Ezel / Ethics Opinions / ABA
ABA 2020-12-16

Can a lawyer live and work remotely in a state where they are not licensed, while practicing only the law of the state where they are licensed?

Short answer: Yes, with limits. The opinion concludes a lawyer may practice the law of a jurisdiction where licensed while physically located in a jurisdiction where not admitted, as long as the local jurisdiction has not treated that as unauthorized practice and the lawyer does not hold out a local office, advertise local presence, or offer legal services in the local jurisdiction.
Currency note: this opinion is from 2020
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked at the bottom of this page, or PDF in the sidebar) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

ABA Formal Opinion 495: Lawyers Working Remotely

Short answer: The opinion concludes that a lawyer may remotely practice the law of a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is licensed while physically present in a jurisdiction where the lawyer is not admitted, provided the local jurisdiction has not determined that this is the unlicensed or unauthorized practice of law, and the lawyer does not hold out as licensed locally, does not advertise or hold out a local office, and does not offer or provide legal services in the local jurisdiction.

Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct and are persuasive authority. This summary is for research purposes only and is not legal advice. Verify current rules before acting on any specific guidance.

About this page: The plain-English summary and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official opinion. We do not reproduce the opinion text on this page; follow the linked source for the official text, which controls.

Plain-English summary

The opinion addresses a lawyer who lives in or relocates to a jurisdiction where the lawyer is not admitted and continues to practice the law of the jurisdiction where the lawyer is licensed, doing so remotely. It concludes this is permitted under Model Rule 5.5, subject to conditions. The opinion frames the limit at the outset: lawyers "may remotely practice the law of the jurisdictions in which they are licensed while physically present in a jurisdiction in which they are not admitted if the local jurisdiction has not determined that the conduct is the unlicensed or unauthorized practice of law and if they do not hold themselves out as being licensed to practice in the local jurisdiction, do not advertise or otherwise hold out as having an office in the local jurisdiction, and do not provide or offer to provide legal services in the local jurisdiction."

The opinion applies Rule 5.5(a): if a local jurisdiction has determined, by statute, rule, case law, or opinion, that remote work there is unauthorized practice, the rule prohibits it. The Committee does not opine on whether any particular jurisdiction's law has made that determination, because that is a question of law outside its purview. Absent such a determination, the opinion reasons that a local jurisdiction "has no real interest in prohibiting a lawyer from practicing the law of a jurisdiction in which that lawyer is licensed and therefore qualified to represent clients in that jurisdiction," because the purpose of Rule 5.5, per Comment [2], is to protect the public from unqualified practitioners.

On the "office" and "holding out" limits, the opinion applies Rule 5.5(b). A local office is not established where the lawyer does not hold out a local address and no local address appears on letterhead, business cards, websites, or other indicia of presence; the lawyer's physical presence there "is incidental; it is not for the practice of law." The opinion cautions that "having local contact information on websites, letterhead, business cards, advertising, or the like would improperly establish a local office or local presence under the ABA Model Rules," and that the lawyer may not state or imply local licensure under Rule 5.5(b)(2). It notes Rule 8.5(a), under which a lawyer may be subject to discipline in both the local and licensing jurisdictions.

In practice

Under this opinion, a lawyer may work remotely from a jurisdiction where the lawyer is not admitted while serving clients under the law of the jurisdiction where the lawyer is licensed, so long as the local jurisdiction has not classified that as unauthorized practice. The opinion holds that the lawyer must not establish or hold out a local office: no local address on websites, letterhead, business cards, or advertising, and no statement or implication of local licensure. It treats the lawyer's presence as incidental rather than a basis for a systematic local practice, and it notes that the lawyer remains subject to discipline in both the licensing and local jurisdictions under Rule 8.5(a).

Common questions

Q: I'm licensed in one state but living in another. Can I keep serving my home-state clients remotely?

A: Per the opinion, yes, if the state where you are physically located has not determined that this is unauthorized practice, and you do not hold out a local office, advertise local presence, or offer legal services in that state.

Q: Can I put my new home address on my letterhead or website?

A: The opinion says no. Local contact information on websites, letterhead, business cards, or advertising would improperly establish a local office or presence under the Model Rules.

Q: Does this let me start handling matters under the local state's law?

A: No. The opinion permits practicing the law of the jurisdiction where the lawyer is licensed; it does not authorize offering or providing legal services in the local jurisdiction where the lawyer is not admitted.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Model Rule 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law and multijurisdictional practice), including 5.5(a) (practicing in violation of a jurisdiction's regulation), 5.5(b)(1) (establishing an office or systematic and continuous presence), and 5.5(b)(2) (holding out as admitted locally), with Comments [2] and [6]. It also applies Model Rule 8.5(a) (disciplinary authority across jurisdictions).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • ABA Model Rule 5.5(a), 5.5(b)(1), 5.5(b)(2) (unauthorized and multijurisdictional practice)
  • ABA Model Rule 8.5(a) (disciplinary authority)

Other opinions cited:

  • Maine Ethics Op. 189 (2005): remote work and local presence
  • Utah Ethics Op. 19-03 (2019): remote practice of out-of-jurisdiction law

See also

Source