Vt. R. Fam. Proc. 15
Vt. R. Fam. Proc. 15
Reporter's Notes-2023 Amendment
Rule 15(e) is amended to make clear that admission pro hac vice is a matter of course on motion supported by the pro hac vice licensing card issued by the Court Administrator pursuant to A.O. 41, § 16. The card is issued on payment of fee and on the basis of the applicant's certification that the applicant is not suspended or disbarred in any jurisdiction and is in good standing and admitted to practice in the licensing state. The licensing card is sufficient to show the court where the case is pending that the applicant is in good standing and not subject to any discipline. The court retains control over the conduct of the out-of-state attorney and of the sponsoring attorney, whose signature is on the motion, and the court may revoke the admission for good cause. This amendment is made with contemporaneous amendment of identical provisions of V.R.C.P. 79.1(e), V.R.Cr.P. 44.2(b), and V.R.P.P. 79.1(d).
Reporter's Notes-2020 Amendment
Rule 15(i) is amended to clarify that it cross references the 2010 Vermont Rules for Electronic filing.
Reporter's Notes-2018 Amendment
Rule 15 is amended to change its 5- and 15-day time periods to 7 and 14 days, consistent with the simultaneous "day is a day" amendments to V.R.C.P. 6, which adopts the day-is-a-day counting system from the Federal Rules. See Reporter's Notes to simultaneous amendments of V.R.F.P. 1.
Rule 15(e) is amended to comport with general revisions of Administrative Order No. 41, governing Licensing of Attorneys, effective May 15, 2017. In the revision and restyling of A.O. 41, former § 13, Admission Pro Hac Vice, is now designated as § 16 of A.O. 41.
Reporter's Notes-2016 Amendment
Y.R.F.P. 15(a)-(d) and (f) are amended for conformity with the simultaneous abrogation of former V.R.F.P. 4 and promulgation of restyled and reorganized V.R.F.P. 4.0-4.3. See Reporter's Notes to those rules.
Reporter's Notes-2015 Amendment
Rule 15(f)(l)(A) is amended to make applicable to relief-fromabuse actions under Rule 9 the provision that an attorney is deemed to have withdrawn after the time for appeal of a final judgment in the proceeding has run. The amendment is intended to make clear that the automatic withdrawal provision of the rule is to be uniformly applied in relief-from-abuse cases in all units of the Family Division.
Reporter's Notes-2010 Amendment
Rule 15 is amended to permit a lawyer acting pursuant to a limited representation agreement with a pro se client to enter a limited appearance in the Family Court in certain specific situations. The principal change to affect this purpose is the addition of Rule 15(h), which is adapted from V.R.C.P. 79.1(h). That rule was adopted effective April 14, 2006, for a two year period, extended to April 10, 2009, by order of March 13, 2008, and made permanent effective July 6, 2009.
At the direction of the Supreme Court, the Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure inquired about use of V.R.C.P. 79.1(h) and, with the assistance of the Vermont Bar Association, conducted a survey of practice under it. While the survey reflected relatively little use of limited appearance, a significant number of lawyers who used the procedure found it helpful, and there have been no reports of problems in its use. The rule has proven effective in achieving its original purposes of providing assistance of lawyers to courts and litigants at critical stages in trials or other proceedings and encouraging lawyers to take on pro bono representation. See Reporter's Notes to 2006 amendment of V.R.C.P. 79.1. It may be anticipated that greater familiarity with the rule and growing interest at the bar in providing pro bono representation will lead to increased use of the unbundling procedure. Accordingly, the Civil Rules Committee recommended that V.R.C.P. 79.1(h) as adopted be made permanent. Given the great and increasing numbers of pro se litigants in Family Court, the use of the limited appearance procedure there is potentially of even greater importance.
For a general explanation of the rationale and operation of V.R.F.P. 15(h), see Reporter's Notes to 2006 amendment of V.R.C.P. 79.1. V.R.F.P. 15(h)(1) departs from V.R.C.P. 79.1(h)(1) in certain respects that reflect differences in Family Court practice. The unbundling procedure is not available in proceedings under V.R.F.P. 2 and 3, given the special requirements of CHINS and TPR proceedings. The client appearance language in the last clause of paragraph (1) is tailored to the requirements of V.R.F.P. 15(a)(4) and (g). The provision of V.R.C.P. 79.1(h)(1)(B) for filing or arguing specific motions is not carried forward because essentially duplicated by V.R.F.P. 15(h)(1)(D), discussed below. V.R.F.P. 15(h)(1)(C) makes clear that limited representation is available in specific pretrial proceedings in Family Court. The words "court event" have been added to V.R.F.P. 15(h)(1)(D), both to reflect more accurately the broader nature of Family Court proceedings and to make clear that the representation is limited in terms of particular matters, rather than by time. V.R.F.P. 15(h)(1)(E) makes clear that limited appellate representation includes appeals from both a magistrate and a judge and can include subsequent steps in the appeal. V.R.F.P. 15(h)(1)(F), like V.R.C.P. 79.1(h)(1)(G), is intended to affirm the inherent control of the judge over the course of a hearing. See Reporter's Notes to 2006 amendment of V.R.C.P. 79.1.
V.R.F.P. 15(h)(2)-(4) are identical to V.R.C.P. 79.1(h)(2)- (4), with minor variations to fit the framework of other provisions of Rule 15.
Amendments to V.R.F.P. 15(a)(1) and (2), (b), (c)(2) and (3), and (d)-(g) make clear the effect of a limited appearance under subdivision (h) on the matters covered by those provisions, and paragraph (c)(2) has been rewritten for clarity.