Nate and I are still either traveling or heads-down in work, and we won't be back until April 20th. But this is an important update that I wanted to pass along, at least for Delaware counsel who frequently handle pro hac motions.
Today, Chief Judge Connolly issued a new standing order that changes the pro hac vice procedures in all of his cases. Now, in addition to filing the usual pro hac motion and declaration, the movant must attach one of two new certifications to submission.
In the standing order, the Court recognizes (as we've mentioned) that attorney conduct in the District of Delaware is governed by the ABA Model Rules. Those rules prohibit partnering with non-lawyers and non-lawyer ownership interests in firms.
The Court then notes that some jurisdictions are changing that rule:
WHEREAS at least two states and the District of Columbia have amended their rules of professional conduct to allow nonlawyers to hold a financial interest and exercise managerial authority in a law firm, see Ariz. Code of Jud. Admin. § 7-209 (authorizing the practice oflaw by an "[ajltemative business structure,""a business entity that includes nonla-wyers who have an economic interest or decision-making authority in the firm and provides legal services"); Utah Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 5.4(d)("A lawyer may practice law with nonlawyers, or in an organization, including a partnership, in which a financial interest is held or managerial authority is exercised by one or more persons who are nonlawyers .. . ."); D.C. Rules ofPro. Conduct r. 5.4(b)("A lawyer may practice law in a partnership or other form of organization in which a financial interest is held or managerial authority is exercised by an individual nonlawyer who perfonns professional services which assist the organization in providing legal services to clients . . . .");
The Court then notes that some firms that have practiced here pro hac have suggested they may allow non-attorney ownership:
WHEREAS it appears that certain law firms of lawyers who have been or are currently admitted pro hac vice in this Court have considered or are considering allowing nonlawyers to hold an ownership interest and exercise managerial authority in those firms . . . ;
In light of those two facts, he orders that all pro hac motions must include one of two new certifications, which are attached to the end of the order:
NOW THEREFORE,at Wilmington on this Seventh Day of April in 2026, it is HEREBY ORDERED that any attorney seeking admission pro hac vice in a case assigned to the undersigned judge shall complete and file with the Court either the Certification attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 or the Certification attached hereto as Exhibit A-2 as appropriate.
It looks like the two certifications attached to the order first include the normal normal pro hac certification languge set by the rules. But they also add new language that appears designed to confirm that the attorney's firm practices each element of ABA Model Rule 5.4. The two different forms attached to the order track the differing requirements of Rule 5.4 for different types of firms.
Be careful - these new certifications are required for all firms in all pro hac motions in Chief Judge Connolly cases. Of course, this does not apply to other judges' cases.
Unsurprisingly (when you think about it), there is no option in the forms for "I want to be admitted pro hac but my firm doesn't follow ABA Model Rule 5.4, which governs practice in D. Del." It looks like the practical effect here will be to exclude any firms who don't follow the District Court's ethical rules.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
