The nine lawyers, six of whom were present today, represent the international Latham & Watkins firm and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

In his motion requesting the help from the outside attorneys, Mark Dorosin, the UNC center attorney, said the attorneys seeking admission into the case “bring particular and critical expertise to the representation of plaintiffs,” which include the UNC center, parents and guardians, the Halifax County Branch of the NAACP and Coalition for Education and Economic Security.

The UNC center will serve as local and co-lead counsel in the matter, the motion says, and has been “working with community leaders, residents and parents engaged in issues regarding schools and educational quality and equity in Halifax County for several years.”

Dorosin argues, however, the UNC center has only two attorneys and operates without a paralegal or litigation support.

“In seeking representation from pro hac vice admission of the lawyers from Latham and LCCR, plaintiffs and the center lawyers recognize that each organization brings specific experience and expertise to this litigation.”

Dorosin describes Latham as a global law firm with a deep commitment to and tradition of pro bono representation. “In 2014, the firm provided 170,000 hours of pro bono legal assistance at an estimated value of $105,000,000 in partnership,” with numerous organizations. “Latham's efforts have helped to vindicate the rights of children, veterans, people of faith and human trafficking.”

The firm has been recognized in litigation power rankings.

The LCCR, Dorosin wrote in his motion, seeks to “secure equal justice for all through the rule of law, targeting in particular the inequities confronting African-Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities.”

Dorosin said in his motion, and also in court, “The pro hac vice admissions will substantially aid in the efficient litigation of this case.”

Garris Neil Yarborough, the Fayetteville attorney the county hired to assist county Attorney Glynn Rollins in the case, said in the motion and in court, the case deals specifically with North Carolina law as well as the Leandro I and II cases.

Of the nine out-of-state attorneys, Yarborough's motion in opposition says, six are licensed in California; one in Oregon; one in New York and one in the District of Columbia. “There is a significant amount of North Carolina case law dealing with the various issues involved in pro hac vice admissions.”

Yarborough argues the current attorneys of record in the case are well-versed in North Carolina Constitutional law, “The North Carolina Constitution being the basis for their two claims for relief. In fact, the two North Carolina attorneys involved in the case are attorneys with the UNC Center Civil Rights, an organization well versed in suing local units of government in North Carolina on Constitutional issues.”

Yarborough noted, “It is hard to understand how attorneys from New York, California, Oregon and D.C., have the needed, substantive expertise to enable the current North Carolina attorneys of record to pursue this case in that it is based exclusively on North Carolina law and North Carolina factual issues.”

The attorney for the county believes if the UNC center's resources are inadequate, “then they can pursue assistance from their North Carolina colleagues.”

Yarborough said in his motion, “The plaintiffs are seeking attorney's fees is in this action. If the plaintiffs were to prevail on this issue, the county of Halifax, a plaintiff-acknowledged poor county, could be bankrupted for paying 11 attorneys.”

In what he called a piling on effect of having 11 attorneys, “The defendant might be held responsible for paying their airfare (or travel time) back and forth from California, Oregon, New York and D.C. The prospect of defending a lawsuit against 11 attorneys, particularly when legal fees and costs are sought, may have a chilling effect on a relatively poor county's determination to maintain the litigation, regardless of the county board of commissioners' position.”

The court, Yarborough noted, as well as the county, “Have already experienced the problem of coordinating the schedules of the plaintiff's two in-state attorneys and their nine out-of-state attorneys in even setting up this hearing on the nine out-of-state attorneys motion for admission pro hac vice. How much worse will it be to orchestrate hearings on substantive issues or as the case proceeds? How can 13 attorneys … and the court efficiently schedule anything?”

Judge Russell Duke said he would take the matter under advisement and come back with a ruling within the next 30 days.