IJ: City's move to block co-counsel role 'absurd'
Law firm asks court to allow it to represent MTOTSA homeowners
BY CHRISTINE VARNO
Staff Writer

Scott Bullock, of Institute for Justice

LONG BRANCH - The Institute for Justice is fighting the city's attempt to keep it from representing a group of homeowners facing condemnation of their homes.

On Nov. 3, IJ filed a response to a motion by the City of Long Branch that seeks to block the public interest law firm from representing residents in the MTOTSA alliance .

IJ petitioned the court for pro hac vice status on Oct. 18 which would allow the firm to act as co-counsel for residents in the Marine and Ocean terraces and Seaview Avenue neighborhood.

The homeowners are appealing the city's condemnation of their properties for a private redevelopment project.

In a motion filed Oct. 24, the city asked the court not to permit IJ to act as co-counsel along with attorney Peter H. Wegener.

The city's action is a "highly technical and frankly absurd reading of the New Jersey rules concerning pro hac vice," said IJ Senior Attorney Scott Bullock last week. "The motion [filed by the city] is preposterous. There is absolutely no reason to it."

"We are admitted in bars throughout the nation and have never been denied pro hac vice," Bullock said.

City Attorney James Aaron did not return phone calls seeking comment.

IJ, based in Arlington, Va., represents homeowners opposing eminent domain for private redevelopment across the country.

According to Bullock, the motion will be decided in paperwork and oral arguments will probably not be heard.

"There is no time-line [for the decision]," Bullock said. "The next step is to wait for a decision from the court."

A motion for pro hac vice status, which translates as "for this matter only," must 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, Bullock explained.

In the motion seeking to dismiss IJ, Aaron argues that there is no good reason for the court to admit IJ. The city also claims IJ does not meet the requirements for admission pro hac vice.

Bullock said IJ argues three points in the response: New Jersey residents have the right to retain the attorney of their choice; IJ attorneys are experts and specialists in the field of property rights; and the city's interpretation of the pro hac vice law is incorrect.

Bullock, along with IJ attorneys Jeffrey Rowes and William Mellor, announced in September that they would act as co-counsel with Wegener in representing some 20 oceanfront homeowners in the city's Beachfront North, phase II redevelopment zone.

Wegener is appealing a ruling by state Superior Court Judge Lawrence M. Lawson that affirmed the city's right to take the homes in the three-street neighborhood for a private redevelopment project.

According to the IJ response, "Long Branch argues that Institute attorneys are not eligible for admission ... because this case is not complex. Long Branch also argues that Institute attorneys are not eligible ... because they failed to establish that they are specialists in takings law.

"Neither of these arguments has merit," the motion continues, "Long Branch is in effect arguing that the court should exclude highly qualified public interest attorneys because the city assures the court, the MTOTSA homeowners will never prevail on the merits of their simple case."

The motion also contends that IJ attorneys are "both specialists and experts in the field of eminent domain law."

"We do a pro hac vice motion in literally every case," Bullock said.

According to the response, IJ attorneys have participated as either counsel or amicus, in every major case concerning the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment in the last decade.

"We are in fact, specialists," Bullock said.

In the motion filed by the city, Aaron claims IJ failed to meet the procedural and substantive requirement for an attorney to be admitted pro hac vice before the New Jersey state courts.

Aaron argues that the attorney seeking to be admitted pro hac vice must be "of the bar of the highest court of the state in which that attorney is domiciled or principally practices law."

The IJ attorneys are members of the New York and District of Columbia bars, according to the city's motion, which states IJ attorneys Rowes and Mellor fail to certify that they are either domiciled or principally practice law in New York and the District of Columbia.

IJ responded, "Long Branch urges the court to adopt an interpretation of the pro hac vice rule that is so narrow that it will effectively bar attorneys from national public interest law firms, like the Institute for Justice or the NAACP or the ACLU, from helping New Jersey residents fight for their rights in most important constitutional cases."

IJ has never been denied a pro hac vice status in hundreds of cases in the 15 years it has been practicing, Bullock said.