American College of Trust and Estate Counsel logo
title.gif

          
Infinite Menus, Copyright 2006, OpenCube Inc. All Rights Reserved.
          
ACTEC Law Journal
Commentaries
Engagement Letters
Serving As A Trustee
Tax Tables

American College of Trust and Estate Counsel
901 15th Street, N.W.
Suite 525
Washington, DC 20005

(202) 684-8460
(202) 684-8459 (fax)
<< Back to Table of Contents
ACTEC COMMENTARIES ON THE MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

(a)     A lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so.

(b)     A lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction shall not:

(1)    except as authorized by these Rules or other law, establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law; or

(2)    hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction.

(c)     A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services on a temporary basis in this jurisdiction that:

(1)    are undertaken in association with a lawyer who is admitted to practice in this jurisdiction and who actively participates in the matter;

(2)    are in or reasonably related to a pending or potential proceeding before a tribunal in this or another jurisdiction, if the lawyer, or a person the lawyer is assisting, is authorized by law or order to appear in such proceeding or reasonably expects to be so authorized;

(3)    are in or reasonably related to a pending or potential arbitration, mediation, or other alternative dispute resolution proceeding in this or another jurisdiction, if the services arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer's practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted to practice and are not services for which the forum requires pro hac vice admission; or

(4)    are not within paragraphs (c)(2) or (c)(3) and arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer's practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted to practice.

(d)     A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services in this jurisdiction that:

(1)    are provided to the lawyer's employer or its organizational affiliates and are not services for which the forum requires pro hac vice admission; or

(2)    are services that the lawyer is authorized to provide by federal law or other law of this jurisdiction.
The Unauthorized Practice of Law. A lawyer admitted to practice in one jurisdiction (an “admitted jurisdiction”) who provides legal services in another jurisdiction in which the lawyer is not admitted (a “non-admitted jurisdiction”) may violate the non-admitted jurisdiction's proscriptions against the unauthorized practice of law. If so, the lawyer is subject to discipline in both the admitted jurisdiction and the non-admitted jurisdiction. MRPC 8.5 (Disciplinary Authority; Choice of Law). Moreover, a lawyer guilty of the unauthorized practice of law in a non-admitted jurisdiction is subject to having the lawyer's legal services contract held void and unenforceable. Thus, a lawyer's adherence to a non-admitted jurisdiction's ethical rules will not only allow the lawyer to practice ethically, but it will also protect the lawyer's financial interest as well.
This Commentary provides ethical guidance to lawyers engaged in estate planning, estate administration, estate litigation, and collateral fields when their representation touches other jurisdictions in which the lawyer is not licensed to practice law.
Mandatory Conduct. Even though authorized by MRPC 5.5 to provide services in a nonadmitted jurisdiction, the lawyer remains subject to all other ethical provisions of the MRPC. In particular, pursuant to MRPC 1.1, the lawyer must provide competent representation regarding the laws and rules applicable in the non-admitted jurisdiction. MRPC 1.1 (Competence),
Although MRPC 5.5 and its Comments are silent regarding “informed consent,” MRPC 1.2(c) authorizes a lawyer to limit the scope of the lawyer's representation only with the client's “informed consent.” MRPC 1.2 (Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer). Under MRPC 5.5, a lawyer engaged in a multi-jurisdiction practice necessarily offers limited services in jurisdictions in which the lawyer is not admitted to practice law. Thus, if a lawyer intends to render services in or concerning a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is not admitted to practice law, the lawyer should obtain the client's informed consent to do so. See Commentary to MRPC 1.1 (Competence); MRPC 1.2(d) (limiting the scope of the lawyer's representation with client's informed consent).
Prohibited Conduct. Under paragraph (b)(2), “a lawyer who [has] not been admitted” to the practice of law in the jurisdiction “shall not . . . hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction.” This prohibition would apply even though the lawyer may be authorized to practice federal or state law in the non-admitted jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph (d)(2).
Impact of MRPC 5.5 (c) and (d). The addition of MRPC 5.5 (c) and (d) benefits all lawyers engaged in providing legal services that span state lines. However, the amended Rule especially benefits lawyers who provide transactional services, such as estate planning counsel. Prior to the amendment, a trial lawyer who was retained to represent a client in litigation in a non-admitted jurisdiction could do so by being admitted pro hac vice. There was no similar exception available to transactional lawyers. With the adoption of paragraph (c)(4) of MRPC 5.5, a transactional lawyer, in the circumstances described in that paragraph, may provide legal services in a non-admitted jurisdiction, as well as providing legal counsel regarding the laws of a nonadmitted jurisdiction.
In addition, MRPC 5.5 provides other means for a lawyer to provide legal services in a nonadmitted jurisdiction. If federal or state law expressly authorizes a lawyer to represent a client in a matter, MRPC 5.5 authorizes that representation in a non-admitted jurisdiction. Similarly, if a lawyer is involved in an alternative dispute resolution proceeding, MRPC 5.5 authorizes the lawyer to participate in the preparation for and in the proceeding in a non-admitted jurisdiction without violating MRPC 5.5.
The Practice of Law. Before a lawyer can be found to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, the lawyer must be engaged in the “practice of law.” Not only are there significant variations in how the various jurisdictions define the “practice of law,” most definitions are circular or amorphous. For example, under Oregon law, “[T]he practice of law means the exercise of professional judgment in applying legal principles to address another person's individualized needs through analysis, advice, or other assistance.” California courts define the “practice of law” as both “the doing and performing services in a court of justice in any matter depending therein throughout its various stages and in conformity with the adopted rules of procedure,” and as “legal advice and legal instrument and contract preparation, whether or not these subjects were rendered in the course of litigation.” Arizona relies on traditional concepts and examples for its definition:
[T]he practice of law [means] those acts, whether performed in court or in the law office, which lawyers customarily have carried out from day to day through the centuries.... Such acts include, but are not limited to, one person assisting or advising another in the preparation of documents or writings which affect, alter, or define legal rights; the direct or indirect giving of advice relative to legal rights or liabilities; the preparation for another of matters for courts, administrative agencies and other judicial and quasi-judicial bodies and officials as well as the acts of representation of another before such a body or officer. They also include rendering to another any other advice or services which are and have been customarily given and performed from day to day in the ordinary practice of members of the legal profession, either with or without compensation.
On the other hand, Utah enacted a very narrow statutory definition of the “practice of law” as: “appearing as an advocate in any criminal proceeding or before any court of record in this state [for another person]”, but it repealed the act before its effective date.
Given this diversity of definitions of the “practice of law,” a lawyer engaged in a multijurisdictional practice could review the laws of each of the jurisdictions to determine whether the services the lawyer is providing constitute the “practice of law” in those jurisdictions. However, the lawyer can avoid this study by simply assuming that any services the lawyer intends to provide will be the practice of law in each non-admitted jurisdiction and proceed accordingly.
Safe Harbors. A lawyer practicing in a non-admitted jurisdiction can obtain complete protection from a claim of unauthorized practice of the law by being admitted to practice law in that jurisdiction. In recognition of this, in passing the 2002 amendments to MRPC 5.5, the ABA further adopted a proposed Rule regarding admission of a practicing lawyer in another jurisdiction by motion made to the courts of the local jurisdiction. See ABA Report to the House of Delegates, No. 201F. Subject to length of service, good character, and other qualifications, states were encouraged to allow active lawyers in other jurisdictions to be admitted to practice in the local jurisdiction by motion. Several states have entered into compacts allowing active lawyers in any of the states to be admitted to practice law in the others provided certain conditions are met. See Idaho Bar Comm'n R. 204A; Or. R. Adm. Attys. 15; Wash. Adm. Prac. R. 18 (Idaho, Oregon, and Washington); see also N.H. Sup. Ct. R. 42(11); Vt. Sup. Ct. R. Adm. Bar 7(e) (New Hampshire and Vermont, with Maine agreeing to join the compact effective January 1, 2005).
A lawyer may also choose to associate counsel in the non-admitted jurisdiction. MRPC 5.5(c)(1). By doing so, the lawyer gains a similar, though not as expansive, safe harbor in which to practice. This safe harbor is only available when the legal services the lawyer provides in the non-admitted jurisdiction are provided on a “temporary basis.” See Threshold Requirement under MRPC 5.5(c): Temporary Basis below. In addition, the associated counsel must “actively participate” in the matter. Active participation is not defined in the Rule or the comments. Lawyers providing estate counseling services in a non-admitted jurisdiction would meet this second requirement by associating local counsel for such matters as deed preparation, will execution formalities, and similar services.
Threshold Requirement under MRPC 5.5(c): Temporary Basis. If a lawyer desires to practice law in a non-admitted jurisdiction, MRPC 5.5(c) provides that the lawyer “may provide legal services on a temporary basis.” The term “temporary basis” is not defined in the Rule. As noted in Comment 6 to Rule 5.5: “There is no single test to determine whether a lawyer's services are provided on a 'temporary basis' in this jurisdiction, and may therefore be permissible under paragraph (c). Services may be 'temporary' even though the lawyer provides services in this jurisdiction on a recurring basis, or for an extended period of time, as when the lawyer is representing a client in a single lengthy negotiation or litigation.” Thus, Comment 6 suggests a liberal interpretation of “temporary basis.” This is particularly important for estate lawyers practicing in close proximity to another state. For example, a Chicago lawyer providing estate counseling for Illinois clients is likely to find multiple occasions to analyze and opine on the laws of Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, and Michigan regarding titling, tax, and similar issues. In addition, the Chicago lawyer may need to prepare deeds and other documents according to the laws of one or more of these jurisdictions. Provided the Chicago lawyer otherwise complies with paragraph (c), the lawyer's legal services regarding the surrounding non-admitted jurisdictions would constitute practicing law in those jurisdictions on a “temporary basis.”
On the other hand, a lawyer who is engaged to provide estate planning services by clients in a non-admitted jurisdiction and makes personal visits to those clients on a recurring basis should be cautious in relying upon MRPC 5.5(c). While Comment 6 might lead the courts in the nonadmitted jurisdiction to interpret “temporary basis” broadly, the comments are not binding. Thus, a lawyer in such circumstances should consider the desirability of joining the non-admitted jurisdiction's bar.
Legal Services Reasonably Related to the Lawyer's Transactional Practice. Subject to the “temporary basis” threshold requirement, under paragraph (c)(4), a lawyer may provide legal services in a non-admitted jurisdiction that arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer's practice in an admitted jurisdiction. Comment 14 states that a variety of factors may establish that the services performed are reasonably related to the lawyer's practice in the admitted jurisdiction. For example, a lawyer provides estate planning services for a client in the lawyer's admitted jurisdiction. The client then moves to a non-admitted jurisdiction. The lawyer may continue to provide estate planning services for the client. Similarly, where a client retains the lawyer to represent the client in a fiduciary administration and the admitted jurisdiction is the natural situs for administration, the lawyer could provide legal services for ancillary administrations in non-admitted jurisdictions.
Where the lawyer has developed a recognized expertise in federal, nationally-uniform, foreign or international law, Comment 14 suggests that the lawyer's practice in non-admitted jurisdictions will be considered reasonably related to the lawyer's practice in the lawyer's admitted jurisdiction. For example, a lawyer with recognized expertise in retirement planning, charitable planning, estate and gift tax planning, or international estate planning may be able to practice in non-admitted jurisdictions. Because the comments are not binding, a lawyer who intends to rely on this analysis should consider seeking an opinion of the non-admitted jurisdiction's bar association. In addition, since this exception is based on “recognized expertise,” a lawyer who chooses to rely on this exception should take steps to insure that the lawyer is recognized as an expert. These steps could include: obtaining certification as a specialist in those jurisdictions offering such programs; participating actively in bar sections related to the lawyer's expertise; participating in national associations of lawyers related to the lawyer's expertise; writing scholarly articles; teaching; participating in seminars and panel discussions; or any other activity that demonstrates the lawyer's expertise.
Legal Services Regarding Litigation and ADR. Subject to the “temporary basis” threshold requirement, paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) expand the situations in which lawyers may render services in a non-admitted jurisdiction regarding litigation and alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”). Regarding trials, preliminary work in preparation for the trial is acceptable provided the lawyer is either authorized to appear or reasonably expects to be so authorized. Thus, a lawyer asked to assist or handle estate litigation could investigate the underlying facts, meet with and counsel clients, and provide related services, provided the lawyer reasonably expected to be admitted pro hac vice. While this exception is available to allow the lawyer to investigate the matter before seeking admission, the lawyer should not rely on the exception except where necessary. Instead, the lawyer should seek and obtain admission pro hac vice at the earliest opportunity. MRPC 5.5(c)(2).
On the other hand, the exception for ADR applies only when the non-admitted jurisdiction does not require admission pro hac vice to participate in the ADR and the lawyer's services “arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer's practice” in an admitted jurisdiction. MRPC 5.5(c)(2). If admission pro hac vice is required to participate in the ADR, then the lawyer must comply with MRPC 5.5(c)(2). Where admission pro hac vice is not required, the lawyer may provide legal services in the non-admitted jurisdiction regarding the client's ADR provided those legal services are “reasonably related” to the lawyer's practice in an admitted jurisdiction. Like litigation, a lawyer engaged to assist a client's efforts to resolve estate litigation in a nonadmitted jurisdiction through ADR may provide legal services both in preparation for ADR and during ADR.
While paragraph (c)(3) is silent regarding whether this exception would apply to settlement negotiations alone, logically a lawyer should be able to assist a client with settlement negotiations in a non-admitted jurisdiction if the lawyer could assist the client with ADR. Although silent regarding this matter, paragraph (c)(3) does apply to both “pending” and “potential” ADR. Since every settlement negotiation could “potentially” lead to ADR, a lawyer may rely on (c)(3) to authorize participation in settlement discussions alone. If a lawyer is asked to represent a client in settlement negotiations regarding estate litigation in a non-admitted jurisdiction, the lawyer should consider specifically raising the possibility of “potential ADR” in written communications with the client.
Other Legal Services on a Temporary Basis. While the language of paragraph (c) appears to state all of the exceptions available to a lawyer seeking to practice law in a non-admitted jurisdiction on a “temporary basis,” Comment 5 specifically provides: “The fact that conduct is not [stated in (c)(1) through (4)] does not imply that the conduct is or is not authorized.” Comment 5 to MRPC 5.5, emphasis added. Given the diversity of legal services that can be offered in estate planning and administration matters, there may be other situations in which a lawyer may provide legal services in a non-admitted jurisdiction or concerning the laws of a nonadmitted jurisdiction not expressly covered in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4). In analyzing whether the lawyer may act on a “temporary basis” with regard to the requested services, the lawyer should consider whether or not the “circumstances . . . create an unreasonable risk to the interests of their clients, the public or the courts.” Comment 5 to MRPC 5.5. If the lawyer can demonstrate that there is no unreasonable risk, the lawyer may proceed with the requested representation on a “temporary basis.” In any event, the lawyer should consider seeking an opinion of the non-admitted jurisdiction's bar counsel.
Legal Services Authorized by Federal or State Law. A lawyer providing legal services regarding estate planning and administration often represents clients in disputes with the IRS. A lawyer “may practice before the Internal Revenue Service by filing with the Internal Revenue Service a written declaration that he or she is currently qualified as an attorney and is authorized to represent the party or parties on whose behalf he or she acts.” 31 CFR §10.3; see generally 31 CFR Part 10, §10.0 et seq. (published as a pamphlet as Treasury Department Circular No. 230).
In addition, a lawyer may practice before the United States Tax Court by complying with its requirements for admission. Tax Court Rule 24. Pursuant to paragraph (d)(2) of MRPC 5.5, a lawyer who is authorized to practice before the IRS or the Tax Court would be able to practice in any non-admitted jurisdiction adopting MRPC 5.5(d)(2). Moreover, unlike MRPC 5.5(c), there is no requirement that the practice in the non-admitted jurisdiction be on a “temporary basis.” In addition, states adopting MRPC 5.5(d)(2) may have state rules regulating practice before a state administrative tribunal, such as a tax commission, or an administrative law judge, that would authorize a lawyer admitted in another jurisdiction to practice before the commission or administrative law tribunal in the non-admitted state.
While the text of MRPC 5.5(d)(2) appears expressly to permit multijurisdictional practice in these circumstances, given the ease with which a lawyer can qualify to practice before the Tax Court or the IRS, the lawyer should consider seeking an opinion of the non-admitted jurisdiction's bar counsel.
When authorized by federal or state law, including authorizations by “statute, court rule, executive regulation or judicial precedent,” the lawyer “may establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in [the non-admitted] jurisdiction for the practice of law . . ..” MRPC 5.5, Comments 18 and 15. For example, a lawyer in South Carolina might be able to practice full-time in Georgia (Georgia having adopted MRPC 5.5(d)(2)) if the practice were limited to handling tax appeals with the IRS and tax court litigation. However, the lawyer must take steps not to mislead potential clients about the lawyer's right to practice generally in Georgia. MRPC 5.5(b)(2); see also Advertising and Websites below.
Advertising and Websites. A lawyer engaged in a multijurisdictional practice should consider whether the lawyer advertises the lawyer's services in non-admitted jurisdictions. Continuous advertising in non-admitted jurisdictions regarding legal services (other than those services authorized to be provided by federal or state law in the non-admitted jurisdiction) would constitute the “unauthorized practice of law” based on paragraph (b)(2). Advertising on national radio and television stations, in national newspapers, in national magazines, and in other national publications, even if directed primarily at potential clients in the lawyer's admitted jurisdiction, will also reach potential clients in non-admitted jurisdictions. In addition, the majority of lawyers engaged in multijurisdictional practices have websites providing information about the lawyers, including representative clients, fields of expertise, and other relevant information. By their nature, websites offer opportunities for a lawyer to communicate with potential clients in non-admitted jurisdictions. Thus, pursuant to paragraph (b)(2), if a lawyer uses any advertising that has a potential audience beyond the lawyer's admitted jurisdictions, the lawyer's advertising should clearly state that the lawyer is admitted in only those jurisdictions in which the lawyer is a member of the state bar and not in any other jurisdictions.
Fundamentally, MRPC 5.5 is based on the premise that certain types of multijurisdictional practices are acceptable because there is no “unreasonable risk to the interests of [the lawyer's] clients, the public or the courts.” Comment 5 to MRPC 5.5. When it comes to advertising, however, Comment 21 expressly provides: “Paragraphs (c) and (d) do not authorize communications advertising legal services to prospective clients in this jurisdiction by lawyers who are admitted to practice in other jurisdictions. Whether and how lawyers may communicate the availability of their services to prospective clients in this jurisdiction is governed by Rules 7.1 to 7.5.” Comment 21 to MRPC 5.5.
The provisions of MRPC 7.1 through MRPC 7.5 contain several provisions that affect a lawyer engaged in advertising concerning a lawyer's multijurisdictional practice. First, MRPC 7.1 directs the lawyer “not to make false or misleading” representations or “omit a fact” necessary to prevent the communication from being “materially misleading.” MRPC 7.1 (Communication Concerning a Lawyer's Services). Second, MRPC 7.3(c) requires advertising to include the words “advertising material” on the outside of the envelope of any correspondence and at the beginning and the ending of any electronic material. MRPC 7.3 (Direct Contact with Prospective Clients). It is unclear whether this requirement applies to a lawyer's or law firm's website. A website differs from traditional advertising since it requires the potential client to search for the website. On the other hand, a website can be a passive source of information about the lawyer and the lawyer's practice or a fully integrated document generation system selling forms and services. Third, a lawyer may identify those areas in which the lawyer practices, such as estate planning, estate administration or estate litigation; however, unless certified by a state, state bar, the American Bar Association or an organization otherwise authorized to certify specialties under state or federal law, the lawyer may not imply that the lawyer is certified as a specialist in a practice area. Comment 3 to MRPC 7.4 (Communication of Fields of Practice and Specialization).
If a lawyer providing estate legal services has a website, the lawyer should take steps to protect potential clients, the public, and the courts from any unreasonable risk. At a minimum, the website should identify the lawyer or each lawyer in the law firm and each lawyer's admitted jurisdictions. While a passive website may not be considered advertising, a lawyer should consider identifying the website as “advertising materials.” A lawyer should also consider including a disclaimer indicating that the lawyer is not offering any legal services or advice through the website.
Although an interactive website providing estate document preparation and related services may be financially attractive, the lawyer should recognize that the risk to the public is substantially greater, as is the likelihood a non-admitted state would begin disciplinary proceedings. In addition, unhappy “customers” might seek to recover payments by arguing that the contract for services rendered is void.
ANNOTATIONS
See Caveat to Annotations
(Limiting the Scope and Purpose of the Annotations)
Cases
California:
Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C., et al., v. Superior Court, 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 304 (1998). The Supreme Court of California here held that New York law firm was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in California and disallowed firm's recovery of legal fees for all services rendered which constituted the practice of law in California. None of the attorneys in the New York law firm was a member of the California Bar.
Estate of Condon, 76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 922 (Ct. App. 1998). The court here held that an out-of-state (Colorado) co-executor reasonably chose Colorado counsel to handle the California-based estate of his decedent where firm chosen did business where out-of-state executor lived and had prepared the decedent's estate plan; and held further that the California Probate Code did not proscribe compensation for such attorneys. Furthermore, the court ruled, California's statutes proscribing the unauthorized practice of law in California did not proscribe an award of attorney fees to an out-of-state attorney for services rendered to an out-of-state client regardless of whether or not the attorney was either physically or virtually present within California.
Colorado:
People v. Laden, 893 P.2d 771 (Colo. 1995). Attorney received public censure for aiding nonlawyers in the practice of law by assisting them in selling living trust document packages from out of state.
Kansas:
In Re Flack, 33 P.3d 1281 (Kan. 2001). An attorney was suspended for two years for assisting a company that marketed estate planning services. The company's employees were non-lawyers, and the attorney exercised little or no supervision over the company representatives. The attorney was assisting the non-lawyers in the authorized practice of law and sharing legal fees with the non-lawyers. The attorney also failed to maintain a direct relationship with the client and provide reasonably necessary explanations to the client.
Maine:
Smith v. Brannan, 2002 WL 1974069 (Me. Super. 2002) An out-of-state estate planning attorney argued that Maine's courts had no jurisdiction over her in a case where the complainant claimed that the lawyer had tortiously interfered with a devisee's expectancy interest. The Maine Superior Judicial Court held that Maine courts did have jurisdiction under Maine's long arm statute since: (1) the testator's will had specifically provided that it be interpreted under Maine law; (2) the testator had both tangible personal property and intangible property in Maine when he died in Maine and was a Maine resident; (3) the complainant's welfare as a widow residing in Maine is of state interest; (4) a Maine lawyer participated in the drafting of the amendments to the testator's estate plan in conjunction with the defendant; and (5) if the tort occurred as alleged, it would have an effect on the welfare of a Maine resident and the administration of a Maine estate. Therefore, the court held, Maine has a legitimate interest in the subject matter, the defendant reasonably could have anticipated litigation in Maine, and the exercise of jurisdiction by Maine courts “comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
South Carolina:
Doe v. Condon, 532 S.E.2d 879 (S.C. 2000). A paralegal's proposed activities were held to constitute the unauthorized practice of law, and the proposed fee arrangement violated the prohibition against fee-splitting. A paralegal employed by an attorney was denied the right to conduct seminars on wills and trusts without the attorney being present. Conducting meetings with clients to answer specific estate planning questions without supervision of the attorney was the unauthorized practice of law. Meaningful attorney supervision must be present throughout the process. This case was presented as a request for declaratory judgment by the petitioner paralegal.
Wisconsin:
In re Strasburg, 577 N.W.2d 1 (Wis. 1998). While suspended from the practice of law, the suspended attorney continued to engage in the practice of law and misrepresented to clients that he was an attorney. He continued to operate a business, providing advice for qualification for Medicaid benefits and preparing legal documents including trusts, powers of attorney and living wills. The business did not employ a licensed attorney to review documents prepared by the suspended attorney or his staff. The fact that the attorney refused to cease the unauthorized activities after the suspension was determined to be contempt of the court. The attorney's license to practice law (previously suspended) was revoked.
Ethics Opinions
Florida:
Ethics Opinion 24894 (2003). Florida attorney sought an ethics opinion concerning the appropriate response he should give to out-of-state counsel who wrote demand letters and other correspondence to the Florida's attorney's clients. The communications indicated that the out-of-state attorney was giving advice about Florida law. The Florida attorney refused to communicate with the non-Florida attorney and requested that a Florida attorney be retained to handle the issue. Opinion found that the Florida attorney acted appropriately in alerting out-of-state practitioner to avoid the unlicensed practice of law. In subsequent correspondence, the Division Director clarified its position for the Florida Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section and advised that a Florida attorney is not prohibited from reviewing documents, such as real estate or estate planning documents, drafted by out-of-state attorneys.
Missouri:
Informal Advisory Op. 930172 (1993). This opinion is discussed in the Annotations following the ACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.6.
New Mexico:
Op. 2001-1 (2001). This opinion is discussed in the Annotations following the ACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.2.
<< Back to Table of Contents