Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8599699" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Again, the original complaint (prior to dismissal) was written and filed by the Humphries Law Firm. In North Carolina.Shortly thereafter, an identical complaint was filed by the Immix Law Group. Prior to any substantive motions, the original attorney with the Humphries Law firm filed to be admitted pro hac vice in W.D. Wash.What this generally means is that the North Carolina attorney is the one doing the litigating. They brought on a local counsel because they needed someone admitted to the W.D. Washington to file the complaint, and now they are getting a pro hac admission to do the actual work. Immix Law is what is referred to as &quot;local counsel&quot; which can vary from &quot;doing actual work as co-counsel&quot; to &quot;rubberstamping filings.&quot; My suspicion is the latter, given the filings so far. No, the whole story is that court documents are public records. And there should be no charge or required registration for public court documents. Which is why its important to support the Open Courts Act (currently on Senate Legislative Calendar).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8599699, member: 7023840"] Again, the original complaint (prior to dismissal) was written and filed by the Humphries Law Firm. In North Carolina. Shortly thereafter, an identical complaint was filed by the Immix Law Group. Prior to any substantive motions, the original attorney with the Humphries Law firm filed to be admitted [I]pro hac vice [/I]in W.D. Wash. What this generally means is that the North Carolina attorney is the one doing the litigating. They brought on a local counsel because they needed someone admitted to the W.D. Washington to file the complaint, and now they are getting a pro hac admission to do the actual work. Immix Law is what is referred to as "local counsel" which can vary from "doing actual work as co-counsel" to "rubberstamping filings." My suspicion is the latter, given the filings so far. No, the whole story is that court documents are public records. And there should be no charge or required registration for public court documents. Which is why its important to support the Open Courts Act (currently on Senate Legislative Calendar). [/QUOTE]

Verification