## Facts

- A California class action alleged unfair business practices involving universal life and flexible premium universal life insurance policies issued by Farmers.
- David L. Sheller, an out-of-state attorney, was admitted pro hac vice as lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
- Sheller sent a solicitation flyer to numerous policyholders seeking additional class representatives.
- The flyer stated that if a recipient were accepted as a class representative, the recipient would be paid for time in an amount set by the judge.
- The trial court found the statement misleading and concluded Sheller intentionally misled potential class members.
- Farmers sought restrictions on further communications and sanctions, asserting unethical conduct under professional rules.
- The trial court issued an order to show cause regarding revocation of Sheller’s pro hac vice status.
- After hearing, the trial court declined to revoke pro hac vice admission but (1) issued a formal reprimand and (2) ordered Sheller to reimburse Farmers’ attorney’s fees as a condition of continued pro hac vice participation.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court may impose attorney’s fees as a sanction against pro hac vice counsel absent statutory authorization.
2. Whether a trial court may issue a formal reprimand of an attorney as a disciplinary measure.
3. Whether, and under what circumstances, a trial court may revoke an attorney’s pro hac vice admission based on misconduct in the case.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the portions of the order requiring Sheller to pay Farmers’ attorney’s fees and issuing a formal reprimand.
- The court held the trial court lacked authority to award attorney’s fees as sanctions without statutory authorization.
- The court held the trial court lacked authority to impose a formal reprimand as an exercise of attorney discipline.
- The court held trial courts possess inherent authority to revoke pro hac vice status in appropriate circumstances.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether revocation of Sheller’s pro hac vice admission was warranted.
- To the extent the challenged order was not appealable, the court granted writ relief.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney’s fees may be awarded as sanctions only when a statute (or other specific authorization) permits such fee-shifting; trial courts cannot impose fee sanctions solely as a condition of participation.
- General attorney discipline, including formal reprimands with independent professional consequences, is primarily reserved to the State Bar and the California Supreme Court rather than trial courts.
- A trial court has inherent authority to control proceedings and protect their integrity, including revoking pro hac vice admission when misconduct would justify disqualification of a California attorney or when the conduct adversely affects the administration of justice.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal set aside a trial court’s fee sanction and formal reprimand imposed on pro hac vice counsel for misleading class-representative solicitation, while confirming that trial courts may revoke pro hac vice status as a case-management measure when attorney misconduct threatens the fair administration of justice.


Sheller v. Superior Court, 158 Cal. App. 4th 1697 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)