Forwarded message follows:
-----------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 09:40:51 PST
From: cweissel@faculty-law.usc.edu (Chuck Weisselberg - x02528)
To: abrecht@faculty-law.usc.edu, paranas@faculty-law.usc.edu
Subject: accuracy
Cc: dcurtis@faculty-law.usc.edu, jresnik@faculty-law.usc.edu,
mbrennan@faculty-law.usc.edu
For 2 months, I have been fighting with a magistrate judge in
Oklahoma for permission to appear in a case pro hac vice. I
have relied upon provisions of the Local Rules of Court, which
we keep in a compendium published by the Lawyers' Cooperative.
My motions have been denied, because I did not file an appearance
form with my motions. I did not file appearance forms since, under
the local rules, I did not need to.
As it turns out, the version of the local court rules published in
the compendium is WRONG. I called Lawyers' Cooperative Publ. Co.
Their version of the rules is the same that we have in the compendium
(i.e. the problem is not that we missed an updated set of rules).
Obviously, this makes me wonder whether we can rely upon the publication.
In future cases in other districts, I will take care to order copies of
the local court rules directly from the district courts. Do you have
any sense whether or not this publishing company has had problems
in accuracy or in staying up to date. This inaccuracy has required me
to file two additional motions and to spend MANY additional hours
researching and writing with my students.
Chuck
Dear BB readers, if any of you have had similar problems as described above
please let me know. Albert Brecht, abrecht@library-law.usc.edu
Many thanks.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/07/00 PST