## Facts

- Plaintiffs in long-running federal civil litigation were represented by lead counsel Kenneth D. Simoncini, admitted *pro hac vice* in the District of Idaho.
- Defendants moved to disqualify Simoncini on various grounds.
- After a hearing, the magistrate judge ordered the plaintiffs and Simoncini to submit affidavits for *in camera* review concerning conflict-waiver timing and related matters.
- The plaintiffs submitted affidavits; Simoncini declined to submit an affidavit.
- The magistrate judge denied the defendants’ disqualification motion on the grounds asserted, but sua sponte revoked Simoncini’s *pro hac vice* status and disqualified him as a sanction for noncompliance with the affidavit order.
- District of Idaho local rules provided for notice and an opportunity to respond before attorney discipline, including revocation of *pro hac vice* admission.
- Petitioners did not seek reconsideration from the magistrate judge or review by the district judge; they petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus to vacate the disqualification order.

## Issues

1. Whether revoking counsel’s *pro hac vice* status and disqualifying him as a sanction, without specific notice and an opportunity to be heard on the grounds actually used, was clear error under due process principles and applicable local rules.
2. Whether mandamus should issue when petitioners had an available, adequate avenue for relief by seeking review of the magistrate judge’s order in the district court.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held the magistrate judge clearly erred by imposing revocation and disqualification without giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard on the specific grounds for that sanction.
- The court nonetheless denied mandamus because it is an extraordinary remedy and petitioners failed to pursue available relief in the district court (including review by the district judge).

## Legal Principles

- Revocation of *pro hac vice* status as a sanction requires, at minimum, notice and an opportunity to be heard on the specific grounds for the proposed discipline, particularly where local rules require those procedures.
- Mandamus is not a substitute for ordinary intra-district review; the writ generally will not issue when the petitioner has an available, adequate means to obtain relief through district-court procedures.
- Even where error is “clear,” mandamus may be denied if the petitioner has not exhausted available review mechanisms (such as seeking district-judge review of a magistrate judge’s order).

## Conclusion

The court found clear procedural error in revoking *pro hac vice* status without targeted notice and a hearing, but denied mandamus because petitioners bypassed an adequate remedy: seeking timely review of the magistrate judge’s sanction in the district court.


Cole v. U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, 366 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004)