The Phillip Burton federal building in San Francisco. Credit: Jason Doiy/ The Recorder

A coalition of interest groups on Tuesday asked the federal courts in California to open their doors more freely to out-of-state lawyers.

In a petition filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 11 groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Pacific Legal Foundation, asked the court to drop a requirement that lawyers who practice in the district be admitted to the State Bar of California.

The California bar requirement makes little sense practically, the petitioners argue, because the court operates under federal, not state, rules and the majority of cases deal with federal law. Forcing out-of-state lawyers to take California's notoriously tough bar exam and then continue paying $410 in annual dues to maintain active status is time-consuming and costly, the petition says.

“These burdens are wholly out of proportion to any possible benefit that might be realized for clients and the court from imposing such a requirement,” the groups wrote in their petition.

Attorneys for the petitioners are Alan Morrison, associate dean for public interest and public service at George Washington University Law School, and Mark Chavez, founding partner of Mill Valley plaintiffs firm Chavez & Gertler.

The local rules of all four district courts in California, as well as those in Nevada and Hawaii, require admission to their home state's bar. Out-of-state attorneys can appear pro hac vice, but the required $310 payment for each attorney in each case—including those appearing on behalf of an amicus curiae or individual class member—is burdensome, the petitioners argue.

The issue of which lawyers should be allowed to practice in specific federal courts is one that has been argued for years—and not usually successfully by those seeking broader appearance rules. Complicating matters is that California's state bar does not offer reciprocity, or admission by motion, to out-of-state lawyers.

Morrison said in an email that the interest groups are starting with the filing in the Northern District “because it's more manageable, but we are sending copies to all the districts in the Ninth Circuit, and we hope to make this change nationally over time.”

The petitioners are asking the Northern District to start a formal rulemaking process that would solicit comments on a new policy allowing any lawyer in good standing with his or her state bar to practice in the court. If the court denies the petition, the groups say they may ask the Judicial Council for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to consider their request.

The California state bar and a representative from the Ninth Circuit did not immediately comment on the petition filed Tuesday.

A spokesperson for Chief Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the Northern District said in a statement Tuesday afternoon: ”The Court appreciates receiving input from the public on its local rules and, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, routinely gathers and considers comments from the public on every local rule change. Per the Court's usual practice, the petition prepared by Professor Alan B. Morrison and Attorney Mark A. Chavez will be referred to the Northern District's Rules Committee who will review it in due course, along with other proposed amendments to the local rules.”

“We hope that the Northern District will grant the petition and that its decision will serve as a model for federal courts with similar requirements across the country,” said Allison Zieve, director of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, which also signed the petition.

The other petitioners are the Association of Corporate Counsel, the Cato Institute, the Center for Constitutional Litigation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Class Action Fairness, Consumers for a Responsive Legal System, Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Public Justice.

This report was updated with additional information about the petition.