Hello, Tenured One.  I guess you don’t have to worry about competition intra- or inter-state.  I did hear about the three New England states a few days ago, thanks to a post at MyShingle.   More and more MJP (multi-jurisdictional practice) is good for competition, methinks, and competence issues should not be a problem.
I’ve covered MJP here in a few prior posts, which I looked up, spurred by your pointer.  As you can see, Connecticut did not decide to join its NE neighbors, instead rejecting lowering MJP restrictions.  For more info, see

Connecticut’s Lawyer Guild (CBA) Rejects MJP
MJP Reform: Bumpy Road or Fast Track?
New NJ Lawyer Rules Allow More Sex, Less Candor and Competence Than the Model Rules

Hello, Tenured One.  I guess you don’t have to worry about competition intra- or inter-state.  I did hear about the three New England states a few days ago, thanks to a post at MyShingle.   More and more MJP (multi-jurisdictional practice) is good for competition, methinks, and competence issues should not be a problem.
I’ve covered MJP here in a few prior posts, which I looked up, spurred by your pointer.  As you can see, Connecticut did not decide to join its NE neighbors, instead rejecting lowering MJP restrictions.  For more info, see

Connecticut’s Lawyer Guild (CBA) Rejects MJP
MJP Reform: Bumpy Road or Fast Track?
New NJ Lawyer Rules Allow More Sex, Less Candor and Competence Than the Model Rules

David, speaking of licensing, have you seen this?
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2004/12/03/48221.htm (Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire are allowing cross boarder practice of law with only modest restrictions)

David, speaking of licensing, have you seen this?
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2004/12/03/48221.htm (Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire are allowing cross boarder practice of law with only modest restrictions)