## Facts

- Photographer Alessandro Masi sued Mythical Entertainment in the Eastern District of North Carolina for copyright infringement.
- In related litigation pending in the same district, Steve Sands sued Epicstream, LLC; the court addressed attorney-admission issues in a consolidated manner across the cases.
- Masi and Sands sought to be represented by Richard P. Liebowitz, an attorney not admitted in North Carolina, through pro hac vice admission.
- By the time he sought to appear for Masi and Sands, Liebowitz had already been admitted pro hac vice in three other Eastern District of North Carolina cases during the same calendar year (2019).
- The district’s local rules limited pro hac vice admission to three cases per year unless the applicant showed a good reason for an additional admission.
- Defense counsel moved to disqualify Liebowitz based on the repeated-admissions limit in the local rule.
- The court issued an order directing Liebowitz to show cause why he should not be disqualified.
- Liebowitz responded that the matters were “simple,” that all but two of his district cases had settled, and that local counsel had been retained.
- Liebowitz also argued there had been no showing that he was not competent to handle the cases, but the court identified multiple filing deficiencies across four cases and noted that one deficiency remained unresolved at the time of the order.
- As an alternative to his own continued participation, Liebowitz asked the court to allow another attorney from his firm to substitute as counsel.

## Issues

1. Whether an out-of-state lawyer who has already appeared pro hac vice three times in the district in the same year has shown a good reason to be admitted again under the local rule.
2. Whether the court should permit substitution of another lawyer from the same firm in place of the disqualified pro hac vice lawyer.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to disqualify Richard P. Liebowitz from representing the plaintiffs in the consolidated matters.
- The court found Liebowitz had not shown a good reason to exceed the district’s three-appearance annual limit for pro hac vice admission.
- The court relied in part on Liebowitz’s record of repeated filing deficiencies in the district and the fact that one deficiency remained outstanding.
- The court denied the request to substitute another attorney from Liebowitz’s firm as an alternative to disqualification.

## Legal Principles

- Federal district courts have broad discretion to apply and enforce local rules governing pro hac vice admission.
- Pro hac vice admission is conditioned on compliance with local practice requirements and court orders; repeated filing deficiencies may be considered when evaluating whether a lawyer has shown a good reason for additional admissions.
- A lawyer’s assertion that a case is “simple,” that other matters have settled, or that local counsel is involved may be insufficient to justify exceeding a numerical cap on pro hac vice appearances.
- A court may deny an attempt to substitute another attorney from the same firm when the substitution would function as an end-run around the local rule limiting repeated pro hac vice admissions.

## Conclusion

In Masi v. Mythical Entertainment, the Eastern District of North Carolina disqualified Richard P. Liebowitz after concluding he had already reached the district’s yearly limit on pro hac vice appearances and had not shown a good reason for another admission, particularly in light of repeated filing deficiencies; the court also refused to allow a different attorney from his firm to replace him as a substitute.


Masi v. Mythical Entertainment, 2020 WL 233817 (2020)