I therefore conclude from a review of the case law that the extravagance of retaining out-of-town counsel when competent local counsel are available should be viewed as being expenses or costs that should not be borne by the unsuccessful litigant but there may be circumstances, as the court found in Moore v. Dhillon, where the retention of out-of-town counsel should be a cost to which the successful party is appropriately indemnified.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.