A Massachusetts court recently denied a motion by Attorney T. Michael Morgan to appear pro hac vice on behalf of plaintiffs in the case Glenn Wilder and Others v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Others (docket numbers 2384CV01461-BLS2 and 2384CV01389-BLS2). This ruling affects the plaintiffs' ability to have Morgan represent them in court, as he is not a member of the Massachusetts bar.
The denial is significant because it highlights the strict requirements for out-of-state attorneys seeking to practice in Massachusetts. The court's decision underscores the importance of ethical conduct and compliance with state regulations in the legal profession.
Background
The case involves Glenn Wilder and other plaintiffs who are seeking legal representation against Harvard College and other defendants. Attorney T. Michael Morgan, from the firm Morgan Morgan, P.A., sought to represent the plaintiffs in this matter. However, his request for pro hac vice admission was denied due to serious ethical concerns and procedural missteps.
The dispute arose when Morgan attempted to file a motion to appear in the case despite being sanctioned in 2025 by the U.S. District Court for Wyoming for submitting motions with fake case citations. This sanction raised questions about his fitness to practice law, particularly in another jurisdiction. The plaintiffs' case was further complicated by Morgan's failure to comply with Massachusetts rules regarding pro hac vice admission.
The Ruling
The Massachusetts Superior Court ruled against Morgan's motion for pro hac vice admission. The court noted that Morgan had been recently sanctioned for ethical violations and had not demonstrated any changes in his practice to prevent future issues. The court stated, "It is well settled that ‘permission to a nonresident attorney, who has not been admitted to practice in a court, to appear pro hac vice in a case there pending is not a right but a privilege..."
Additionally, the court found that Morgan's explanations for his previous mistakes did not meet the standards required for relief under Massachusetts law. The judge emphasized that the granting of pro hac vice admission is at the discretion of the court and that Morgan had not shown any extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a reversal of the previous decision.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for Attorney Morgan and the plaintiffs. It reinforces the idea that attorneys must adhere to ethical standards and procedural rules, especially when seeking to represent clients in jurisdictions where they are not licensed. The decision also serves as a reminder to legal professionals about the importance of maintaining a good reputation and ethical conduct.
The court's ruling may deter other out-of-state attorneys from attempting to bypass local regulations, emphasizing that ethical violations can have serious repercussions on their ability to practice law in other states. This case may also influence how courts view pro hac vice admissions in the future, particularly concerning attorneys with prior sanctions.
What's Next
While Attorney Morgan can appeal the court's decision, the ruling currently stands. There are no indications of related cases pending that could affect this ruling. The plaintiffs may need to rely on their existing local counsel to proceed with their case against Harvard College and the other defendants.