Long Branch files motion to bar Institute for Justice from appeal Motion says law firm doesn't meet criteria to argue for residents BY CHRISTINE VARNO Staff Writer Scott Bullock LONG BRANCH -- The city has filed a motion to block the Institute for Justice (IJ) from representing a group of residents who are fighting the city's condemnation of their homes. City Attorney James Aaron filed the motion in state Appellate Court last week seeking to prevent IJ, a public interest law firm, from being admitted "pro hac vice" to represent homeowners in the Marine and Ocean Terraces and Seaview Avenue neighborhood known as MTOTSA. In the motion filed in Freehold, the city argues that there is no good reason for the court to admit IJ. The city also claims IJ does meet the requirements for admission pro hac vice. A motion for pro hac vice status, which translates as "for this matter only," is required to be filed with the court by out-of-state attorneys seeking to be permitted to practice law in a state where they are not licensed, according to IJ senior attorney Scott Bullock. "The motion is ridiculous," Bullock said this week. "I cannot fathom why the city would try to do it." "The city is pulling out all the stops to try to deprive the homeowners of the lawyer of their choice. "In just about every one of our cases we have to file a motion of pro hac vice," he said. Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider declined to comment on the record and City Attorney James Aaron did not return phone calls seeking comment by deadline Tuesday. In the motion, the city claims IJ failed to meet the procedural and substantive requirements for an attorney to be admitted pro hac vice before the New Jersey state courts. Aaron argues in the motion that the attorney seeking to be admitted pro hac vice must be "of the bar of the highest court of the state in which the attorney ... principally practices law." The IJ attorneys are members of the New York and District of Columbia bars, according to the motion, which states IJ attorneys Jeff Rowes and William Mellor fail to certify that they are either domiciled or principally practice law in New York and the District of Columbia. The motion also charges the IJ attorneys have not demonstrated that there is good cause for them to represent the Long Branch homeowners, which is one if the requirements of the state law, according to the motion. "The affidavits do not describe how or why the claims involved in the appeal are complex," Aaron writes in the motion. "Instead, defendants rely on conclusory, self-serving statements that they are specialists in litigation involving eminent domain. "The simple fact that an attorney may have handled similar cases before does not make this case complex, nor make him an expert," Aaron writes. Bullock along with Rowes and Mellor announced in September that they would act as co-counsel with attorney Peter H. Wegener in representing some 20 beachfront homeowners in the Beachfront North, phase II redevelopment zone. The attorneys are appealing a ruling by state Superior Court Judge Lawrence Lawson that affirmed the city's right to take the homes in the three-street neighborhood for a private redevelopment project. "[The motion] is an attempt to take away free legal representation that would level the playing field," Bullock said Monday. "The city's attorney has been paid for by extremely deep-pocketed developers," he said. IJ, based in Arlington, Va., is preparing a response to the motion and will submit it this week, according to Bullock, who added that he believes the motion will be resolved without a hearing. "This is exactly the type of case in which we litigate," Bullock said. "It is an extremely important case with national implications and it has the potential to set a precedent throughout the state of New Jersey." "It is a classic case as to why public interest organizations get involved in a particular case," Bullock said.