Federal courts to out-of-state lawyers: Get lost

Any lawyer who's ventured into the courtroom of another state has likely experienced the delightful phenomenon of being "hometowned." That's right -- faced with a judge who favors the locals over outsiders, the visiting lawyers often find themselves on the wrong side of a bench that suddenly feels like a hometown fan club. But don't worry -- it's just an attitude, not a rule, right? Or is it?

Let's imagine the rules require judges to discriminate against "them thar' foreign folk"-- you know, the strangers in town. Sounds absurd? Not so fast! There are rules, and then there are rules. And when it comes to the federal court system, oh, Good Golly Miss Molly, do we have some goodies.

A judge's ideal vs. reality

Federal judges don sacred black robes, symbolizing purity, innocence, and impartiality -- or so the story goes. With gavel in hand, they wield the wondrous power of truth, justice, and the American way. The bailiff announces, "All rise," and the judge takes the bench -- an embodiment of fairness, ready to dispense justice. In theory, they are as pristine as a snowy mountaintop. Their duty as noble as a knight rescuing a damsel in distress. Really?

In practice, these paragons of propriety often find themselves bogged down in a maze of rules that seem more suited for bureaucratic posturing than the noble pursuit of justice. Some rules are so baffling they could have been scribbled on a cocktail napkin during a late-night drinking session.

How can these paragons of purity enforce rules that undermine the very fairness and equality they are sworn to deliver? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind -- buried in a legal system that often prioritizes rules over justice.

Sometimes, courts don't even follow their own rules. Let's dive into one particularly absurd example about whether visiting lawyers can practice in the Bankruptcy Court.

A tale of two legal systems

Our legal system takes its cues from the British. In the United Kingdom, a lawyer admitted (licensed) to practice in any of His Majesty's courts can practice in any of those courts and in about two dozen other countries. But here in the U.S., it's a different story.

A lawyer admitted by a state supreme court can generally practice in all lower courts of that state. But a lawyer admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States? Those lawyers can't practice in any lower federal courts -- not one. A lawyer must obtain admission for each individual District Court or Court of Appeals.

But wait, there's more! Not only do these courts have their own sets of rules, but within those rules are local rules, and then there are "local-local" rules -- specific to each judge's courtroom. It's a hodgepodge, a Matryoshka doll, of regulations that would make Kafka blush.

Enter the bankruptcy circus

The bankruptcy courts are units of the federal District Courts. Bankruptcy law is supposed to be uniform nationwide, as stated in Article I, §8 of the Constitution: Congress has the power "to establish... uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies." Uniform laws. Simple enough, right?

Wrong.

Uniformity is precisely what the system lacks. A lawyer admitted to the District Court in District A cannot appear in the Bankruptcy Court of District B without a separate admission. Same national uniform law, same uniform procedure -- different permission slip. Why? Historically, it's been a case of the proverbial dog marking its territory -- local lawyers staking their claim through exclusive rules, like fire hydrants, for their legal turf. While some District Courts do allow visiting lawyers, others don't. Not uniform.

And that brings us to the Lawyers for Fair Reciprocal Admission v. United States case currently pending in the Ninth Circuit as Docket Number 24-2213.

The argument for uniformity

Lawyers for Fair Reciprocal Admission (LFRA) argue that the federal system should be uniform, just as the federal law requires. Therefore, a lawyer admitted in one District Court should be allowed to practice in all District Courts -- just like their counterparts in the U.K. or a lawyer practicing in a single state. LFRA argues that federal courts should adopt a uniform standard: A lawyer admitted in one District Court should be permitted to practice in all District Courts.

LFRA leans heavily on Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (2022), which held that similarly situated parties must be uniformly treated when accessing federal courts. LFRA also cites 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b), which states that local rules "shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right..."

Going further, LFRA contends the Constitution and federal law mandate such uniformity in reciprocity.

This mishmash of restrictive admissions rules creates a dual injustice: Clients are denied the right to choose their preferred lawyer, especially those lawyers with specialized expertise. Simultaneously, lawyers are arbitrarily barred from practicing in multiple districts despite being qualified. By enforcing barriers that stifle cross-district representation, the federal court system undermines both professional freedom and the principle of equal access to justice.

The Ninth Circuit hasn't ruled yet, but its decision will say a lot about whether the U.S. judicial system obeys its own rules -- or whether it allows the local dogs to keep marking their hydrants.