A Massachusetts Superior Court has denied attorney T. Michael Morgan's request to appear on behalf of plaintiffs in the case Glenn Wilder and Others v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Others, docket number 2384CV01461-BLS2. The court's ruling, issued on May 18, 2026, stems from Morgan's recent ethical violations and his failure to comply with Massachusetts law regarding the admission of out-of-state attorneys. This decision impacts Morgan's ability to represent clients in Massachusetts and raises concerns about the standards of legal practice in the state.
The case involves multiple plaintiffs represented by the law firm Morgan Morgan, which has offices in several states, including Massachusetts. Alongside Morgan, the plaintiffs are already represented by three other attorneys from the firm who are members of the Massachusetts bar. The court noted that Morgan's request to represent the plaintiffs was problematic due to his lack of membership in the Massachusetts bar and his prior legal troubles.
The dispute escalated when Morgan filed a motion seeking permission to appear pro hac vice, which means allowing an out-of-state attorney to practice in a specific case without being a member of the state bar. However, his application raised serious red flags. The court found that Morgan had been sanctioned in a previous case in Wyoming for submitting legal documents that cited fictitious cases generated by an artificial intelligence program. This incident highlighted a significant lapse in ethical judgment and professional responsibility.
In the ruling, the court stated, "The Court is troubled by Morgan’s demonstrated failure in the Wyoming case to live up to the ethical standards required of trial lawyers." The judge emphasized that Morgan's actions not only violated the rules of civil procedure but also indicated a broader disregard for the legal profession's ethical obligations. The ruling was issued by Justice Kenneth W. Salinger, who underscored the importance of maintaining high standards of legal practice.
The court's decision to deny Morgan's motion was based on several factors. First, Morgan's recent misconduct in Wyoming, where he had submitted motions citing non-existent cases, raised concerns about his competence and diligence as an attorney. The court noted that Morgan's failure to review the filings he signed was a serious violation of his ethical duties. Furthermore, the court highlighted that Morgan had not demonstrated any changes in his practice to prevent similar issues from occurring in the future.
Additionally, Morgan's application to appear pro hac vice was flawed. He filed the motion himself instead of having a Massachusetts bar member do so, which is a requirement under Massachusetts law. The court found that this was not a minor technical violation but a significant breach of the rules governing legal practice in the state. The court stated, "Permission of the judicial department is not merely important but is essential to the right to appear as an attorney under G.L. c. 221, § 46A." This ruling reinforces the notion that out-of-state attorneys must adhere to local regulations when seeking to practice in Massachusetts.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond Morgan's individual case. It serves as a reminder to attorneys about the importance of ethical standards and compliance with local laws. The court's decision to deny Morgan's motion emphasizes that attorneys who wish to practice in Massachusetts must demonstrate not only their qualifications but also their commitment to ethical conduct and adherence to the rules of the court.
Moving forward, this ruling may have lasting effects on Morgan's legal career. It raises questions about his ability to represent clients effectively, especially in jurisdictions where he is not a member of the bar. The court's decision sends a clear message that ethical breaches and procedural violations will not be tolerated, which may encourage other attorneys to prioritize compliance with legal standards.
As for the possibility of an appeal, details were not available in the court filing. However, given the nature of the ruling, it is not clear if Morgan plans to seek further legal recourse. The outcome of this case may also influence similar cases in the future, particularly those involving out-of-state attorneys seeking to practice in Massachusetts.
In summary, the Massachusetts Superior Court's denial of T. Michael Morgan's request to appear pro hac vice in the Wilder case underscores the importance of ethical standards in the legal profession. The ruling not only affects Morgan's ability to represent clients in Massachusetts but also reinforces the necessity for attorneys to comply with local laws and maintain the integrity of the legal system.