Comments on: Attorneys Defending Bar Requirements Say that Lawyer Must Violate Them To Bring a Challenge

By: Residency Requirements and the Virtual Law Practice « Virtual Law Practice

Residency Requirements and the Virtual Law Practice « Virtual Law Practice — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 01:26:25 +0000

[...] Exam. Law.com has a detailed article on the case and Carolyn Elefant over at MyShingle.com wrote a rousing post in support of this solo attorney’s [...]

By: Jimmy Whales

Jimmy Whales — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:44:58 +0000

I think its uncompetitive that these restrictions are in place. This is obviously a means to restrict competition from NJ Attorneys and others, who have been NY barred.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:09:57 +0000

I think Jeff and I agree in substance but are using the term “jurisdiction” in different senses.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:42:43 +0000

I agree with Carolyn wholeheartedly. The law is unfair and discriminatory. I also disagree with Bruce. Personal jurisdiction attaches so long as she conducts business in the state per NY’s Long Arm statute so there’s no reason to require her to associate with local counsel. I would guess though that they could require her to appoint a service of process agent with the secretary of state for service issues which is required of non-domestic businesses and would not be unfair.

By: Margaret Keavney

Margaret Keavney — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:40:37 +0000

I’m in NJ, and facing a similar problem with a NJ rule that is the opposite of the NY prohibition: A lawyer with an office in NY (or any other state) who is licensed in NJ can represent NJ clients. But a person who lives in NJ cannot represent clients in NJ without a full time physical office with full time employees.
Good luck Ms.Schoenefeld!

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:29:04 +0000

By: Bruce

Bruce — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:17:58 +0000

The only legitimate non-protectionist reason I can see for the law is to allow New York courts easily to exercise personal jurisdiction over the person of an attorney through physical presence for not only disciplinary matters but also civil matters (e.g. malpractice). A simple rule requiring all NY-barred lawyers to appoint, say, Bar Counsel or someone similar as resident agent for service of process for them would suffice.
I agree totally that ethics committees should not require attorneys to commit an actual violation of the law to challenge that law; while there is some very limited room in some state bar rules for attorneys to advise clients to violate statutes in good faith beliefs that those laws are illegal, that’s a pretty narrow window through which to crawl and ethics committees should not be forcing lawyers to jam through that general sort of window.
A lawyer’s commercial free speech is impugned by this rule and there is good case law holding that state residency requirements for attorneys are unconstitutional. I think Plaintiff actually has a pretty solid chance of prevailing.