Many
lawyers
practice
law
in
different
geographic
areas
since
clients
might
have
legal
needs
in
different
jurisdictions
and
might
prefer
to
use
one
lawyer
for
all
of
their
legal
work. Moreover,
some
states
are
larger
than
others,
so
attorneys
that
practice
in
such
states
might
find
themselves
handling
cases
across
a
vast
territory. In
smaller
communities,
in
which
there
are
fewer
judges
and
local
lawyers,
judges
might
be
more
comfortable
with
the
attorneys
they
see
on
a
regular
basis
than
with
out-of-town
attorneys.
I
have
witnessed
a
few
situations
in
my
career
in
which
judges
and
court
officers
seemed
more
favorable
to
local
lawyers
rather
than
out-of-town
counsel. I
was
once
litigating
a
matter,
and
a
party
had
their
attorney
from
Texas
appear
in
the
case. This
lawyer
had
a
thick
southern
accent
which
stood
out
in
the
New
York
courtroom
in
which
we
were
conferencing
a
matter. The
judge
inquired
about
this
out-of-town
lawyer’s
accent
and
asked
where
this
lawyer
had
come
from. The
judge
mentioned
offhand
that
it
might
be
easier
to
use
local
counsel
for
this
case,
although
to
be
fair,
the
judge
might
have
just
been
thinking
about
the
cost
associated
with
flying
that
lawyer
to
court
appearances.
At
another
time
in
my
career,
I
was
tasked
with
traveling
about
250
miles
away
to
attend
a
lunch
for
lawyers
that
handle
certain
types
of
matters
in
a
city
distant
from
where
I
lived. The
judge
who
handled
such
cases
was
present
at
the
lunch,
and
lawyers
from
all
over
the
state
(and
surrounding
states)
were
at
the
lunch
since
they
handled
this
type
of
case
in
that
city. The
judge
remarked
at
one
point
that
the
legal
community
in
that
local
city
was
excellent
and
that
parties
might
consider
using
local
counsel
rather
than
out-of-town
lawyers
for
matters
in
that
area.
At
another
point
in
my
career,
I
encountered
court
staff
who
seemed
hostile
to
out-of-town
parties
and
counsel. The
court
staff
said
that
local
juries
and
judges
would
not
take
kindly
to
an
out-of-state
party
that
allegedly
caused
harm
to
a
local. If
I
remember
correctly,
the
court
staff
mentioned
that
due
to
my
accent,
it
would
be
easy
for
stakeholders
to
the
legal
process
to
see
I
was
not
from
that
area,
and
this
would
be
a
disadvantage
if
that
case
went
the
distance. Maybe
the
court
staffer
was
embellishing
our
disadvantages
to
try
to
force
a
settlement,
but
there
was
a
clear
message
that
out-of-town
lawyers
would
have
a
disadvantage.
One
time,
earlier
in
my
career,
we
handled
a
matter
on
the
east
coast
for
a
company
that
was
based
in
fly-over
country. We
worked
closely
with
that
company’s
regular
counsel,
who
was
also
based
in
the
middle
of
the
country. When
it
came
time
to
argue
an
important
motion,
my
boss
asked
this
company’s
regular
counsel
if
he
wanted
to
pro
hac
into
the
case
to
argue
the
matter. The
lawyer
said
that
because
of
his
thick
accent,
he
though
it
would
be
better
to
have
us
as
locals
argue
the
matter. Knowing
what
I
now
know
about
legal
practice,
I
can
understand
why
this
lawyer
tasked
us
with
handling
the
matter
since
we
were
local
to
the
region
in
which
this
case
was
venued.
Of
course,
most
judges
and
court
staff
value
all
lawyers
equally,
and
in
some
situations,
it
might
be
difficult
to
tell
if
a
lawyer
is
local
to
an
area. However,
I
have
also
seen
some
judges
and
court
staff
show
preference
for
local
lawyers,
and
the
judiciary
should
be
vigilant
to
prevent
this
whenever
possible.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at jordan@rothman.law.