During a product-liability case against Ford, Alabama attorneys Alan Thomas and Paul Malek were admitted to practice in Georgia pro hac vice. After Thomas made an inaccurate statement about Ford’s insurance coverage, the trial court declared a mistrial, cited alleged violations of professional-conduct rules, and revoked both attorneys’ admissions. The underlying case later settled, but the attorneys appealed the revocation order. The Georgia Court of Appeals held that they had standing because the order directly aggrieved their professional interests and was not moot merely because the underlying litigation had ended. A revocation based on dishonesty or bad faith could have continuing consequences for their careers. The court also held that due process required notice of the specific charges and a meaningful opportunity to respond before revocation. The attorneys had not been told until the written order that the court believed they violated particular conduct rules, so their opportunity to speak was inadequate. The court vacated the revocation order and remanded for notice and an opportunity to be heard. It also held that the trial court could consider the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct when deciding whether to revoke pro hac vice admission.