Leis v. Flynt

Background

This dispute began when a publisher and his magazine were charged under an Ohio law prohibiting harmful material to minors. Two experienced New York lawyers were listed on the local entry form but were not admitted in Ohio. After one judge endorsed the form, another denied their request to appear and the state courts refused meaningful review. The lawyers sued in federal court seeking a hearing before they could be excluded; the District Court enjoined further prosecution until a hearing, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed that injunction.

Reasoning

The central question was whether an out-of-state lawyer has a constitutionally protected interest in appearing in a state trial court that triggers federal procedural protections. The Court's majority said no: the Constitution does not by itself create a right to practice in another State, and Ohio law expressly leaves pro hac vice admissions to the trial judge's discretion. Because the lawyers had no enforceable entitlement under Ohio law or federal law, the Fourteenth Amendment did not require a hearing, and the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit.

Real world impact

The ruling means states may refuse or limit temporary appearances by out-of-state lawyers without providing a federal constitutional hearing. Out-of-state counsel and clients who want specialized representation must rely on state rules and local judges instead of federal due process. The decision resolves the federal question but does not decide guilt or innocence in the underlying criminal case.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued that the State's past practice gave lawyers a legitimate expectation of admission and that denying hearings can harm lawyers and clients, so some procedural protection should apply.