsel: Designation for Service

(a) Designation. An attorney not having an office within this District (“nonresident attorney”) shall appear before this Court only upon having designated as local counsel a member of the bar of this Court having an office within this District upon whom service of papers may be made. Such designation shall be made at the time the initial notice or pleading is filed by the nonresident attorney. Local counsel shall file an appearance but is not required to participate in the case beyond the extent required of an attorney designated pursuant to this rule.

On its face, this local counsel rule applies to any “nonresident attorney” (including members of the Northern District bar who do not have an office in the District). Such a nonresident attorney must designate a local counsel within 30 days of an initial filing, or risk having filings stricken. See Local Rule 83.15(b). I am not personally aware of cases where the local counsel requirement has been waived, but please comment if you know any.

Welcome!

Welcome to Local Counsel Chicago! Our focus on this blog is to help lawyers and parties who might have to appear in the courts of greater Chicago or Illinois. I hope that it will be a resource for those who are in-state and out-of-state alike. Here, you will find news and commentary on rules, procedures, and practice in state and federal courts in Illinois. We will particularly emphasize matters in the Circuit Court of Cook County, the First District Court of Appeals of the State of Illinois, the Illinois Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. We will also touch on the problems and considerations, including ethics issues, arising from multijurisdictional practice. As a lawyer who has handled numerous cases in several states, I know the importance of having excellent local counsel to protect my clients’ peace of mind, as well as my own. I have also enjoyed acting as local counsel, helping other lawyers who are not part of the Chicago bar navigate our local courts and better serve our co-counseled clients.I appreciate your patience, suggestions, and ideas as we launch this new blog. Please consider joining our RSS feed and email list, and visit frequently.

Tawfiq I. Ali
Principal Attorney

Ali Law Practice LLC
200 E. Randoph St.
Suite 5100
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 970-1847