H. RUSSEL HOLLAND, District Judge
On September 9, 1985, Jeffrey A. Dickstein applied to the court as a non-resident attorney for permission to appear and participate in the above-captioned case. Helen L. Simpson, a member of the bar of this Court, who maintains an office within the District of Alaska, joined in the application, consenting to act as local counsel. By order filed December 27, 1985, the Court called upon Mrs. Simpson to clarify her status as local counsel in this case. Mrs. Simpson complied by response filed January 7, 1986. That response informs the Court that Mrs. Simpson has "no authority from [Plaintiffs] to read and execute their pleadings."
As regards practice of non-resident counsel before this Court, Local General Rule 3(C)(2) provides:
An attorney thus permitted to appear may participate in a particular action or proceeding in all respects, except that all documents requiring signature of counsel for a party may not be signed solely by such attorney, but must bear the signature also of local counsel with whom associated.
Mrs. Simpson's response also states that she has never been retained as local counsel for the Plaintiffs.
It is now abundantly clear that there has been a fundamental misunderstanding — perhaps several fundamental misunderstandings — as regards Mr. Dickstein's application to appear as counsel for Plaintiffs in this case.
Mr. Dickstein's application for permission to appear in this case involved a modification of the Court's printed form so as to provide that he would appear "as co-counsel for Robert C. Donnell, Jr., and Cynthia E. Donnell, Plaintiff. . . . The Court took this to mean that Mr. Dickstein was appearing with Mrs. Simpson as co-counsel. It subsequently developed that Plaintiffs were under the impression that they could continue as pro se counsel as well as having Mr. Dickstein represent them. Such is not permitted. The Court's Local General Rule 3(F)(2) provides:
Whenever a party has appeared by counsel, such party may not thereafter appear or act in his own or her own behalf in the action. . . .
Although apparently a resident of this state, Mr. Dickstein does not maintain (and the Court surmises he is not entitled to maintain, since he evidently is not a member of the Alaska bar) an office for the practice of law in the State of Alaska. For convenience of the parties as regards serving papers and making contact with counsel so situated, the Court requires that counsel who do not have an office in the state maintain the functional equivalent through some local counsel who is a member of the bar of this Court. Based upon Mrs. Simpson's response, it appears that she has performed this function.
The Court's rule applying generally to non-resident attorneys (Rule 3(C)) serves not only the function of providing the functional equivalent of an office for non-resident counsel, it also is aimed at providing the Court with a measure of control over the conduct of practice before this Court by pro hac vice counsel. Through local counsel taking responsibility for pleadings as per the above-quoted rule and personal presence of local counsel when and if required by the Court, the Court maintains control over practice before it in a fashion which is not possible — at least not practically effective — unless a lawyer, subject to the jurisdiction of the bar association within the district, participates in and takes responsibility for non-resident counsel. Mr. Dickstein is in the posture of a non-resident attorney for purposes of Local General Rule 3(C) due to the fact that he is not admitted to the Alaska Bar Association.
While it appears that Mrs. Simpson may yet be in a position to act as a place of service and local contact point (or "office") for Mr. Dickstein, it is abundantly clear from Mrs. Simpson's response that she is not authorized and does not intend to take responsibility for pleadings filed with this court by Plaintiffs. Such is a fundamental element of acting as local counsel for non-resident counsel. Since Mrs. Simpson is not in a position to so do, Mr. Dickstein's application for permission to appear and participate in this case appears to have been improvidently granted. That permission is now withdrawn.