Rule 15.Appearance and Withdrawal of Attorneys

REPORTER'S NOTES--2025 AMENDMENT: V.R.F.P. 15 is amended to delete subdivision (i) relating to the filing of an eCabinet registration number. With the advent of the electronic case management system, attorney eCabinet registration numbers have become obsolete.

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(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--2018 AMENDMENTS: 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.

REPORTER'S NOTES--2016 AMENDMENT: V.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)(1)(A) is amended to make applicable to relief-from-abuse actions under Rule 9 the provision that an attorney is deemed to have withdrawn after the time for appeal of a final judgment in the proceeding has run.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--2013 AMENDMENT: Because of the use of e-mail delivery of court-generated documents and notices pursuant to Administrative Order No. 45, it has become important that court staff have the unique identifiers of lawyers appearing in cases to send the notices and documents to the proper e-mail address or addresses. The necessary identifier is the eCabinet registration number assigned when the lawyer registered on the judiciary website to establish notification e-mail addresses. Note that a lawyer who practices from different offices can have more than one registration number. The amendment to this rule, and other filing rules, requires the lawyer to provide the unique identifier in the first filing in the case.

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.

REPORTER'S NOTES--2006 AMENDMENT: Rule 15(e) is amended simultaneously with an amendment to § 13 of Administrative Order No. 41, Licensing of Attorneys. A.O. 41 requires an attorney not admitted to practice in Vermont to file a pro hac vice licensing statement and pay the fee. This amendment authorizes the trial court to admit the attorney to practice in a particular action after the attorney has met the requirements of A.O. 41.

REPORTER'S NOTES: Rule 15 is added to make specific provisions for the appearance and withdrawal of attorneys, and for the appearance of parties pro se, in Family Court actions. The rule adapts the provisions of V.R.C.P. 79.1 to the needs of Family Court practice. Simultaneous amendments of Rules 2, 4 and 9 make clear that V.R.C.P. 79.1 no longer applies to actions covered by Rule 15. (Appearance and withdrawal in juvenile delinquency proceedings under Rule 1 will continue to be covered by V.R.Cr.P. 44.2). Rule 15(a) applies generally to appearances in the Family Court in proceedings under Rules 2, 3, 4 and 9. Rule 15(a)(1)(A) is derived from V.R.C.P. 79.1(a), revised to make clear that it applies to any party, whether represented or pro se, and whether formally appearing pro se pursuant to paragraph (a)(4) or deemed to have appeared pro se pursuant to subdivision (g). The entry of “pro se” on the docket serves the dual purpose of showing that the party is not in default and advising the opposing lawyer or party of the pro se status. The entry also may have the effect of making the pro se party more aware of that status. Rule 15(a)(1)(B) makes clear the administrative purpose of the entry of an appearance in accordance with the rule. The attorney whose name is entered, or the pro se party, is the individual upon whom all service required by V.R.C.P. 5 is to be made and to whom any other notices from the court or other parties are to be sent. Of course, if otherwise required by law, personal service must be made upon the party even though an attorney has entered an appearance. See, e.g., V.R.F.P. 4(j). The final sentence of subparagraph (B) means that, once withdrawal of an attorney's appearance has been granted or has otherwise taken effect pursuant to Rule 15(f), service on that attorney is no longer effective. If a new attorney does not enter an appearance, service must be made upon the party. Note that Rule 15(f)(4) requires a motion to withdraw to be accompanied by the party's last known address, and that Rule 15(g) provides that after withdrawal of an attorney's appearance, notice of the party's pro se status must be served on all other parties. Rule 15(a)(2) is virtually identical to V.R.C.P. 79.1(b), with the addition of a reference to motions, reflecting Family Court post-judgment practice. The effect of Rule 15(a)(2) is that the appearance occurs when the attorney files a signed pleading or motion, appears in open court on behalf of a party, or in lieu of either of the preceding steps files and serves a written notice of appearance. Note that an appearance in open court takes effect as of that moment. In such a case, the subsequent filing is merely for the purpose of providing a memorandum for docketing under Rule 15(a)(1) and assuring that the clerk and all parties have the attorney's current firm name and address. Rule 15(a)(3) is adapted from V.R.C.P. 79.1(c). Rule 15(a)(4) provides a procedure for an initial pro se appearance parallel to that provided for appearances by attorneys in paragraph (2). The third sentence reflects the greater burden imposed on clerks by the need to keep track of the addresses of pro se parties. To assist the pro se party in keeping the clerk up to date, and generally in complying with the procedural requirements of the Rules, the rule incorporates the practice of many family courts by requiring the clerk to provide a pro se party with information about those requirements and a change of address form. The entry of an appearance to serve the administrative purposes of Rule 15(a)(1)(B) may have a jurisdictional effect as well. Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2)-(4), an attorney for a defendant, or a pro se defendant, may make an initial appearance by filing a signed motion or answer as provided in V.R.C.P. 12(b), or by entering a written appearance under V.R.F.P. 4(d) to contest issues ancillary to a divorce. Any of these actions is a waiver of objections to jurisdiction of the defendant's person based on lack of minimum contacts with Vermont or lack of notice, unless such an objection is preserved by being asserted in a timely motion or answer. See V.R.C.P. 12(g), (h). Similarly, a plaintiff's attorney, or pro se plaintiff, by filing a signed complaint consents to jurisdiction of the person as to any adverse judgment that may result from a counterclaim or other action favoring the defendant. If an initial appearance by motion, answer, or written appearance as appropriate is not entered by an attorney or defendant pro se pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2)-(4), judgment by default may then be entered against that defendant pursuant to V.R.C.P. 55(b)(2) or (3) and after any hearing required in a divorce action by V.R.F.P. 4(d). In the absence of appearance, a jurisdictional objection may be raised collaterally as a defense to a separate action to enforce the judgment. If an initial appearance is entered, however, the defendant is protected against default for failure to appear. By virtue of Rules 15(f) and (g), the initial appearance continues to have that effect until the conclusion of the action even if an attorney withdraws. Of course, even when an initial appearance has been entered, a defendant may be defaulted for other procedural failures, such as not attending a case management conference or not presenting a defense at a dispositive motion hearing or trial. See V.R.C.P. 55(a), (b)(4), (6). Rule 15(a)(5) prohibits continuance of a scheduled hearing to secure counsel in the absence of extenuating circumstances. Those circumstances include lack of notice in advance of an abuse hearing that the opposing party will be represented as provided in Rule 9(h), lack of reasonable opportunity to secure counsel in other circumstances, and a situation in which necessary interim relief has already been awarded. The rule recognizes the prejudice that delay brings to parties that have appeared and the need for some incentive to encourage timely appearance of counsel for the benefit of the party and the court. Rule 15(b) sets forth the basic principle that, with limited exceptions, an appearance for a party in any action under Rule 4 is an appearance for that party in all related Family Court actions. The provision is consistent with the general purpose of the Rules to bring together all related family matters in a single proceeding. The exceptions set forth in subdivisions (c) and (d) recognize special circumstances characteristic of abuse prevention and child support proceedings. The intent of subdivision (b) is that an appearance in a Rule 4 action may not be for a limited purpose other than as provided in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2). Thus, any limitation of the scope of an appearance must be dealt with as a question of withdrawal under Rule 15(f). Rule 15(c) makes specific provision for a form of limited appearance in abuse prevention proceedings under Rule 9. When a lawyer appears only in the abuse proceeding, the appearance obligates the lawyer to appear in divorce or other Rule 4 proceedings between the same parties only in two situations. Under paragraph (1), if the Rule 4 action is filed after the abuse action and a temporary relief hearing under Rule 4 is consolidated with a final abuse hearing, the lawyer must represent the client for all purposes at that consolidated hearing. To be obligated for further representation in the Rule 4 action, the lawyer must file an appearance in that proceeding. Paragraph (2) provides that, if a Rule 4 action is pending when the abuse action is brought, the lawyer must appear in the Rule 4 action only if the abuse action may modify an order already entered in the Rule 4 action. Conversely, Rule 15(c)(3) provides, consistent with Rule 15(b), that a lawyer who has appeared in a divorce or other Rule 4 proceeding is obligated to represent the client in a subsequently filed abuse proceeding even when the client has filed the abuse action pro se. In such a case, the clerk after the entry of an order (including an order denying relief) must notify all counsel and parties of the pro se filing. It is the intent of paragraph (c)(3) that, in an emergency situation when counsel is not readily available, a represented litigant may file an abuse prevention action pro se. In such a case, the court will award the appropriate relief, the clerk will notify counsel and parties as provided in the rule, and counsel will be expected to appear at the hearing on the merits. Rule 15(d) is also consistent with Rule 15(b) in providing that, with one exception, an appearance in a divorce or other Rule 4 action obligates a lawyer to participate in all related child support hearings and other procedures. The exception permits a judge or magistrate for good cause to excuse a lawyer from a child support hearing where all required financial documentation has been filed, where lawyer and client jointly represent that the client wishes to appear pro se and understands the nature of the proceeding, and where all issues of parental rights and responsibilities have been dealt with by order or stipulation. To find good cause, the court should in addition be able to conclude that no prejudice to the client or burden on the court will result from the attorney's absence. Note that, by virtue of V.R.C.P. 6(a), the five-day period does not include intervening Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. Rule 15(e) is taken verbatim from V.R.C.P. 79.1(e). Rule 15(f) adapts and clarifies V.R.C.P. 79.1(f) with additions necessary for Family Court practice. Because of the continuing nature of Family Court jurisdiction in actions under Rule 4, Rule 15(f)(1)(A) provides that withdrawal is automatic after the expiration of the time for appeal from a final judgment in such an action. In other situations, as subparagraph (B) makes clear, withdrawal must be requested by motion. Rule 15(f)(1) requires notice of hearing to the client for any motion to withdraw except when the client cannot be found or substitute counsel has appeared. Rule 15(f)(2) provides for withdrawal as a matter of course, on motion and without notice and hearing, in two situations where neither the party nor the court has any reason to question the ground of withdrawal or require the continued participation of the withdrawing attorney. After final judgment and the running of the appeal period, withdrawal is to be allowed as of course in those cases where it is not automatic under subparagraph (1)(A). Withdrawal also is to be granted as a matter of course when a represented party files a pro se appearance or substitute counsel appears, unless the matter is one in which a final hearing has been scheduled. The rule also gives the court discretion to allow appointed counsel to withdraw without notice and hearing if the ground of withdrawal is a conflict of interest. A hearing will ordinarily not be necessary in such cases, because the grounds for withdrawal are clear on the face of the motion and essentially incontestable. Moreover, because counsel are appointed, the appearance of substitute counsel, which would permit withdrawal as of course under clause (B), cannot occur until after withdrawal has been granted. This provision will have its most frequent application in juvenile proceedings under 33 V.S.A., Chapter 55. Cf. Rule 6(c). Rule 15(f)(3) requires notice and hearing and a showing of good cause for withdrawal in the case of those two exceptions and in any other situation not expressly provided for in paragraph (2), such as an attorney's motion to withdraw because of a conflict of interest. To permit the court to protect both its own and the party's interests, leave to withdraw may be conditioned on terms such as the surrender of documents or the execution of particular responsibilities. For applications of the comparable good cause standard of V.R.C.P. 79.1(b), see Cameron v. Burke, 153 Vt. 565, 572 A.2d 1361 (1990); Chaker v. Chaker, 147 Vt. 548, 520 A.2d 1005 (1986). Rule 15(g) modifies V.R.C.P. 79.1(g) by requiring a substitute appearance within 15, rather than 30 days after notification of withdrawal. Given the heavy impact that a sanction for nonappearance would impose on pro se litigants, the rule also treats a party who is not represented by new counsel within the deadline as appearing pro se. No filing is necessary to protect such a party from default, and pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1) the clerk is to substitute the name of the party for that of the withdrawing attorney on the docket. As with a party making an initial pro se appearance, the clerk is to send the party who is deemed pro se under this rule information about the requirements that must be met by the pro se and a form for change of address. The purpose of the latter form is merely to provide information to the clerk. It is not a required formal appearance form.