Many lawyers practice law in different geographic areas since clients might have legal needs in different jurisdictions and might prefer to use one lawyer for all of their legal work. Moreover, some states are larger than others, so attorneys that practice in such states might find themselves handling cases across a vast territory. In smaller communities, in which there are fewer judges and local lawyers, judges might be more comfortable with the attorneys they see on a regular basis than with out-of-town attorneys.
I have witnessed a few situations in my career in which judges and court officers seemed more favorable to local lawyers rather than out-of-town counsel. I was once litigating a matter, and a party had their attorney from Texas appear in the case. This lawyer had a thick southern accent which stood out in the New York courtroom in which we were conferencing a matter. The judge inquired about this out-of-town lawyer’s accent and asked where this lawyer had come from. The judge mentioned offhand that it might be easier to use local counsel for this case, although to be fair, the judge might have just been thinking about the cost associated with flying that lawyer to court appearances.
At another time in my career, I was tasked with traveling about 250 miles away to attend a lunch for lawyers that handle certain types of matters in a city distant from where I lived. The judge who handled such cases was present at the lunch, and lawyers from all over the state (and surrounding states) were at the lunch since they handled this type of case in that city. The judge remarked at one point that the legal community in that local city was excellent and that parties might consider using local counsel rather than out-of-town lawyers for matters in that area.
At another point in my career, I encountered court staff who seemed hostile to out-of-town parties and counsel. The court staff said that local juries and judges would not take kindly to an out-of-state party that allegedly caused harm to a local. If I remember correctly, the court staff mentioned that due to my accent, it would be easy for stakeholders to the legal process to see I was not from that area, and this would be a disadvantage if that case went the distance. Maybe the court staffer was embellishing our disadvantages to try to force a settlement, but there was a clear message that out-of-town lawyers would have a disadvantage.
One time, earlier in my career, we handled a matter on the east coast for a company that was based in fly-over country. We worked closely with that company’s regular counsel, who was also based in the middle of the country. When it came time to argue an important motion, my boss asked this company’s regular counsel if he wanted to pro hac into the case to argue the matter. The lawyer said that because of his thick accent, he though it would be better to have us as locals argue the matter. Knowing what I now know about legal practice, I can understand why this lawyer tasked us with handling the matter since we were local to the region in which this case was venued.
Of course, most judges and court staff value all lawyers equally, and in some situations, it might be difficult to tell if a lawyer is local to an area. However, I have also seen some judges and court staff show preference for local lawyers, and the judiciary should be vigilant to prevent this whenever possible.
Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothman.law.
The post Some Judges Seem To Prefer Local Attorneys Over Out-Of-Town Lawyers appeared first on Above the Law.