Serving as Local Counsel: The Responsibilities, Duties and Limitations of Wisconsin Attorneys Assisting Pro Hac Vice Counsel 

By: Alexander Z. Gordon, Bell, Moore & Richter, S.C.

Wisconsin courts routinely permit out-of-state lawyers to participate in litigation through the process of pro hac vice admission. In almost every instance, the procedure is viewed as routine: a nonresident attorney submits the proper materials, pays the statutory fee, and continues under the sponsorship of Wisconsin-licensed counsel. However, the practice brings with it an important set of duties that some serving as local counsel do not fully understand or, on occasion, underestimate. Those obligations are mandatory, enforceable, and carry potential serious consequences if ignored.

This article describes the rules that create and define the role of local counsel in pro hac vice representation and explains the enforcement mechanisms used by Wisconsin courts, which include sanctions, revocation of pro hac vice status, and referral to the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR). While there is limited case law supporting local counsel being sanctioned for failure to fulfill their duties, the rules make clear that such consequences are both possible and enforceable. Understanding this authority is critical for practitioners who agree to serve as sponsoring counsel. It is far broader than just signing documents prepared by a non-resident lawyer.

I.              The Admission Process of Pro Hac Vice

The Wisconsin Court System details the process surrounding pro hac vice admission and provides helpful questions and answers for practitioners.[1] The non-resident attorney must complete the application and pay the $250 fee to the State Bar of Wisconsin. This may be done online on the State Bar of Wisconsin’s website.[2]

A non-resident lawyer seeking admission pro hac vice must follow the applicable procedure set forth in SCR 10.03(4).[3] After the attorney has applied online and paid the fee, the Wisconsin attorney sponsoring the admission must file a motion with the state court or tribunal before which pro hac vice admission is sought. The motion must be accompanied by the application, proof of payment, and any additional materials required by local rule. Proof of payment is provided from the State Bar of Wisconsin’s application website processing. 

Some Wisconsin circuit courts and administrative agencies have their own local rules, forms, and requirements regarding pro hac vice admission. If so, practitioners should follow these rules and/or use those forms.[4]

The amount of participation required of local counsel is decided by each court on a case-by-case basis. However, there are some exceptions to a required association with a Wisconsin attorney for nonresident military counsel, appearances in certain agency proceedings, and for nonresident counsel seeking to appear for the limited purpose of participating in a child custody proceeding pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 while representing a tribe.[5]

II.            The Source of Local Counsel’s Obligations: SCR 10.03(4)

The duties of Wisconsin local counsel derive directly from Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 10.03(4), which governs the appearance of nonresident lawyers. The rule provides that a nonresident attorney “shall associate with” a Wisconsin-licensed attorney and that the Wisconsin attorney must actively participate in the matter. What does this mean?

Local counsel must:

• Sign all pleadings, motions, and other filed documents;
• Be responsible to the client, the court, and opposing counsel for the conduct of the nonresident attorney;
• Appear at hearings unless excused by the court; and
• Maintain the professional capacity to take over the representation if necessary.

These requirements are conditions of permitting an out-of-state lawyer to practice in Wisconsin and part of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s regulatory authority over state courts and the practice of law. It is arguable that Wisconsin’s approach is stricter than other jurisdictions; local counsel may not operate as a mere “mailbox” or “signature only” attorney. By signing pleadings, local counsel accepts responsibility for their contents under Wisconsin’s equivalent of FRCP Rule 11, Wis. Stat. §802.05, and the relevant local court rules.

The supreme court’s commentary and rulemaking materials make clear that active participation is expected and enforceable.

III.          Enforcement Tools Available to Wisconsin Courts

Even though there is limited caselaw holding local counsel in contempt, three enforcement mechanisms exist and are well-supported by Wisconsin law: (1) contempt under Wis. Stat. ch. 785; (2) sanctions under Wisconsin’s pleading rules and local rules; and (3) referral to the Office of Lawyer Regulation.

a.     Contempt Under Wis. Stat. Ch. 785

Wisconsin’s contempt statutes authorize courts to address intentional disobedience of court orders or rules by parties or counsel. Under Wis. Stat. § 785.01, contempt may be remedial (designed to force compliance) or punitive (punishing past misconduct). Local counsel who fails to attend a hearing, ignores an order requiring their participation, or permits an out-of-state attorney to appear without authorization could fall within the scope of contempt.

The leading cases governing contempt procedure are State v. Levin,[6] State v. Simmons,[7] and Gower v. Marinette County Circuit Court.[8] These cases establish several principles highly relevant to local counsel disputes, including:

• Summary contempt is limited to acts observed directly by the judge;
• Most attorney-conduct issues require non-summary contempt proceedings, including notice and a hearing; and
• Contempt cannot be imposed for mere negligence; it requires intentional or knowing disobedience.

If a Wisconsin judge has ordered local counsel to personally appear, to sign filings, or to be available to assume primary responsibility, and the lawyer willfully fails to do so, the contempt statutes are a viable enforcement tool at the court’s disposal.

b.    Sanctions Under Wis. Stat. §802.05 and Local Rules

Far more common, and arguably more effective, are sanctions imposed under Wisconsin’s FRCP Rule 11 analog, Wis. Stat. § 802.05. Due to local counsel’s requirement to sign any filing by the nonresident attorney, a filing that is frivolous, improper, or violates a court order exposes local counsel to sanctions. Unlike contempt, sanctions under § 802.05 do not require proof of willful disobedience. Rather, they require objective reasonableness.

Likewise, many circuit courts (notably Milwaukee County under its First Judicial District Rule 1.18(C)) explicitly authorize judges to require personal appearances of local counsel and to impose sanctions if the Wisconsin attorney attempts to abdicate that responsibility.

In Glaeske v. Shaw (an unpublished case),[9] a litigation surrounding a trust, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld sanctions against local counsel (along with lead out-of-state counsel) because the undue influence claim that their client pursued was ultimately found to be frivolous. The court found there was no longer a reasonable factual basis to support a claim of undue influence after the deposition of a key witness.[10]

Importantly, the court noted that under Wisconsin statutes (Wis. Stat. §§ 802.05 and 814.025), a signatory of pleadings warrants that, after reasonable inquiry, their claim is well grounded and supported by law or a good faith argument for change. Since Shaw’s counsel, both local and pro hac vice, continued to press the undue influence theory even after the factual basis collapsed, the court imposed $25,880 in attorneys’ fees as a sanction.[11] The court apportioned those fees among Shaw, his Florida-based lead counsel, and his local counsel, recognizing that, while local counsel had “less direct control” over the litigation, they still bore some responsibility.[12]

In short, the local counsel was sanctioned not because the claim, while not frivolous from the start became frivolous after discovery, and violated the professional-certification obligations under Wisconsin law. 

Glaeske demonstrates that courts view local counsel obligations as enforceable and failure to comply as sanctionable. The case demonstrates that lack of oversight from local counsel on the actions of pro hac vice counsel can have dire consequences for all counsel.

c.     Revocation of Pro Hac Vice Status

Although not a sanction directed at local counsel personally (but perhaps reputationally), revoking pro hac vice status is one of the most frequent enforcement tools available when the non-resident attorney fails in his/her duties to the court. Wisconsin courts hold that pro hac vice admission is a privilege, not a right. If local counsel is not actively supervising, or if the out-of-state lawyer is violating Wisconsin rules, a judge may revoke the nonresident attorney’s permission and require Wisconsin counsel to proceed alone. Local counsel should remain mindful of that possibility. Per Wis. Stat. § 809.85(2)(c), for good cause, the court may revoke the privilege granted herein of any counsel admitted pro hac vice to appear in any proceeding.

d.    Referral to the Office of Lawyer Regulation

When an issue involves ethics and case management, courts may refer local counsel to the OLR and have done so. Potential violations include: 

• Permitting unauthorized practice of law (SCR 20:5.5);
• Failing to supervise a subordinate or associated lawyer (SCR 20:5.1); and
• Signing filings without appropriate review (SCR 20:3.3, 20:3.1, and Wis. Stat. § 802.05).

In Disciplinary Proceedings Against Joan M. Boyd,[13] the Wisconsin Supreme Court found local counsel in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. A criminal case, Attorney Boyd represented J.R. in post-conviction proceedings arising from his 2002 felony conviction in Brown County circuit court. Among other misdeeds, Attorney Boyd asserted judicial bias, which was unsupportable by any facts or existing law. Attorney Boyd failed to investigate whether any bias or judicial misconduct actually supported the allegation. The judge reacted in a strongly negative manner, observing that had Attorney Boyd done her homework, she would not have made these allegations.[14] Attorney Boyd’s acts also led to a time bar for an appeal of the underlying criminal conviction.

The referee concluded Attorney Boyd’s handling of J.R.’s post-conviction matter gave rise to five counts of misconduct:

Count 1: By filing a post-conviction motion alleging a presumed acquaintance between her client’s former wife and the trial judge, without investigating whether such a relationship existed or there was a basis for any bias, and by filing a motion for an extension of time to take a post-conviction relief appeal that was not allowed under existing Wisconsin law, Attorney Boyd violated SCR 20:1.1.2;

Count 2: By failing to proceed with an appeal on J.R.’s behalf, when her fee agreement stated she would represent J.R. in his post-conviction motion and appeal, and by failing to properly terminate her representation and protect J.R.’s interests while the matter was pending, Attorney Boyd violated SCR 20:1.3.3;

Count 3: By failing to inform J.R. that Attorney Boyd’s motion to extend the time to appeal was denied until after the time for filing an appeal had expired, and by failing to explain to J.R. the significance of the dismissal of the motion or that J.R. still had the option of filing an appeal at the time the motion to extend was denied, Attorney Boyd violated former SCR 20:1.4(a)4 and SCR 20:1.4(b)5; 

Count 4: By failing to refund to J.R. a minimum of $1,000, which Attorney Boyd acknowledges she did not earn, Attorney Boyd violated former SCR 20:1.16(d).6; and

Count 5: By asserting as a part of the post-conviction motion unsupportable allegations challenging the integrity of a judge without properly investigating the truth or falsity of such allegations, including asserting a presumed acquaintance between the trial judge and the defendant’s former wife as cause for bias, without investigating whether such a relationship existed, Attorney Boyd violated SCR 20:8.2(a)7.

The Court revoked Boyd’s license for pervasive misconduct. This decision makes clear that serving as local counsel does not excuse failures such as neglect, fee improprieties, or lack of communication, all of which are bases for OLR discipline.

IV.          Contempt Relating to Local Counsel

If the rules are clear and the authority to hold local counsel in contempt exists, why have Wisconsin courts not discussed a contempt finding in a published opinion?

First, most disputes are resolved informally. Judges typically issue a warning or require immediate compliance. Local counsel, motivated by reputational and ethical concerns, often corrects the issue without further litigation.

Second, appellate opinions arise only when a contempt sanction is appealed. Because many local counsel issues involve revocation of pro hac vice status or lesser sanctions than contempt, there is little opportunity for appellate review.

Third, local counsel may avoid contempt by withdrawing from the case. Wisconsin judges generally allow withdrawal if local counsel refuses to accept continued responsibility, preventing the issue from reaching the contempt stage.

As out-of-state firms increasingly engage in Wisconsin litigation, the likelihood of local counsel being “local in name only” may increase. As this trend grows, so does the probability that Wisconsin circuit courts, and eventually appellate courts, will confront cases where contempt or disciplinary sanctions are appropriate.

V.            Practical Considerations for Wisconsin Local Counsel

Local counsel most commonly faces exposure in the following scenarios:

• Failure to appear when required;
• If the court orders Wisconsin counsel to attend a hearing and the attorney fails to appear without leave, contempt becomes a realistic remedy; and
• Improper delegation of filings.

All filings must be signed by local counsel. If an out-of-state attorney files a document without Wisconsin counsel’s signature, the court may treat it as unauthorized practice and hold local counsel responsible. Moreover, local counsel must do more than just sign the pleadings. They are responsible for ensuring that the matters contained therein comply with the law.

VI.          Conclusion: Local Counsel Is Not a Formality

Wisconsin’s pro hac vice system works because the courts rely on Wisconsin counsel to ensure compliance with local rules, ethical norms, and litigation standards. This job should be taken seriously, since the legal framework clearly supports contempt, sanctions, revocation, and disciplinary referral when local counsel abdicates their responsibility. In other words, agreeing to serve as local counsel is not a ministerial act; it is an active and serious professional undertaking. Wisconsin lawyers who accept this role must monitor filings, appear in court, supervise out-of-state attorneys, respond to court orders, and be ready to step in at any stage. 

With increased interstate litigation, courts may soon confront situations where a Wisconsin attorney’s nonperformance requires the imposition of formal contempt. For Wisconsin practitioners, the message is simple: If you serve as local counsel, take the role seriously. Wisconsin law certainly does. 

Author Biography:

Alexander (Alex) Gordon joined Bell, Moore & Richter, S.C. as an associate in 2024. Alex’s practice focuses on civil defense litigation, working primarily on general liability, insurance defense, and medical malpractice. He is licensed to practice law in the State of Wisconsin. Alex grew up in Detroit, MI and earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Michigan in 2017 with a double major in Political Science and Spanish. Before moving to Madison for law school in 2021, Alex taught middle school Language Arts for 4 years. His time as a teacher provides him with a unique approach to understanding clients of a variety of backgrounds. While at the University of Wisconsin Law School, Alex worked as a teaching assistant for the undergraduate legal studies program. Alex was the Vice President of Outreach for the Mock Trial team and the Executive Director of the Black Law Students Association. Alex is currently co-chair of the DEI Committee for Wisconsin Defense Counsel. Outside of work, Alex enjoys playing soccer, basketball, and spending time outdoors.