Judiciary Panel Debates Easing Bar Admissions at Appeals Courts

Federal judges warned that a proposal to streamline bar admissions rules across the appeals courts could make it harder to discipline attorneys, though lawyers raised concerns that some circuit requirements can burden nonprofits and firms.

The debate over the proposal came during a Wednesday meeting in Washington of the Judicial Conference’s advisory committee on appellate rules, which considers potential changes to rules governing the federal appeals courts.

It stemmed from a request by the National Women’s Law Center, a nonprofit that advocates for gender equality, for the committee to consider making bar admissions rules more uniform across the circuits. Disparate rules have left the nonprofit “scrambling” to call clerk’s offices to clarify procedures to list attorneys on amicus briefs, according to the nonprofit’s proposal.

Some judges on the committee worried that changing the rules to allow attorneys to sign onto briefs without being admitted to the circuit’s bar could limit courts’ ability to penalize lawyers who engage in misconduct in litigation, such as submitting briefs with citations hallucinated by artificial intelligence.

“You can’t discipline a lawyer who’s not a member of your bar, and that’s a very important aspect of bar admission to our circuit, and I think to every circuit,” said Senior Judge Sidney Thomas of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Senior Judge Richard Wesley of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit also said those on his court who are familiar with bar admissions would be “strongly opposed” to having a standard other than one the court itself crafted.

“The benefits from a uniform rule in no way, I think, outweigh abandoning the way we’ve been doing business currently,” Wesley said. “This is a decision that is decidedly local, and I think we should leave it at that.”

Wesley and Thomas also both noted that the process to be admitted to their respective circuit’s bars is relatively simple, involving a brief form with a few questions.

Still, several attorneys on the committee said not all circuits have such easy requirements for lawyers appearing on briefs, with some requiring certificates of good standing to be submitted that may come with fees.

It’s confusing to know what’s required for attorneys to be named on a brief in a given circuit, which can prompt a scramble in the days before a brief is filed, even for larger for-profit firms, said George Hicks, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis who focuses on Supreme Court and appellate litigation.

Judge Carl Nichols of the Washington federal trial court noted that in his court — though not an appeals court at issue — attorneys who want to be admitted must come to the court in person for a swearing-in ceremony. “Talk about an onerous requirement,” he said.

Linda Coberly, co-chair of Winston & Strawn LLP’s litigation practice, suggested that rather than shielding lawyers from having to be admitted to a circuit’s bar, the committee could look at the bar admissions requirements themselves.

“There are some bar requirements that are more strenuous and difficult and time consuming than others, and maybe that’s a place to look at uniformity,” she said.

The committee ultimately agreed to leave the issue on its agenda so it may “percolate” as other committees consider it. A separate panel is also considering if bar admissions rules should be streamlined across the federal district courts.

Over the course of the meeting, which spanned less than four hours, Judge Allison Eid of the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, who leads the committee, also announced the creation of a subcommittee to consider a separate proposal regarding requirements for tribes filing briefs.

The panel is next scheduled to meet in April 2026.