“x-skier” . . .
An article in the current issue of the ABA Journal takes a look at the inevitable, uneven and unpredictable state-by-state review that follows any major change in a Model Rule of legal ethics. The ABA adopted New Model Rule 5.5 in 2002 in the hope that multijurisdictional practice would be easier to accomplish and would take place under more uniform rules across the nation. (See our posting earlier this week, discussing rejection of changes to Rule 5.5 by the Connecticut Bar Association, which has links to ABA MJP resources.)
- Because rules of professional conduct come under the authority of each licensing jurisdiction, Model Rules are only advisory, and each state must decide whether to ignore or adopt them — and/or adapt them to their own needs and internal pressures.
The Journal article notes that “In the 17 months since the ABA amended the Model Rules to ease restrictions against multijurisdictional practice, six states—Colorado, Delaware, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina and South Dakota—have enacted new rules that lower the barriers against temporary practice by out-of-state lawyers. . . . By late 2003, proposals to revise MJP rules were pending in at least 13 other jurisdictions.”
Nonetheless, Wayne J. Positan, the Roseland, N.J., lawyer who chaired the ABA Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice, “cautions that the entire review process could take up to 20 years.” And:
An even greater concern for proponents of easing rules on multijurisdictional practice, however, is that the states will not agree on uniform rules, leaving a patchwork of regulations imposing varying requirements on lawyers who seek to practice temporarily in outside jurisdictions.
There are apparently no clear trends yet, but the article takes a look at many of the variations that have already cropped up.