proRo class 21

the question: does the state have an interest in the probity of lawyers who represent instate residents or who's work in the state will affect other people? there may be issues of honesty, integrity

long arm discipline (shoe)

even non phys practice

leis v. flynt
see rule 8.5(a)

pro hac vice: the court focuses on the lawyer's interests but not the client's. what of this? absention doctrines -- where one court won't do something because of commity,

rule amended to include 5.5(c), the safe harbor provisions

if the lawyer is practicing in the jurisdiction, do any of the safe harbors work?

the takeaway from 5.5: the rule can give some kind of protection with respect to out of state lawyers, but not total. the only thing that would give total protection is a single national bar exam.

birrbrower
this holding is read very narrowly. CA clients with CA work with CA arb agreement with CA law agreed to and lawyer's fee agreement governed by CA law. the court holds more than sufficient contacts exist by these lawyers with CA to constitute the unauthorized practice of law. the court rejects some claims by the law firm that it's unauthorized practice is only meant to apply to non-lawyers and that arbitration isn't really the practice of law. court has to decide if virtual work in CA but done in NY can constitute contacts with CA. in certain circumstances, just shooting an email to a client in CA could conceivably be unauthorized. if it's read this broadly, it's fair to say that thousands of lawyers are every month in violation of this holding and nothing happens -- the discrepancy between the law and reality needed some rationalization.

the state does have some itnerest in excluding out of state lawyers from continuous work within the state. so continuous virtual presence probably shouldn't be any different. but as far as the rule operates in practice,

NY lawyer who gives client in NY advice about CA law is fine.
NY lawyer who gives client in CA advice about CA law, without sufficient contact, is guilty of unauthorized practice.

duty to report misconduct.
8.3: general duty to report the misconduct of any other lawyer
5.1 and 2: specific duties of supervision over subordinate lawyers and duties of sub to super
particularly focus on 5.1(c): a partner who knows of violating conduct in his/her own firm who does not hing to stop or remedy the violating conduct will be held to violating rules, even if not directing or supervising the violating attorney.
rule 5.2: repsonsibilities of subordinate lawyer -
5.2(b) is odd -- see comment 2 as well
an "arguable question" is one which may illicit more than one reasonable answer

hypo.
you are working for a solo practitioner who does mainly immigration work. second day, boss wants you to show up alone to immi proceeding for which you are unprepared. you fail the clients miserably cause you don't know anything. boss says, look this is how representation goes in this business. boss gives 3 additional files and says, you're up again in 2 days. what do you do?

why do we think it matters if this firm is immigrant's best/only option?