Continuing our walkthrough of the Bragg vs Linden Lab filings, we have three new filings to play with. The first is dated 9 January 2007, and is Linden Lab's motion to admit Scott Baker, Esquire pro hac vice.

Granted, that sounds like something you do in golf, but it means we can look forward to a little more personality, going forward.

First, who the heck is Scott Baker?

Well, Baker's a part of the nationwide legal network Reed Smith LLP. The attorney working on Linden Lab's behalf in Pennsylvania right now (Andrew J Soven) is also with Reed Smith LLP. Baker's stomping ground is over in California, and he's worked in front of the state courts and the federal district courts there. So he knows what it's all about, right?

Well, no. Law and court procedure differ from place to place. In the United States 'admission to the bar' is granted by a court to allow a lawyer to practice law under that particular system. Pretty much every jurisdiction sets its own rules for bar admission. You might practice law in half the states in the USA, but that doesn't grant you the right to do so in other states.

Baker is not been admitted to the bar in Pennsylvania, so he is unable to practice law there. However, it's pretty common in law for cases to come up in various jurisdictions (like this one, which is in Pennsylvania), so there's a system of exemption. That system is called pro hac vice (for this turn).

In the movie, The Devil's Advocate, Kevin Lomax had just moved from Florida and joined a New York law firm. Though he was not yet licensed for that Jurisdiction, a pro hac vice motion was made to allow him to participate in the case.

Generally what would happen is that the lawyer would file a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice (which is what this document is), along with a letter stating that he's a member in good standing with his own bar association, and pay a fee to the bar association in the jurisdiction in which he is seeking to appear.

The right to appear pro hac vice isn't guaranteed, but it's one of those things that is generally 'not unreasonably withheld'.

Why Scott Baker?

I'm guessing that Soven's going to do the paperwork and matters of law and procedure, and that Baker's going to handle the primary legwork in the courtroom. He also has better access to Linden Lab and Philip Rosedale at this time, and is more likely to be able to better represent them after lengthy consultation.

Or, if you don't like that theory, we can look at the symmetry of pairing off the two Reed Smith LLP attorneys against Bragg and Archinaco (both attorneys themselves). Marc Bragg may not be conducting his own defense, but he's no fool. Two heads are better than one, they say. Why the heck not have two heads on the Linden Lab side to match the two on the Bragg side?

Here's that document in PDF format. Bragg is rather generously making these documents readily available to us. We'll look at the next one tomorrow.