Any attorney domiciled in another state, and regularly admitted to practice in the courts of record of and in good standing in that state, having been retained as attorney for a party to any civil or criminal legal proceeding pending in the General Court of Justice of North Carolina, the North Carolina Utilities Commission, the North Carolina Industrial Commission, the Office of Administrative Hearings of North Carolina, or any administrative agency, may, on motion to the relevant forum, be admitted to practice in that forum for the sole purpose of appearing for a client in the proceeding. The motion required under this section shall be signed by the attorney and shall contain or be accompanied by all of the following:
(1) The attorney's full name, bar membership number, and status as a practicing attorney in another state.
(1a) The attorney's mailing address, phone number, and email address to be used as the attorney's contact information of record with the court, pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 5.
(2) A statement, signed by the client, setting forth the client's address and declaring that the client has retained the attorney to represent the client in the proceeding.
(3) A statement that unless permitted to withdraw sooner by order of the court, the attorney will continue to represent the client in the proceeding until its final determination, and that with reference to all matters incident to the proceeding, the attorney agrees to be subject to the orders and amenable to the disciplinary action and the civil jurisdiction of the General Court of Justice and the North Carolina State Bar in all respects as if the attorney were a regularly admitted and licensed member of the Bar of North Carolina in good standing.
(4) A statement that the state in which the attorney is regularly admitted to practice grants like privileges to members of the Bar of North Carolina in good standing.
(5) A statement to the effect that the attorney has associated and is personally appearing in the proceeding, with an attorney who is a resident of this State, has agreed to be responsible for filing a registration statement with the North Carolina State Bar, and is duly and legally admitted to practice in the General Court of Justice of North Carolina, upon whom service may be had in all matters connected with the legal proceedings, or any disciplinary matter, with the same effect as if personally made on the foreign attorney within this State.
(6) A statement accurately disclosing a record of all that attorney's disciplinary history. Discipline shall include (i) public discipline by any court or lawyer regulatory organization, and (ii) revocation of any pro hac vice admission.
(7) A fee in the amount of two hundred twenty-five dollars ($225.00) submitted and made payable to one of the following: (i) for judicial proceedings, the presiding clerk of court and (ii) for administrative proceedings, the presiding administrative agency. The clerk of court or administrative agency shall: (i) transfer, by way of the State's electronic accounting system, two hundred dollars ($200.00) of the fee collected to the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts for support of the General Court of Justice, and (ii) transmit twenty-five dollars ($25.00) of the fee collected to the North Carolina State Bar to regulate the practice of out-of-state attorneys as provided in this section.
Compliance with the foregoing requirements does not deprive the court of the discretionary power to allow or reject the application. (1967, c. 1199, s. 1; 1971, c. 550, s. 1; 1975, c. 582, ss. 1, 2; 1977, c. 430; 1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), c. 1022, s. 8; 1991, c. 210, s. 2; 1995, c. 431, s. 5; 2003-116, s. 1; 2004-186, s. 4.2; 2005-396, s. 1; 2007-200, s. 4; 2007-323, s. 30.8(k); 2021-60, s. 1.1; 2023-103, s. 12(c); 2025-19, s. 3.1.)
Notes of Decisions
Smith v. Beaufort Cnty. Hosp. Ass'n, Inc., 540 S.E.2d 775 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 86× “Gray initiated the suit on plaintiffs' behalf, and on the same date, he filed motions to have plaintiffs' counsel admitted pro hac vice pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-4.1 . The motions were heard ex parte before the Honorable Richard B.”
Goldston v. Am. Motors Corp., 392 S.E.2d 735 (N.C. 1990).
· cites it 18× “In Leonard , the subject matter of the appeal was to have been whether the trial court erred in its determination that the out-of-state counsel failed to meet the conditions precedent for admission pro hac vice set forth in N.C.G.S. § 84-4.1. "[P]arties do not have a right to be…”
Ge Betz, Inc. v. Conrad, 752 S.E.2d 634 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 12× “As to Dombroff, additional appellants argue that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his admission because the $1,000 fine imposed by a federal court in 1997 was not the type of “discipline” that needed to be disclosed under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-4.1 (2011). Section…”
North Carolina Nat'l Bank v. Virginia Carolina Builders, 299 S.E.2d 629 (N.C. 1983).
· cites it 7× “Epperly failed, however, to obtain the limited admission to practice in North Carolina afforded out-of-state attorneys under G.S. 84-4.1. Plaintiff filed a reply to defendant’s answer on 27 July 1979.”
In Re Contempt Proceeding of Smith, 272 S.E.2d 834 (N.C. 1981).
· cites it 9× “1 which reads as follows: Any attorney regularly admitted to practice in the courts of record of another state and in good standing therein, having been retained as attorney for any party to a legal proceeding, civil or criminal, pending in the General Court of Justice of North…”
Hill v. Hill, 638 S.E.2d 601 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 12× “The conditions under which an out-of-state attorney may be admitted to practice pro hac vice in this State are set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-4.1 (2005). Nothing in the record suggests that Ms.”
North Carolina Nat'l Bank v. Virginia Carolina Builders, Inc., 292 S.E.2d 135 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 20× “The legislature has fixed the conditions under which an out-of-state attorney may be admitted to practice pro hac vice in this State in G.S. § 84-4.1. The purpose of this statute is to afford the courts a means to control out-of-state counsel and to assure compliance with the…”
Reid v. Cole, 652 S.E.2d 718 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “The complaint was filed days before the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, but plaintiff's Ohio counsel had neither retained local counsel nor qualified under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 84-4.1 to appear in the action.”
State v. Hunter, 227 S.E.2d 535 (N.C. 1976).
· cites it 4× “G.S. 84-4.1 (1975 and 1975 Supp.) gives the conditions that must be met by out-of-state attorneys in order for them to be admitted to practice for limited purposes in North Carolina.”
Appeal of Stroh Brewery Co., 447 S.E.2d 803 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 8× “The County also argues that the Commission erred in granting Freedman’s motion to permit limited practice of an out-of-state attorney because the motion did not comply with the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-4.1 . In addressing this issue, we are assuming, without…”
In Re Bean, 511 S.E.2d 683 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 8× “The respondent’s *365 counsel, a member of the Florida bar, moved the trial court to allow him to appear pro hac vice, but did not associate local counsel for the hearing in conformance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-4.1 . Nevertheless, the trial court granted the motion.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-4.1(2) — 1 case
Smith v. Beaufort Cnty. Hosp. Ass'n, Inc., 540 S.E.2d 775 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000).
“Gray initiated the suit on plaintiffs' behalf, and on the same date, he filed motions to have plaintiffs' counsel admitted pro hac vice pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-4.1 . The motions were heard ex parte before the Honorable Richard B.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-4.1(5) — 2 cases
In Re Contempt Proceeding of Smith, 272 S.E.2d 834 (N.C. 1981).
“1 which reads as follows: Any attorney regularly admitted to practice in the courts of record of another state and in good standing therein, having been retained as attorney for any party to a legal proceeding, civil or criminal, pending in the General Court of Justice of North…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-4.1(6) — 3 cases
Ge Betz, Inc. v. Conrad, 752 S.E.2d 634 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013).
“As to Dombroff, additional appellants argue that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his admission because the $1,000 fine imposed by a federal court in 1997 was not the type of “discipline” that needed to be disclosed under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-4.1 (2011). Section…”
In Re Contempt Proceeding of Smith, 272 S.E.2d 834 (N.C. 1981).
“1 which reads as follows: Any attorney regularly admitted to practice in the courts of record of another state and in good standing therein, having been retained as attorney for any party to a legal proceeding, civil or criminal, pending in the General Court of Justice of North…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.