• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Case: 15-3356 Document: 003112354089 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2016 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 15-3356 _____________ NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF MULTIJURISDICTION PRACTICE, (NAAMJP); ROBERT VEREB; BENJAMIN JOSEF DOSCHER, Appellants v. JEROME B. SIMANDLE, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; MARY L. COOPER; JOEL A. PISANO; PETER G. SHERIDAN; MICHAEL SHIPP; ANNE E. THOMPSON; FREDA L. WOLFSON; RENEE MARIE BUMB; NOEL L. HILLMAN; JOSEPH E. IRENAS; ROBERT B. KUGLER; JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ; KAREN M. WILLIAMS; DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH; CLAIRE C. CECCHI; STANLEY R. CHESLER; DICKINSON R. DEBEVOISE; MICHAEL A. HAMMER; KATHARINE S. HAYDEN; FAITH S. HOCHBERG; JOSE L. LINARES; WILLIAM J. MARTINI; KEVIN MCNULTY; ESTHER SALAS; WILLIAM H. WALLS; SUSAN D. WIGENTON; ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 1-14-cv-3678) District Judge: Hon. Gerald A. McHugh _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) July 11, 2016 Before: SMITH, JORDAN, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: July 14, 2016) Case: 15-3356 Document: 003112354089 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2016 _______________ OPINION _______________ JORDAN, Circuit Judge. By its own description, the National Association for the Advancement of Multijurisdiction Practice (“NAAMJP”) advocates “throughout the United States for the purpose of improving the legal profession, by petitioning for admission on motion in the dwindling minority of jurisdictions that have not yet adopted … reciprocal admission for all lawyers.” (JA164.) In other words, the NAAMJP endeavors to reduce the barriers to entry to legal practice in the various state and federal courts across the country. Its view, which should tug at the heartstrings of any attorney, is that “one bar exam is more than enough.” (Opening Br. at 19.) With that end in mind, the NAAMJP has crisscrossed the United States, challenging local bar admission rules. See, e.g., NAAMJP v. Lynch, No. 15-1982, 2016 WL 3361558 (4th Cir. June 17, 2016); NAAMJP v. Berch, 773 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2374 (2015); see also Blye v. California Supreme Court, CV 11-5046, 2014 WL 229830, at *2 n.3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) (collecting similar challenges involving plaintiffs’ counsel dating back to 1987).1 It does not appear This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. 1 Eventually, plaintiffs’ counsel filed so many “legally frivolous” claims regarding California attorney admission rules in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that he was enjoined “from filing any further actions, either as an attorney or a party, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, regarding admission to and the regulation of the practice of law in the State of California without first obtaining leave of the Chief Judge of th[at] court.” Paciulan v. 2 Case: 15-3356 Document: 003112354089 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/14/2016 that the NAAMJP or its counsel has ever succeeded in any of its efforts. Its challenges have twice reached this Court and twice been rejected. See NAAMJP v. Castille, 799 F.3d 216 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 558 (2015); NAAMJP v. Gonzales, 211 F. App’x 91 (3d Cir. 2006).2 This time is the same. In the present case, the NAAMJP and two of its members challenge the conditions placed on admission to the bar of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “District Court”). They allege that the District Court’s local rules, which generally incorporate New Jersey state admission rules by limiting federal admission to those licensed to practice by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, violate federal statutory and constitutional standards. The defendants – judges of the District Court and former Attorney General Eric Holder – moved to dismiss the NAAMJP’s complaint.3 In a thorough and thoughtful opinion, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss. We agree with the reasoning of the District Court in all respects, and will affirm. George, 38 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1146-47 (N.D. Cal. 1999), aff’d, 229 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). 2 In Gonzales, the District Court not only dismissed the complaint, but also enjoined the NAAMJP and its counsel “from filing any further papers with respect to the constitutionality of any jurisdiction’s local rules of admission, practice, or procedure in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania without prior leave of Court.” NAAMJP v. Bush, No. 05-cv-05081, slip op. at 9 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 23, 2006), aff’d sub nom. NAAMJP v. Gonzales, 211 F. App’x 91 (3d Cir. 2006). 3 The Honorable Gerald A. McHugh of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania sat by designation to avoid any potential conflict of interest. 3 Case: 15-3356 Document: 003112354089 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/14/2016 I. BACKGROUND The District Court’s Local Civil Rule 101.1 governs admission to the bar of that Court. The rule provides that “[a]ny attorney licensed to practice by the Supreme Court of New Jersey may be admitted” to the bar of the District Court. L.Civ.R. 101.1(b). It further provides that a New Jersey attorney who is deemed ineligible to practice in state court under certain circumstances will also not be permitted to practice before the District Court during the period of that ineligibility, and that an attorney who resigns from the New Jersey State bar will be considered to have resigned from the bar of the District Court. Id. In lieu of general admission to the bar of the District Court, attorneys not licensed in New Jersey who are members in good standing of another state or federal bar may apply for pro hac vice admission for each case in which they participate in the District Court and pay a $150 fee upon each admission. L.Civ.R. 101.1(c). The local rules also permit narrow categories of exceptions from the requirement of membership in the New Jersey State bar. For example, the rules allow those admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office to be admitted to the District Court bar so long as they have been members of the bar of any state or federal court for five years and have been engaged in the practice of patent law in New Jersey, with an office located in the state, for at least two years. L.Civ.R. 101.1(e). In addition, attorneys representing the United States need not be admitted to practice in New Jersey in order to appear in the District Court. See L.Civ.R. 101.1(f).4 4 Unsurprisingly, the Local Civil Rules “do[] not govern the appearance of attorneys representing defendants in criminal cases.” L.Civ.R. 101.1(j). 4 Case: 15-3356 Document: 003112354089 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/14/2016 On June 9, 2014, the NAAMJP and two of its members, Robert Vereb and Benjamin Josef Doscher,5 sued the district and magistrate judges of the District Court, as well as former Attorney General Eric Holder, claiming that the local rules wrongly prevent certain of NAAMJP’s members from joining the bar of the Court. Both Vereb and Doscher are admitted to practice in the state and federal courts of New York and “will apply for admission to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey bar if its admission rule is changed.” (JA165-166.) The complaint includes four causes of action, based on alleged violations of the following: (1) the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071-2072; (2) the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; (3) the First Amendment; and (4) principles of equal protection.6 As relief, the plaintiffs seek an order declaring the local rules unconstitutional and enjoining their enforcement, and an order “declaring that District Court Local Rules shall provide the opportunity for general bar admission privileges to all sister-state attorneys admitted to the highest court of any state.” (JA199.) The defendants moved to dismiss on two grounds. First, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), they challenged the standing of the individual plaintiffs and 5 The complaint also once refers to a plaintiff named “James A. Jackson” and lists his address. (JA160.) He is not included in the complaint’s caption, however, nor is he mentioned elsewhere in the rest of the complaint. 6 Because they challenge a federal rule, the plaintiffs brought their equal protection claim under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. “Although the fifth amendment contains no equal protection clause, the Due Process Clause forbids discrimination in a similar manner as the fourteenth amendment, and analysis of equal protection claims is often the same under both.” In re Roberts, 682 F.2d 105, 108 (3d Cir. 1982) (per curiam). 5 Case: 15-3356 Document: 003112354089 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/14/2016 the NAAMJP. They argued that the plaintiffs had failed to allege that they suffered any injury by operation of the District Court’s bar admission rules because “[t]hey have not alleged … that they have taken steps to gain admission to the District of New Jersey,” nor have they alleged “that they have clients that they wish to represent in the District of New Jersey” or “even that they would attempt to develop a practice in the District of New Jersey if admitted.” (Answering Br.

Load more

  19

Copy Link