|
When I leave St. George and drive past the Arizona border (six miles away) or past the Nevada border (30 miles away), I never think about my driver's license. I just sail
(observing speed limits, of course) past the "Welcome" sign. What would happen to the race track in Evanston, the casinos in Wendover or the convenience store in
Idaho selling lottery tickets if Utahns could not drive out of state? Our right to drive in states other than the one that granted a driver's license is unquestioned. Even
foreign countries allow us to drive.
But our rights under our Utah admission to practice law do end at the Utah border. Why is that? Some of our fellow professionals (engineers, accountants) merely apply for the
privilege to practice in adjoining states and obtain ready permission. Yet bars typically place large barriers before those who are not admitted to practice law in their
states. Utah, Arizona and Nevada require that a lawyer pass a bar exam, just as a new admittee.
In spite of uniform laws and nearly identical rules of procedure, and the increase in federal pre-emptive standards, states still persist in believing that they are each
uniquely qualified to license those who practice law in their boundaries. Is this a function of tradition or is it based in reason?
The fundamental assumption of jurisdictional admission in an age of multi-jurisdictional practice is being examined by the Utah State Bar and others. Harriet E. Miers, Chair of
the American Bar Association Commission on Multi-jurisdictional Practice asks
When is the last time you took - or defended - a deposition in another state? Have you ever traveled to another state to consult with and advise someone who works for a
subsidiary of your client? How often have you called out of state to negotiate on behalf of a client? If you work for a corporation, do you travel to states in which you are
not licensed in order to do your work?
When you did any of these things, were you thinking about the unauthorized practice of law? Probably not. Were you committing the unauthorized practice of law (UPL)? Some would
say a resounding and concerned "Yes." At least technically speaking. At least in some states. Which states? It's hard to know.
The modern social climate does not really recognize state boundaries as anything other than a landmark. Persons move from state to state as they change employment, and almost
all businesses engage in cross-border transactions. Any larger enterprise is usually founded on an assumption of multi-state markets.
Technology has removed distance as a barrier, and so state borders have ceased to be a conceptual limit for a sphere of influence. The cities of St. George, Cedar City, Beaver,
Fillmore, Nephi, Provo and Salt Lake City were all established at 40-50 mile intervals since that was as far as wagon teams might travel between re-supply stops. And state
borders were the limits of one's imagination! Now, the internet site for Nebraska's legislature is as close as the site for Utah's. And who really cares where a retailer is
when the order is placed on a toll free number and shipping is overnight anywhere in the U.S.?
Most people don't think of state borders as limiting their sphere of interest or activity. Lawyers are invited more and more to advise about and participate in matters crossing
state lines. How shall we respond to this new way of doing business? There are many efforts to find answers:
- In March 2000 a symposium was held at Fordham Law School. Solutions proposed range from maintaining the status quo to providing for a single national license for lawyers.
Brief notes on the Fordham symposium are at http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mjp-symposium.html and http://law.fordham.edu/htm/st%2Dsmpl.htm
- An ABA Multi-jurisdictional Commission appointed in September 2000 expects to issue a preliminary draft report in March 2001, and by May 23, 2001, to have completed a
report with recommendations for consideration by the American Bar Association House of Delegates in August 2001. http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mjp-home.html
- A study by the states of Oregon, Washington and Idaho on reciprocal admissions recommends admission in one state be good in another, with the requirement of a few dozen
hours of CLE in the second (or third) state.
In October of 2000, the Utah State Bar appointed an ad hoc Multi-jurisdictional Practice Committee to examine and make recommendations on these issues. Your comments on this
issue are very important. Your perspective as to the prevalence of ad-hoc multi-jurisdictional practice, the implications for your practice, the appropriate regulatory
structure, and proposed rule changes are essential to the Committee's work. This is one more opportunity to shape the future of the profession. I hope you will assist the
Committee in its work by your input.
ABA Multi-Jurisdictional Practice Commission
http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mjp-home.html
The ABA Multi-Jurisdictional Practice Commission will be holding public hearings around the country prior to March 2001, including ones on February 17 and 18, 2001 at the ABA
Midyear Meeting in San Diego, and others in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas and New York. The format of the hearings will include an educational segment designed to stimulate thought
and dialogue. To arrange to testify, contact John A. Holtaway of the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility at 312/988-5298, or jholtaway@staff.abanet.org, or written
comments may be sent to him at the Center at 541 North Fairbanks Court, 14th Floor, Chicago, Ill. 60611. There is also an ABA listserv available for those who wish to keep up
to date on the issue. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to jholtaway@staff.abanet.org.
Utah State Bar Multi-jurisdictional Practice Committee
mjp@utahbar.org
www.utahbar.org/sites/mjp
Committee meeting schedules, agendas and minutes will be posted at the website. The meetings are open to all interested persons. A listserv to track committee activity can be
joined by e-mailing mjp-listserv@utahbar.org
|
