Remote Practice Opinions

ABA Formal Opinion 495

Lawyers may remotely practice the law of the jurisdictions in which they are licensed while physically present in a jurisdiction in which they are not admitted if the local jurisdiction has not determined that the conduct is the unlicensed or unauthorized practice of law and if they do not hold themselves out as being licensed to practice in the local jurisdiction, and do not provide or offer to provide legal services in the local jurisdiction. This practice may include the law of their licensing jurisdiction or other law as permitted by ABA Model Rule 5.5(c) or (d), including, for instance, temporary practice involving other states’ or federal laws. Having local contact information on websites, letterhead, business cards, advertising, or the like would improperly establish a local office or local presence under the ABA Model Rules.

ABA Formal Opinion 498

The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct permit virtual practice, which is technologically enabled law practice beyond the traditional brick-and-mortar law firm. When practicing virtually, lawyers must particularly consider ethical duties regarding competence, diligence, and communication, especially when using technology. In compliance with the duty of confidentiality, lawyers must make reasonable efforts to prevent inadvertent or unauthorized disclosures of information relating to the representation and take reasonable precautions when transmitting such information. Additionally, the duty of supervision requires that lawyers make reasonable efforts to ensure compliance by subordinate lawyers and nonlawyer assistants with the Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically regarding virtual practice policies

California Formal Op. Interim No. 20-0004 (2021)

Remote practice does not alter a lawyer’s ethical duties under the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Bar Act. Lawyers and law firms should implement reasonable measures, policies, and practices to ensure continued compliance with these rules in a remote working environment, with a particular focus on the duties of confidentiality, technology competence, communication, and supervision.

Bar Association of San Francisco, Opinion 2021-1

A lawyer who is not licensed in California, and who does not advertise or otherwise hold himself or herself out as a licensed California lawyer, does not establish an office or other systematic or continuous presence for the practice of law in California, and does not represent a California person or entity, but is merely physically present in California while using modern technology to remotely practice law in compliance with the rules of the jurisdiction where the lawyer is licensed, should not be held in violation of California’s Unauthorized Practice of Law (“UPL”) rule and laws . . . . If such a lawyer does represent a California person or entity, whether the lawyer violates the UPL rule and laws will depend on the nature of the representation, whether the representation complies with the regulations of the jurisdiction where the lawyer is licensed, the role of other California lawyers in the representation, and other factors relevant to whether the California client is protected consistent with the purpose of the UPL rule and laws.

A lawyer who is licensed to practice law in California, but who resides in another jurisdiction where the lawyer is not licensed while continuing to remotely practice law under the lawyer’s California license, must adhere to California’s rules and law as required to maintain a California law license and must also comply with the applicable regulations of the jurisdiction where the lawyer resides but is not licensed. A California lawyer who fails to comply with that jurisdiction’s UPL regulations could be at risk for criminal and/or civil liability and could also be at risk for discipline for violation of CRPC Rule 5.5(a).

Delaware DSBA PEC Opinion 2021-1

The Committee concludes that lawyers licensed in Delaware (the “licensing jurisdiction”) may ethically engage in the practice of Delaware law, for clients with Delaware matters, while physically present in another jurisdiction in which they are not admitted (“local jurisdiction”) unless a statute, rule, case law, or opinion of the local jurisdiction prohibits the conduct, provided that such lawyers may not hold themselves out as being licensed to practice in the local jurisdiction and may not advertise or otherwise hold themselves out as having an office in the local jurisdiction, or provide or offer to provide legal services for matters subject to the local jurisdiction, unless otherwise authorized.

DC Bar Op 24-20

…an attorney who is not a member of the District of Columbia bar may practice law from the attorney’s residence in the District of Columbia under the “incidental and temporary practice” exception of Rule 49(c)(13) if the attorney (1) is practicing from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) maintains a law office in a jurisdiction where the attorney is permitted to practice; (3) avoids using a District of Columbia address in any business document or otherwise holding out as authorized to practice law in the District of Columbia, and (4) does not regularly conduct in-person meetings with clients or third parties in the District of Columbia.

Florida Advisory Opinion FAO #2019-4

It is the opinion of the Standing Committee that [a lawyer] who simply establishes a residence in Florida and continues to provide legal work to out-of-state clients from his private Florida residence under the circumstances described in this request does not establish a regular presence in Florida for the practice of law. Consequently, it is the opinion of the Standing Committee that it would not be the unlicensed practice of law for… a Florida domiciliary employed by a New Jersey law firm (having no place of business or office in Florida), to work remotely from his Florida home solely on matters that concern federal intellectual property rights (and not Florida law) and without having or creating a public presence or profile in Florida as an attorney.

Maine Ethics Opinion 189 (2005)

…we conclude that the mere fact that an attorney, not admitted in Maine, is working in Maine does not automatically mean that the attorney is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. For example, an out-of-state layer who has a vacation home in Maine might bring work to Maine to complete while on vacation. Where the lawyer’s practice is located in another state and where the lawyer is working on office matters from afar, we would conclude that the lawyer is not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. We would reach the same conclusion with respect to a lawyer who lived in Maine and worked out of his or her home for the benefit of a law firm and clients located in some other jurisdiction. In neither case has the lawyer established a professional office in Maine, established some other systematic and continuous presence in Maine, held himself or herself out to the public as admitted in Maine, or even provided legal services in Maine where the lawyer is working for the benefit of a non-Maine client on a matter focused in a jurisdiction other than Maine. As another example, an out-of-state lawyer who is a member of a law firm with offices in a number of states, including Maine, may occasionally work in the Maine office providing legal services to Maine clients in association with other lawyers in the firm who are admitted to practice in Maine. When this is done on a temporary basis, we would conclude that the lawyer is not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

In re Application of Cedar P. Carlton, 708 F. Supp. 2d 524 (D. Md. 2010)

In recent years, the concept of a “principal law office” has evolved somewhat as a result of significant advances in technology which provide an attorney with the flexibility to carry out a variety of activities at different locations and under varying circumstances. The term does not necessarily mean continuous physical presence but, at a minimum, it requires some physical presence sufficient to assure accountability of the attorney to clients and the court. Under the circumstances described by Ms. Carlton . . . her office is the office of her employer . . . the address utilized in pleadings, correspondence with clients, letterhead and other matters is also the address of her employer, which maintains a substantial physical presence in Washington, D.C. When meetings with clients are required, Ms. Carlton does meet with them in Washington, D.C. Her client files . . . are all located in Washington, D.C. . . . The circumstances involving Ms. Carlton are no different than that of any attorney who may telecommute from home, but who maintains a physical presence in the jurisdiction of licensure consistent with the letter of the factors set forth in Rule 701.1(e).

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Dawn R. Jackson, Miscellaneous Docket AG No. 9, September Term, 2020

This attorney grievance matter involves an attorney who is licensed in the District of Columbia and not in Maryland. The attorney is a partner in a law firm that employs Maryland attorneys. In 2014, the attorney moved the law firm’s office from the District of Columbia to Maryland. In 2015, the Office of Bar Counsel met with the attorney in her office and made specific recommendations for maintaining an office in Maryland. Three and one-half years later, after receiving an anonymous complaint, the Attorney Grievance Commission opened an investigation into the attorney’s alleged unauthorized practice of law. Although the Court of Appeals concluded that the attorney violated the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) 19-305.5, the Court determined that, given the significant and unusual mitigating factors that were present in this case, it would impose no sanction and that dismissal of the proceeding was appropriate.

Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-03

Rule 4-5.5(b)(1) prohibits a layer from establishing an “office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law.” That includes the practice of law of State A from Missouri. Lawyer does not meet any of the exceptions in 4-5.5(c) and is required to seek admission in Missouri. 

Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-02

Rule 4-5.5(b)(1) prohibits a lawyer from establishing an “office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law.” Comment [4] to Rule 4-5.5 notes that “[p]resence may be systematic and continuous even if the lawyer is not physically present here.” Per rule 4-5.5(d), a lawyer not licensed in Missouri that is providing legal services to the lawyer’s employer or organizational affiliates may seek a “limited license pursuant to Rule 8.105 or a general license pursuant to other provisions of Rule 8.”

New Jersey UPL Opinion 59 742

…non-New Jersey licensed lawyers who are associated with an out-of-state law firm, or are in-house counsel for an out-of-state company, and who simply work remotely from their New Jersey homes but do not exhibit . . . outward physical manifestations of presence, are not considered to have a “continuous and systematic presence” for the practice of law in New Jersey. Such non-New Jersey licensed lawyers are not considered to be engaging in the unauthorized practice of New Jersey law.

Amendment to the Rules of Practice of the New York Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR Part 523)

The Court has amended its Rules for the Temporary Practice of Law (Part 523), effective December 7, 2022. The amendment allows lawyers who are not admitted to practice in NY to practice remotely so long as they comply with certain requirements.

New York Formal Op. 754-2020 (2020)

It is ethical to operate a law office remotely provided that appropriate attention is given to compliance with a lawyer’s duties of confidentiality, competence and supervision, and appropriate safeguards are implemented to ensure compliance with the Rules.

NY City Bar Temporary Remote Practice Proposal

We propose amendments to the New York Court of Appeals Part 523 (“Rules for the Temporary Practice of Law in New York”) in order to confirm that lawyers who practice law outside New York State do not engage in the practice of law in this State solely by virtue of physically working remotely from their homes in this State.

NY City Bar Proposed Amendment

We propose amendments to the New York Court of Appeals Part 523 (“Rules for the Temporary Practice of Law in New York”) in order to confirm that lawyers who practice law outside New York State do not engage in the practice of law in this State solely by virtue of physically working remotely from their homes in this State.

Pennsylvania Formal Opinion 2020-300

…working from home has become the new normal, forcing law offices to transform themselves into a remote workforce overnight. As a result, attorneys must be particularly cognizant of how they and their staff work remotely, how they access data, and how they prevent computer viruses and other cybersecurity risks.

In addition, lawyers working remotely must consider the security and confidentiality of their procedures and systems. This obligation includes protecting computer systems and physical files, and ensuring that the confidentiality of client telephone and other conversations and communications remain protected.

Although the pandemic created an unprecedented situation, the guidance provided applies equally to attorneys or persons performing client legal work on behalf of attorneys when the work is performed at home or at other locations outside of outside of their physical offices, including when performed at virtual law offices.

Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Joint Formal Opinion 2021-100

Lawyers licensed in Pennsylvania may ethically engage in the remote practice of law for clients with Pennsylvania matters while being physically present in a jurisdiction in which they are not admitted unless a statute, rule, case law, or opinion of that jurisdiction prohibits the conduct. Although the lawyers may not hold themselves out as being licensed to practice in the local jurisdiction and may not advertise or otherwise hold themselves out as having an office in the local jurisdiction, or provide or offer to provide legal services in the local jurisdiction, the fact that they are physically located there does not bar them from working remotely for the same clients.

Utah Ethics Opinion 19-03 (2019)

The Utah Rules of Professional Conduct do not prohibit an out-of-state attorney from representing clients from the state where the attorney is licensed even if the out-of-state attorney does so from his private location in Utah. However, in order to avoid engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, the out-of-state attorney who lives in Utah must not establish a public office in Utah or solicit Utah businesses.

Virginia LEO 1856

Foreign lawyers, i.e., non-Virginia lawyers admitted to practice in the United States or a foreign nation, may practice in a Virginia law firm or may establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in Virginia if authorized by Virginia or federal law. A lawyer admitted to practice in a foreign nation may establish an office or practice in a law firm in Virginia only if the foreign lawyer is certified as “Foreign Legal Consultant” pursuant to Rule 1A:7 of the Supreme Court of Virginia. Foreign lawyers practicing in a Virginia law firm may not advise clients on matters involving Virginia law except as permitted by Rule 5.5(d)(4). Foreign lawyers who limit their practice exclusively to federal practices in which admission to the Virginia State Bar is not required may maintain an office or practice systematically and continuously in Virginia. Likewise, if their practice is limited to matters involving the law of the state or country in which they are admitted to practice, foreign lawyers may practice in Virginia on a systematic and continuous basis. Contract lawyers not licensed to practice in Virginia who are hired by a Virginia law firm on a temporary basis may practice to the extent permitted by Rule 5.5(d)(4), or on a continuous and systematic basis if Virginia or federal law does not require their admission to the Virginia State Bar.

Virginia LEO 1872

This opinion is an examination of the ethical issues involved in a lawyer’s or firm’s use of a virtual law office, including cloud computing, and/or executive office suites. These issues include marketing, supervision of lawyers and nonlawyers in the firm, and competence and confidentiality when using technology to interact with or serve clients.

Virginia LEO 1896

A foreign lawyer may work remotely in Virginia (from home or otherwise), for any length of time, with or without an emergency justification to do so, as long as the work done involves the practice of the law of the foreign lawyer’s licensing jurisdiction or exclusively federal law that does not require Virginia licensure. The foreign lawyer must avoid holding out or implying licensure in Virginia but otherwise may have a public presence in Virginia and is not required to be “invisible” within the state.

Wisconsin Ethics Opinion EF-21-02

The basic responsibilities that a lawyer owes the client – competence, diligence, communication, and confidentiality – lie at the core of lawyer’s professional obligations and remain unchanged irrespective of the lawyer’s physical location. What has changed is discharging these responsibilities effectively in a world increasingly dominated by technology and, more recently, in an environment where lawyers are isolated from their clients, their partners, their opponents and the courts in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. The role of the partners, managers and supervising attorneys, whose responsibilities include insuring that both attorneys and non-attorneys in the firm, regardless of their location, comply with the requirements of SCR Chapter 20, is of increasing importance. Although certain current modifications in practice may diminish as the pandemic does, many are likely to continue as the profession and technology evolve. This opinion addresses several ways a lawyer’s responsibilities are affected.