Sheller v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

71 Cal. Rptr.3d 207 (2008)

Relevant factsFree

Texas attorney Sheller (defendant), appearing pro hac vice in a class action against Farmers (plaintiff), sent a flyer to potential class members misleadingly suggesting they would be paid for their time as a class representative; the trial court found this misleading and unethical, reprimanded Sheller, ordered him to pay Farmers' attorney's fees, but declined to revoke his pro hac vice status, and Sheller appealed the fee and reprimand orders.

IssueFree

Whether a trial court may revoke an attorney's pro hac vice status if his conduct would have been sufficient to disqualify him under that jurisdiction's rules.

Holding & reasoning

The court resolved the question by applying the controlling rule to the facts and explaining precisely why the outcome followed. Its reasoning ties the doctrine to the record so you can reproduce the analysis on an exam.

Procedural history, concurrence & dissent

This section traces the case from the trial court through appeal and lays out how each opinion lands. Separate writings sharpen the majority's limits and flag the arguments most likely to resurface in class.

Unlock the full brief

Free accounts read 20 full briefs. No card required.

Start free Log in