- Published Articles
- In the Press
- Press Releases
Sign Up for Alerts
Sign up to receive receive industry-specific emails from our legal team.
Sign Up for Alerts
We provide tailored, industry-specific legal updates to our clients and other friends of the firm.
Areas of Interest
April 26th, 2016
Not Just a New York State of Mind: Nonresident Lawyers Must Have a Physical Office in New York
On Friday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit struck a blow to nonresident lawyers looking to practice in New York State. The Second Circuit ruled that Section 470 of New York State's Judiciary Law ("Section 470"), which requires nonresident lawyers to have a physical office in New York, does not violate the United States Constitution. The Second Circuit's decision comes as a surprise to many who were following the constitutional challenge, including us, when we reported on the case in a previous alert and predicted the Second Circuit would find, as the District Court had, that Section 470 violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
As it turns out, the reports of Section 470's imminent demise were grossly exaggerated. Here's what actually happened.
Some Background on Section 470
For a variety of reasons, many lawyers seek to practice in New York without having a physical office here. Some lawyers choose to practice "virtually" - conducting their business primarily over the Internet, rather than through a physical office - while other lawyers are simply located in neighboring states but are duly licensed to practice in New York. Whatever the reason, each has had to wrestle with Section 470, which requires all nonresident lawyers who practice in New York to maintain an "office for the transaction of law business" within the state.
Historically, the primary enforcement mechanism for Section 470 has been through motions to dismiss at the trial court level, based on an attorney's failure to maintain a physical office in New York. Until last year, however, New York State's highest court had not ruled on whether a bona fide physical office was required to comply with Section 470, or if something less, such as a post office box or agent for service of process, would satisfy the requirement.
The Constitutional Challenge to Section 470: Schoenefeld v. State of New York
Ekaterina Schoenefeld is a New Jersey resident who is licensed to practice law in both New York and New Jersey. She maintains an office in New Jersey, but not in New York. In April 2009, Ms. Schoenefeld filed an action in federal court challenging the constitutionality of Section 470. She argued that the physical office requirement violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which guarantees that the citizens of each state will be placed "upon the same footing with citizens of other States." Ms. Schoenefeld's position is that Section 470 treats out-of-state lawyers differently than resident lawyers, who are not subject to a law office requirement and, thus, can practice out of their homes. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York agreed with Ms. Schoenefeld, and held Section 470 violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
On appeal, the Second Circuit concluded that the constitutionality of Section 470 depended on the definition of an "office for the transaction of law business" within the statute. Observing that New York State's highest court had never ruled on that issue, the Second Circuit certified the question to the New York Court of Appeals. Responding to the certified question, the Court of Appeals ruled that Section 470 contained a physical office requirement, not merely an address for service of process. As indicated above, this ruling was viewed as the harbinger of death for Section 470, since it was generally believed that the Second Circuit would strike down a physical law office requirement.
The Second Circuit's Constitutionality Ruling
More than a year after receiving its answer from the Court of Appeals, the Second Circuit issued a 31-page decision, ruling that Section 470 "does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause because it was not enacted for the protectionist purpose of favoring New York residents in their ability to practice law." Rather, the Opinion states, Section 470 was enacted to permit nonresident lawyers to practice in the state, by allowing them to establish a physical presence in New York and, thus, a place where they can receive service of process. It is Ms. Schoenefeld, the Court opines, who seeks to be treated differently from New York lawyers who already have a physical presence in New York.
The Opinion was accompanied by a 25-page dissent from Judge Hall, which begins with a blistering attack on the ruling: "The majority holds that a New York state statute that discriminates, on its face, against nonresident attorneys - burdening them with the expense of maintaining an office in New York while exempting resident attorneys from the same requirement - does not offend the Privileges and Immunities Clause . . . because, in the majority's view, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the statute evinces a 'protectionist' intent." (emphasis added). The Dissent observes that the majority's holding improperly shifts the burden away from the state to provide a sufficient justification for laws that discriminate on their face against nonresidents. The Dissent notes that, although New York state's justifications for requiring a physical law office might have made sense in 1862 when the statute was enacted, they are no longer relevant in an age that offers numerous methods for service on nonresident attorneys, including "mail, overnight delivery, fax and (where permitted) email."
Opponents of Section 470 argue that its strict office requirement is inconsistent with the recent trend (both in New York and elsewhere) in favor of multijurisdictional practice. It is also out-of-step with recent ethics opinions from both the New York City and New York State Bar Associations, which conclude that lawyers are permitted under New York's ethics rules to use virtual law offices. Nonetheless, until the New York legislature or the United States Supreme Court say otherwise, nonresident lawyers wishing to practice in New York will first need to physically set up shop in the state.
If you have any questions about the requirements of practicing law in New York, or about other professional responsibility issues, please contact Ronald Minkoff at (212) 705 4837 or firstname.lastname@example.org, Nicole Hyland at (212) 826 5552 or email@example.com, John Harris at (212) 705 4823 or firstname.lastname@example.org, Richard Maltz at (212) 705 4804 or email@example.com, or Tyler Maulsby at (212) 705 4893 or firstname.lastname@example.org, or any other member of the Frankfurt Kurnit Legal Ethics & Professional Responsibility Group.
Other Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Alerts
ABA Opinion Limits Restrictions on Departing Partners
There’s important news for law firm leaders who have recently revised partnership and shareholder agreements to restrict partner departures. In ABA Formal Opinion 489, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility spells out new limits on notice periods, on rules governing communications with clients, and on so-called “ownership” of clients. Here’s what firm managers need to know to stay on the right side of the ethics rules. Read more.
February 6 2020
Frankfurt Kurnit’s Second Annual Litigation Ethics Summit - FKKS Ethics Game Show
To cap off the Second Annual Litigation Ethics Summit our panel challenged some brave audience members to participate in a contest of ethical wits. Read more.
October 30 2019
Frankfurt Kurnit’s Second Annual Litigation Ethics Summit - Aggressive Bargaining: The Legal and Ethical Boundaries of “Me Too”-era Settlements
On Thursday, October 24th Frankfurt Kurnit hosted its Second Annual Litigation Ethics Summit. The second panel of the day focused on the ethical and legal limits of aggressive bargaining in the settlement context, with a special focus on settlements of harassment and discrimination cases in the "Me Too"-era. Read more.
October 30 2019