The Two Faces of Multi-jurisdictional Practice

Abstract

Multi-jurisdictional practice is much discussed today. While the world of commerce continues to break down the barriers state and national, the lawyers that represent these entities remain tethered to their home base of admission and venture outside of their states of admission at their jeopardy. Large firms, in-house counsels, the federal government all strain at the restrictions of unauthorized practice and their advocacy groups, like the ABA Ethics 2000 Commission and the American Corporate Counsel Association, advocate that the license to practice law be more national or indeed international in scope. Meanwile the state supreme courts, often at the behest of local bar associations appear to be moving in the opposite direction. For instance in the Birbrower the California Supreme Court deprived a New York firm its fees for work done in California for a California client. Even such tried and true tactics as hiring local counsel or applying for admission pro hac vice may not solve the problem. Discipline, motions to disqualify and fee disputes multiply in the name of client protection, the rationale for admission in the first place. The results create combinations in restraint of trade and certainly serve as barriers to the flow of interstate commerce. The article presents the anti-trust argument and the constitutional arguments but concludes that they are losers. The only path out of the mess is for Congress to use its power ro regulate commerce to enact a statue pre-emptive of local admission requirements in case that affect interstate commerce. The text of such a statute is proposed.