. . .
In an amazing display of a professional guild protecting its turf, the Connecticut Bar Association voted to reject proposed changes to Rule 5.5 that would have allowed out-of-state lawyers the limited ability to practice in Connecticut without a state law license
According to the Connecticut Law Tribune and Law.com, the controversial Multijurisdictional Practice (MJP) proposal failed before the Connecticut Bar Association’s House of Delegates last week by a vote of 28-18. “Opponents said loosening the rules would help a minority of lawyers at the expense of the rest of the Bar, which would be left vulnerable to firms looking to make further inroads into the local market.” (“Conn. Bar Association Delegates Reject MJP Rule Change: Forces rally in support of status quo,” by Scott Brede The Connecticut Law Tribune, 01-21-2004)
According to the article, George J, Cava, an opponent of the proposed rule change, who represented real property lawyers, wrote that (emphasis added):
“Connecticut is a high-cost state. Competition from lawyers in low-overhead states makes the practice of law a race for the bottom we cannot win. Having built reputable practices, can our members afford the inevitable reduction in compensation they will have to absorb to remain competitive with the bottom fishers from 49 other states?”
Paul L. Costas, the chairman of the CBA Multijurisdictional Practice Task Force, and a primary advocate for the rule change, opined that “There are too many lawyers who still believe we can practice law like we did in the early 1900s.”
ethicalEsq can only add: There are too many lawyers who still believe that maintaining compensation levels is their primary professional goal. Compensation always beats competition and client interests.
- According to our posting on July 20th, 2003, MJP was adopted “fractiously” in California in July, and was also adopted in New York the previous month.”
For more on MJP, see the ABA Multijurisdictional Practice Task Force Web Pages, which contain a significant amount of information and analysis on the many issues raised by MJP — issues of legal ethics, bar admission, regulation of lawyers and the unauthorized practice of law. The Commission appears to have undertaken an objective and comprehensive national study, and its proprosals were adopted by the ABA House of Delegates in August, 2002.
- Task Force Final Report: Introduction and Overview — gives a useful summary of the history of the problems, issues presented, principles applied, and proposals made and adopted.
- New Model Rule 5.5 Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law. And, the Comment on Rule 5.5.
- State Adoption of MJP Rules This Chart compares each state on a number of factors related to MJP (May, 2003).
- Lessons from the Multijurisdictional Practice Commission: The Art of Making Change, by Stephen Gillers, 44 Ariz.L.Rev. 685 (Fall/Winter 2002)