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

By: Thisisthetruth

Thisisthetruth — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:28:00 +0000

April 15, 2011 Decision: Judge Fried Rules to Dismiss Bruce Baldinger’s (NJ Lawyer) Lawsuit Sua Sponte for violating 470. June 15, 2011 Motion for Sanctions for allegedly violating that order. On April 15, 2011 NY State Supreme Court Judge, Honorable Bernard Fried [dismissed] a $10,000,000 (presumably frivolous) complaint that Bruce Baldinger (NJ atty) brought in the Supreme Court of the State of NY, County of New York (Case # 650945-11) on the grounds that Bruce Baldinger was in violation of NY Judiciary Law 470 which states: New York Judiciary – Article 15 – § 470 Attorneys Having Offices in This State May Reside in Adjoining State § 470. Attorneys having offices in this state may reside in adjoining state. A person, regularly admitted to practice as an attorney and counsellor, in the courts of record of this state, whose office for the transaction of law business is within the state, may practice as such attorney or counsellor, although he resides in an adjoining state. Further, in Rosenshein v. Ernstoff I found: “It is the policy of the State of New York to foster the availability of a wide range of professional services by lawyers qualified to render them” ( New York Criminal & Civ. Cts. Bar Assn. v Jacoby, 61 NY2d 130, 136). To this end, residents of adjoining States may appear as attorneys in New York courts if they are duly admitted to the New York bar and if they maintain an “office for the transaction of law business… within the [S]tate [of New York]” (Judiciary Law § 470; see, Rosenshein v Ernstoff, 176 AD2d 686). Despite Judge Fried’s April 15, 2011 Order, Bruce Baldinger presumably ignored it and attempted to obtain a Default Judgment in favor of $10,000,000 for his client. As a result of the alleged fraud upon the court there, on June 15, 2011 the attorney for the Defendant, Michael Sprei, Esq. made a formal Motion to Sanction Bruce Baldinger for his blatant disregard of the Judge’s Order in that instant.

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: Jimmy Whales

Jimmy Whales — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:44:00 +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: Bruce

Bruce — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:09:00 +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: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:42:00 +0000

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: Margaret Keavney

Margaret Keavney — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:40:00 +0000