In re Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Swartz

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

In re Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Swartz

786 A.2d 1074, 2001 R.I. LEXIS 239, 2001 WL 1678876

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedOctober 19, 2001

DocketNo. 01-347-M.P.

StatusPublished

This text of 786 A.2d 1074 (In re Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Swartz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Swartz, 786 A.2d 1074, 2001 R.I. LEXIS 239, 2001 WL 1678876 (R.I. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The motion of Massachusetts attorneys Edward Swartz, James Swartz, and Rafael P. McLaughlin for admission pro hac vice to represent William R. Cinquini, III and Trudy White in an action to be commenced in the Superior Court was considered by this Court in conference on October 17, 2001. While we are inclined to grant the motion, we observe that Supreme Court Article II, Rule 9, as supplemented by this Court’s Provisional Order No. 19, requires each attorney seeking pro hac vice admission in a case to file with this Court a separate petition for such admission and to pay a separate filing fee therefor. Accordingly, upon consideration of the present motion, we hereby grant the motion as to petitioner Edward Swartz, and we direct that petitioners James Swartz and Rafael P. McLaughlin file their own separate petitions for pro hac vice admission. Upon the filing of such petitions, the motions for pro hac vice admission will be deemed granted in accordance with this Order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

The motion of Massachusetts attorneys Edward Swartz, James Swartz, and Rafael P. McLaughlin for admission pro hac vice to represent William R. Cinquini, III and Trudy White in an action to be commenced in the Superior Court was considered by this Court in conference on October 17, 2001. While we are inclined to grant the motion, we observe that Supreme Court Article II, Rule 9, as supplemented by this Court’s Provisional Order No. 19, requires each attorney seeking pro hac vice admission in a case to file with this Court a separate petition for such admission and to pay a separate filing fee therefor. Accordingly, upon consideration of the present motion, we hereby grant the motion as to petitioner Edward Swartz, and we direct that petitioners James Swartz and Rafael P. McLaughlin file their own separate petitions for pro hac vice admission. Upon the filing of such petitions, the motions for pro hac vice admission will be deemed granted in accordance with this Order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

786 A.2d 1074, 2001 R.I. LEXIS 239, 2001 WL 1678876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-motion-for-pro-hac-vice-admission-of-swartz-ri-2001.