APR 8 - Limited Admissions

• Proposed Changes to APR 8 - Limited Admissions (in Word Format)
• Comments Received for APR 8 - Limited Admissions

GR 9 Cover Sheet

Suggested Amendments

ADMISSION AND PRACTICE RULES (APR) Rule 8.

Submitted by the Washington State Bar Association

A. Name of Proponent:

Washington State Bar Association

Robin L. Haynes, President

B. Spokesperson:

Paula C. Littlewood, Executive Director

Jean K. McElroy, General Counsel/Chief Regulatory Counsel

C. Purpose:

The primary purpose of the suggested amendments to APR 8 is to reduce the number of limited licenses to practice law in Washington available to lawyers who are already admitted to practice law in another U.S. jurisdiction, in large part because these provisions are very rarely used and because there are other readily accessible methods for these lawyers to be able to practice law in Washington. The suggested amendments also clarify that lawyers permitted or licensed to practice law under APR 8 are not members of the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA).

APR 8(a)

The suggested amendments would clarify that this rule is intended to cover lawyers who do not qualify for admission under APR 3 but want to engage in limited practice in Washington, and that such lawyers are not considered members of the WSBA.

APR 8(b)

The suggested amendments would add full-time active duty military officer serving in the office of a Staff Judge Advocate or a Naval Legal Service Office or a Trial Service Office located in Washington to those who can seek authorization to practice in particular matters. This would eliminate the requirement of having a separate application process and license for these military lawyers in this limited role, as is currently provided for in APR 8(g), and is intended to make it easier for military personnel, who are frequently being reassigned to new states, to practice while they are here in Washington. Recent prior amendments to the APR have made it much easier for spouses of military personnel to become admitted in Washington, through the use of UBE score transfer, and eased admission by motion for lawyers who have been in practice for at least three of the last five years.

Under the suggested amendments, the military lawyer’s representation pro hac vice would not be limited to certain military personnel or certain types of cases. In addition, the military lawyer would not need to associate with a Washington lawyer and would not be required to pay the pro hac vice fee if the lawyer is not receiving any compensation from clients in addition to the military pay to which they are already entitled. The military lawyer would file a motion with the court as instructed under APR 8(b) and the court would determine whether or not it was appropriate for the military lawyer to appear.

There have usually only been a handful of military lawyers each year who would receive this current military lawyer license under APR 8(g). In addition, due to the nature of military service, the lawyers often move out of state within a relatively short time of receiving the license and without notifying the Bar that they have left the state, which results in additional administrative work for the Bar. The suggested amendment to APR 8(b) should better serve military lawyers and the military personnel they represent.

In addition to the necessary amendments for the exceptions for military lawyers, the suggested amendments to APR 8(b) would consistently refer to the out-of-state lawyer as having been granted “permission” to appear before the court for a particular proceeding as opposed to “admission to practice”. This is consistent with the general suggested amendments throughout the APR in which the term “admission” is limited to those who are admitted to practice law under APR 3. This would also be consistent with the original language of this rule that allowed the out-of-state lawyer to appear only “with the permission of the court”.

APR 8(c)

The suggested amendments are not substantive in nature and are primarily to conform language to usage in other suggested amendments.

APR 8(d)

The suggested amendments would delete this section of the rule and reserve the numbering.

This current exception is for a U.S.-licensed lawyer who is teaching at a Washington law school, and the only practice of law permitted under this rule is to supervise Rule 9 licensed legal interns. There have been very few licenses issued under this rule.

Since the rule was adopted, the Bar has begun using the Uniform Bar Exam and the APR have been amended to provide for admission by motion after practice for three out of the previous five years. Therefore, it is much easier for lawyers who might have qualified for this license to get admitted under APR 3, and it should not be necessary any longer to provide for this separate licensing process.

APR 8(e)

The suggested amendments would delete this section of APR 8, and include most of the provisions in the suggested amendments to APR 3. The suggested amendments would delete the provisions for non-member emeritus because it is extremely rarely used and doesn’t warrant a separate application process.

Currently, in order to qualify as non-member emeritus, a U.S. lawyer must be practicing law for a qualified legal services provider in Washington state and must have active legal experience for at least 10 of the last 15 years. The Bar currently has no one licensed as a non-member emeritus and has only had a total of four lawyers ever licensed as non-member emeritus, with the last license ending over two years ago on May 8, 2014. Due to previous changes in the APR, there are other avenues for out-of-state lawyers seeking to engage in the provision of voluntary legal services.

APR 8(f)

The suggested amendments would explicitly state a current requirement that any mandatory assessment for the first year of licensing would be required upon approval of the application, and otherwise would make conforming amendments only.

APR 8(g)

The suggested amendments would delete this section and reserve the numbering. The suggested amendments to APR 8(b) would continue to permit practice by full-time military lawyers who are licensed in another state, through a modified form of pro hac vice permission to practice. The suggested amendments to APR(b) pro hac vice should make it easier for full-time military lawyers to handle the types of matters previously permitted to them under current APR 8(g) without imposing unnecessary administrative burdens or costs on them.

D. Supporting Material:

http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/2016APRCoverLetterToCourt.pdf