Of Bricks, Mortar and Law Practice
Most clients still expect a lawyer to have a physical office, and office space and related amenities speak loudly and clearly to clients about the firm itself. Similarly, that office space for the great majority of solo and small firm practitioners is tied to the state where the lawyer passed the bar exam and entered practice. Yet as Internet and wireless technologies continue to build a virtual practice world, making lawyers themselves more mobile, the importance of a bricks-and-mortar location seems less significant. Two recent ethics developments reinforce that idea.
In the state of New Jersey, according to a January pronouncement by the New Jersey Supreme Court, the Rules of Professional Conduct no longer obligate New Jersey attorneys to maintain a traditional bricks-and-mortar office as a condition for practicing law in that state. However, the ruling does not whole-heartedly endorse virtual offices. New Jersey lawyers must still:
Ensure "prompt and reliable communication" with clients, other attorneys, and courts, such as a telephone service staffed during ordinary business hours, or a promptly returned voicemail or email service; Be available for mutually convenient, in-person consultations if clients request; Designate an actual location for inspection of files and records, hand deliveries, and service of process, including registration for service with the Clerk of Courts.
And as a final point, lawyers licensed in other states who practice in New Jersey still must maintain a physical office in the state.
For lawyers nationwide the ABA has expanded the concept of admission by motion, in which an experienced lawyer applies for admission to the state bar association of a new state "by motion," provided that the lawyer has graduated from an accredited law school and has passed the bar in at least one state. In 2012 the ABA House of Delegates approved a model ethics rule revision such that lawyers seeking to practice in a new jurisdiction through admission by motion need to have actively practiced law for only three of the past five years rather than five of the last seven years, particularly benefitting younger lawyers. The revision urges jurisdictions that have not adopted the model rule for admission by motion to do so. Greater use of admission by motion could make the whole admission process more flexible - in keeping with the increasingly more fluid practice of law.
|
